## Facts

- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA), a nonprofit organization, challenged Harvard College’s undergraduate admissions policy under Title VI, alleging discrimination against Asian American applicants.
- Harvard employed a multi-stage, holistic admissions process involving individual review by regional officers, subcommittee review, and final decisions by the full admissions committee.
- Admissions officers assigned multiple ratings (including academic, extracurricular, athletic, and personal) and an overall assessment; race could be considered at several points in the process as part of holistic review.
- During the admissions cycle, Harvard tracked projected racial composition of the admitted class; the committee used projections while forming a tentative admit list and making final cuts to reach class-size targets.
- After a 15-day bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Harvard, finding no discriminatory animus or unlawful use of race and concluding Harvard’s policy fit governing Supreme Court precedent.
- SFFA appealed; Harvard defended the policy as narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of student-body diversity and consistent with Title VI as applied through Equal Protection doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether SFFA had associational standing to sue on behalf of its members.
2. Whether Harvard’s admissions policy violated Title VI by intentionally discriminating against Asian American applicants.
3. Whether Harvard engaged in impermissible racial balancing through monitoring and use of projected class racial composition.
4. Whether Harvard used race as a mechanical “plus factor” rather than as one consideration in individualized, holistic review.
5. Whether Harvard failed to adequately consider workable race-neutral alternatives that would achieve diversity about as well.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Harvard.
- The court held SFFA had associational standing because it satisfied the standard criteria for organizational standing on behalf of members.
- Applying strict scrutiny through Title VI’s coextensive relationship with Equal Protection limits on race classifications, the court held Harvard’s policy complied with then-controlling Supreme Court precedent.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding that SFFA did not prove intentional discrimination against Asian American applicants.
- The court agreed that Harvard’s monitoring of racial composition did not amount to an unlawful quota or impermissible racial balancing.
- The court concluded that race was used as part of individualized, holistic assessment rather than as an automatic or mechanical admissions boost.
- The court accepted the finding that proposed race-neutral alternatives would not achieve comparable diversity without unacceptable tradeoffs and were not required.

## Legal Principles

- Title VI’s ban on racial discrimination by federal funding recipients is interpreted to reach only conduct that would violate the Equal Protection Clause if done by a state actor.
- Race-conscious admissions are subject to strict scrutiny; under then-governing precedent, educational benefits of diversity may qualify as a compelling interest if pursued through individualized review.
- A plaintiff alleging intentional discrimination must prove purposeful disparate treatment; statistical disparities alone do not compel a finding of discriminatory intent where supported factual findings reject such a motive.
- Institutions may be aware of and monitor racial composition in pursuit of diversity, but may not employ quotas, numerical caps, or predetermined racial targets that make race dispositive.
- Narrow tailoring permits consideration of race as one factor among many in holistic review and requires serious, good-faith consideration of race-neutral alternatives; alternatives need not be adopted if they would not achieve diversity about as well or would impose unacceptable costs to institutional objectives.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that SFFA could sue on behalf of its members but, under Title VI interpreted through then-controlling Equal Protection strict-scrutiny doctrine, Harvard’s holistic, limited consideration of race and its evaluation of race-neutral alternatives were lawful, so judgment for Harvard was affirmed.


Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 980 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2020)