Harvard in Court: A New Battle Over Race and Admissions

The recent case of The President and Fellows of Harvard College versus the Department of Health and Human Services promises to be a significant legal showdown. Harvard’s alleged unconstitutional use of race in its admissions process has been a point of contention for years, compounded by reported systemic anti-Semitism that has drawn attention since the events of October 7.

Harvard now faces the challenge of arguing in federal court that established laws, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, do not apply in its case. The university must also contend with Supreme Court precedents, including Bob Jones University versus United States and Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. These legal precedents undeniably loom large over this court case.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board recently offered insight into the historical context of this case. They pointed out that in 1970, the IRS adopted a policy that revoked tax-exempt status from private schools engaging in racial discrimination. This policy became a crucial aspect of the discussion around Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Legal Precedents at Play

In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s decision to rescind Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status, asserting that institutions seeking such status must serve a public purpose consistent with established public policy. The editorial noted that this precedent remains relevant today, highlighting that critics of Harvard are raising concerns about the university’s compliance with these legal standards.

Despite acknowledging that the precedent prevails today, the editorial devoted much of its analysis to praising the dissenting opinion by then-Justice William Rehnquist. The concerns expressed by Rehnquist at the time reflected broader worries about the implications of the court’s decision, warning of potential slippery slopes that could ensue.

The discussion surrounding court precedents is essential. Legal scholars frequently debate whether certain decisions open the door to greater government intervention in private affairs. For instance, the Village of Euclid versus Ambler Realty Co. case in 1926 pushed the boundaries of governmental authority over private property, leading to continuing challenges in property rights to this day.

Admissions Policies Under Scrutiny

In the realm of higher education, the precedent set by Regents of the University of California versus Bakke in 1978 allowed universities to consider race in admissions, leading to widespread application across American higher education. However, this has generated significant backlash, particularly regarding Harvard’s practices. In a June 2023 Supreme Court decision, Harvard was found to be violating both the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with its race-based admissions policies, particularly concerning Asian American applicants.

Despite this ruling, the longstanding elitism at Harvard remains entrenched in its admissions processes. The university has a history of implementing quotas to manage diversity among student populations, a practice that raises ethical concerns, especially regarding Jewish and Asian American students.

The legal battle ahead is not just about race in admissions; it is about Harvard’s broader commitments to equality and anti-discrimination principles that underlie American law.

Potential Consequences for Harvard

Harvard’s position seems precarious, especially given the historical context of the Bob Jones case. This landmark ruling emerged from a time when federal authorities grappled with how to balance the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause against the Equal Protection Clause aimed at eradicating institutional racism. Harvard’s need to defend its practices could set a dangerous precedent for how elite institutions navigate their admissions criteria.

While the editorial board of the Journal expresses concerns about the implications of the Bob Jones case, the discourse around potential misuse of power by future administrations cannot overshadow the abiding legal principles at stake. The inherent contradiction in allowing elite institutions to retain tax-exempt status while allegedly practicing discrimination cannot go unchecked.