PEA Hosts Panel to Discuss Harvard Lawsuit

The Office of Multicultural Affairs hosted “The Role of Race in College Admissions: The Harvard Lawsuit and What’s At Stake” panel on March 22 to address the role of race and meritocracy in the college admissions process.

Panelists included Julie J. Park, Associate Professor of Education at the University of Maryland and consulting expert for Harvard College in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, Roger Lehecka, former Dean of Students at Columbia University and Julie Chung ’16, junior at Harvard College and leader of the Asian American Women’s Association at Harvard. The panelists discussed race-conscious admissions and allegations of intentional discrimination against Asian American applicants.

English Instructor and Asian Student Program Coordinator Wei-Ling Woo, who organized the panel, elaborated on each panelist’s contributions to the discussion. “I took Professor Lehecka’s seminar on Equity in Higher Education when I was an undergrad and I thought that both his professional experience and research interests would provide much-needed historical context; Professor Park’s social science research and work as a consulting expert for Harvard on the case would provide us with data and Julie Chung would bring her unique perspective as a student and activist who is working to change the narrative around the case,” she said.

Citing Jerome Karabel’s The Chosen, Lehecka offered insight on the history of Harvard admissions and emphasized the importance of conducting a holistic review of applicants instead of solely considering academic performance. Chung shared observations of the Harvard campus climate and how it has been affected by Harvard’s admissions history. Finally, Park addressed the recent allegations against Harvard’s admissions process, sharing her opinion on the validity of SFFA’s claims.

SFFA sued Harvard College for intentional discrimination of Asian-American applicants, offering  evidence that Asian-American candidates receive lower average “personality ratings” and are held to higher academic standards, according to Harvard’s internal statistical review.

Woo invited the panel to Exeter after Dean of Multicultural Affairs Sami Atif requested programming in response to the Harvard case. “My goal was to provide students with more information and perspective so they could understand the nuances of the case, which is very complicated,” Woo said.

However, upper Lilly Pinciaro voiced that the panel’s time constraints prevented a comprehensive presentation. “It was helpful, but I’m still not comfortable claiming an opinion because I feel like it’s such a nuanced issue,” she said.

During the panel, Lehecka explained that elite schools like Harvard have considered factors beyond academics in their admissions process.

History Instructor Betty Luther-Hillman agreed with Lehecka’s conclusion and voiced that his speech about the implications of Affirmative Action offered a new take on the issue.

Coach Olutoyin Augustus was intrigued by the perspectives of those highly involved with the cases, such as litigator Dr. Park. “What I really gained was more in terms of how the litigators were looking at the case and what kind of evidence they were looking to show to prove the claims,” Toyin said.

Senior Amelia Lee, Asian Voices co-head, walked out of the panel with an altered definition of Affirmative Action. “I’ve come to understand it’s not necessarily about the student—my grades or what I have to say—but really just about the college and their agenda,” Lee said.

Lee felt that the intentionality of admissions officers in creating a class pleasing to university benefactors was discouraging for applicants with no prior connections to schools. “We’re just certain numbers that the college wants to start filling … It goes all the way down to the socio-economic status among other criteria. Their athleticism, legacy and all of that,” Lee said.

Prep Moksha Akil shared personal experiences of peers undermining her academic ability in reference to Affirmative Action. “I’ve heard a lot of people allude to the fact that I’m only here because of affirmative action,” she said. “ I’m an average student. The only thing that made me stand out was that there aren’t that many Black-Indian kids at school.” Akil noted that Affirmative Action can make students feel that their ethnicity was responsible for their acceptance. “Affirmative Action is tough for me—it’s helpful, but I also feel like I’m not standing out because of my academics or my extracurriculars, just what I am on the outside.”

Luther-Hillman shared similar sentiments on the unfairness of college admissions. “The speakers helped to explode the myths that … some ‘fair’ college admissions process could exist,” she said.

Pinciaro commented on the timeliness of the panel. “I know that it’s certainly an issue that a lot of people on campus feel personally,” she said. “I have friends who are worried that their race is going to be something that negatively impacts them in the college admissions process so they feel that they have to work harder to compensate for that.”

Other attendees raised concerns about the panel. “I would have been interested to hear more about the evidence that SFFA is presenting in their claim that Asian Americans are discriminated against in the admissions process at Harvard,” Luther-Hillman said, recognizing the one-sidedness of the panel.

Senior Bryce Morales was similarly disappointed by the lack of diverse opinion on the panel. “I think the issues were pretty well covered, but it would have been more interesting if the panelists had more contrasting views,” he said. “I asked a question about what they considered the role of these elite institutions of higher education in America to try to expose some deeper, foundational disagreements between the panelists.”

Many nonetheless appreciated the panelists’ transparency. Lower Erin McCann went into the panel expecting data against the SSFA that would offer Harvard’s perspective and paint a more complete picture than the “warped statistics from the SSFA.” “The panel was that and beyond,” McCann said.

The discussion resonated with numerous attendees and offered eye-opening insight on the intricate and unpredictable nature of college admissions. “I would definitely like to see Exeter hold more events and panels like this,” McCann said. “More people should have gone.”

Toyin concluded that students and faculty must examine Exeter’s practices with a similar level of scrutiny. “We can look very closely and be very critical of Harvard and the things that they’re doing. But when it’s in our own backyard, do we recognize it? Are we asking those questions? And can we stop doing it, or are we afraid?”