(Substack)—Harvard University has an extensive history of discrimination within its admission processes. It has been proven that they make it harder for Asian and Caucasian students to get accepted even when their academic records in high school demonstrate worthiness.
That practice extends to their hiring and promoting practices for staff. As noted by journalist Christopher Rufo, their “Best Practices for Conducting Faculty Searches” document specifies discriminatory preferences:
Particularly when there are placement goals, the Chair should consider reading the applications of women and minorities first, ensuring that their applications receive due consideration in the search process.
At the time of this article’s publication, the document has been moved. It is unclear if this is temporary but search engines still list it so the change is apparently recent. Here’s a screenshot from Rufo:
In a landmark decision on June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional, effectively ending these programs at universities like Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard found that Harvard’s policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision overturned 45 years of unfair precedent that allowed universities to consider race as one factor in admissions, particularly to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.
But the history of discriminatory hiring practices has been against code for even longer. Federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, generally prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on race in hiring and other employment decisions.
How has Harvard been able to discriminate for so long? With the Trump administration cracking down on discriminatory and other race-specific practices at universities, will Harvard continue to defy the tenets of equality and fairness?
