IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSBOSTON DIVISIONSTUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,Plaintiff,Civil Action No.v.PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARDCOLLEGE (HARVARD CORPORATION); and THEHONORABLE AND REVEREND THE BOARD OFOVERSEERS,COMPLAINTJURY TRIAL DEMANDEDDefendants.Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. brings this action to obtain, amongother relief, a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201, that Defendant President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard Corporation”)and The Honorable and Reverend the Board of Overseers (“Board of Overseers” andtogether with Harvard Corporation, “Defendants” or “Harvard”) have employed and areemploying racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administeringthe undergraduate admissions program at Harvard College in violation of Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (“Title VI”).Harvard’sundergraduate admissions policies and procedures have injured and continue to injurePlaintiff’s members by intentionally and improperly discriminating against them on thebasis of their race and ethnicity in violation of Title VI.I.INTRODUCTION1.This is an action brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 toprohibit Harvard from engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis of race andethnicity. “Classifications of citizens solely on the basis of race are by their very nature

odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.They threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial groupand to incite racial hostility.” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 643 (1993) (citations andquotations omitted). As a consequence, racial classifications are highly disfavored andhave been permitted only when there is a compelling government interest that cannot bemet through race-neutral means.In the educational setting, “diversity” is the onlyinterest the Supreme Court has found compelling. Even then, the Supreme Court hasmandated strict judicial scrutiny to ensure that an academic institution is actuallypursuing that interest and that it is absolutely necessary to employ racial preferences inorder to achieve a diverse student body.2.Yet the Supreme Court has always had misgivings about its decision topermit any use of racial preferences in university admissions. See City of Richmond v.J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 518 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part andconcurring in the judgment). The Supreme Court was nevertheless convinced to permitracial preferences in pursuit of diversity for two reasons. First, based mainly on anamicus brief that Harvard submitted, the Supreme Court was led to believe that schoolsonly would “take account of race as one, nonpredominant factor in a system designed toconsider each applicant as an individual.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 387 (2003)(Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citing Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 289-91(1978)). Second, the Supreme Court believed that the “strict scrutiny standard [would]operate in a manner generally consistent with the imperative of race neutrality, because itforbids the use even of narrowly drawn racial classifications except as a last resort.”2

Croson, 488 U.S. at 519 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in thejudgment).3.The Supreme Court was misled. The admissions plan Harvard advocatedfor in Bakke (the “Harvard Plan”) that promised to treat each applicant as an individualhas always been an elaborate mechanism for hiding Harvard’s systematic campaign ofracial and ethnic discrimination against certain disfavored classes of applicants. Indeed,the Harvard Plan was created for the specific purpose of discriminating against Jewishapplicants. Put simply, Bakke “legitimated an admissions process that is inherentlycapable of gross abuse and that has in fact been deliberately manipulated for thespecific purpose of perpetuating religious and ethnic discrimination in collegeadmissions.” Alan Dershowitz and Laura Hanft, Affirmative Action and the HarvardCollege Diversity-Discretion Model: Paradigm or Pretext, 1 Cardozo L. Rev. 379, 385(1979). Today it is used to hide intentional discrimination against Asian Americans.Harvard is using the same “holistic” code words to discriminate for the same invidiousreasons and it is relying on the same pretextual excuses to justify its disparate treatmentof another high-achieving racial and ethnic minority group.4.In any event, even if the Harvard Plan at some point outgrew itsdiscriminatory roots, Harvard has long since abandoned an admissions policy thatpurported to merely use race contextually to fill the last few seats in the enteringfreshman class. Harvard now labels every applicant by race on the claim that it ispursuing the so-called “critical mass” diversity objective. That creates two problems forHarvard. First, as it has abandoned the very “plan” that led the Supreme Court to permitthe use of racial admissions preferences, Harvard has deprived the Court of any3

continuing “authority to approve the use of race in pursuit of student diversity.” Grutter,539 U.S. at 394 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Second, Harvard’s new diversity interest—critical mass—should never have been endorsed and should be outlawed once and for all.“[T]he concept of critical mass is a delusion used to mask [an] attempt to make racean automatic factor in most instances and to achieve numerical goals indistinguishablefrom quotas.” Id. at 389.5.Worse still, Harvard is not even pursuing its claimed “critical mass”interest. Rather, even under governing Supreme Court precedent, Harvard is violatingTitle VI for at least four reasons. First, Harvard is using racial classifications to engagein the same brand of invidious discrimination against Asian Americans that it formerlyused to limit the number of Jewish students in its student body. Statistical evidencereveals that Harvard uses “holistic” admissions to disguise the fact that it holds AsianAmericans to a far higher standard than other students and essentially forces them tocompete against each other for admission. There is nothing high-minded about thiscampaign of invidious discrimination. It is “illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.”Croson, 488 U.S. at 493.6.Second, Harvard is engaging in racial balancing.Over an extendedperiod, Harvard’s admission and enrollment figures for each racial category have shownalmost no change. Each year, Harvard admits and enrolls essentially the same percentageof African Americans, Hispanics, whites, and Asian Americans even though theapplication rates and qualifications for each racial group have undergone significantchanges over time. This is not the coincidental byproduct of an admissions system thattreats each applicant as an individual; indeed, the statistical evidence shows that Harvard4

modulates its racial admissions preference whenever there is an unanticipated change inthe yield rate of a particular racial group in the prior year. Harvard’s remarkably stableadmissions and enrollment figures over time are the deliberate result of systemwideintentional racial discrimination designed to achieve a predetermined racial balance of itsstudent body.7.Third, Harvard is failing to use race merely as a “plus factor” inadmissions decisions.Rather, Harvard’s racial preference for each student (whichequates to a penalty imposed upon Asian-American applicants) is so large that racebecomes the “defining feature of his or her application.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337. Onlyusing race or ethnicity as a dominant factor in admissions decisions could, for example,account for the remarkably low admission rate for high-achieving Asian-Americanapplicants. Harvard’s admissions decisions simply are not explainable on grounds otherthan race. High-achieving Asian-American applicants are as broadly diverse and eclecticin their abilities and interests as any other group seeking admission to Harvard. Theycompete in interscholastic sports, are members of the school band, work part-time jobsafter school, travel, and engage in volunteer work just like everyone else. It is not a lackof non-academic achievement that is keeping them from securing admission.It isHarvard’s dominant use of racial preferences to their detriment.8.Fourth, and last, Harvard is using race in admissions decisions when race-neutral alternatives can achieve diversity.As other elite universities have shown,increased utilization of non-race-based criteria, such as socioeconomic preferences, canpromote diversity about as well as racial preferences. This approach is particularlyeffective when combined with increased use of financial aid, scholarships, and5

recruitment to attract and enroll minority applicants and the elimination of admissionspolicies and practices, such as legacy preferences and early admission, which operate tothe disadvantage of minority applicants.Further, eliminating racial preferences atHarvard will alleviate the substantial harm these discriminatory policies cause to thoseminority applicants who receive such admissions preferences, the Harvard community,and society as a whole. Racial preferences are a dangerous tool and may only be used asa last resort. There is now overwhelming evidence that race-neutral alternatives renderreliance on racial preferences unnecessary. It is incumbent on Harvard to take fulladvantage of these preferred alternatives.9.Accordingly, there is no doubt that Harvard is in violation of Title VI.The only question is the proper judicial response. Given what is occurring at Harvardand at other schools, the proper response is the outright prohibition of racial preferencesin university admissions—period. Allowing this issue to be litigated in case after casewill only “perpetuate the hostilities that proper consideration of race is designed toavoid.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 394 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Harvard and other academicinstitutions cannot and should not be trusted with the awesome and historically dangeroustool of racial classification. As in the past, they will use any leeway the Supreme Courtgrants them to use racial preferences in college admissions—under whatever rubric—toengage in racial stereotyping, discrimination against disfavored minorities, and quotasetting to advance their social-engineering agenda. Strict scrutiny has proven to be nomatch for concerted discrimination hidden behind the veil of “holistic” admissions.There may be times when social problems can be solved democratically. But massiveresistance to racial equality is not one of them. See Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka,6

Kan., 349 U.S. 294 (1955). “The moral imperative of racial neutrality is the driving forceof the Equal Protection Clause . Structural protections may be necessities if moralimperatives are to be obeyed.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 518 (Kennedy, J., concurring in partand concurring in the judgment).II.JURISDICTION AND VENUE10.This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. This Court has subjectmatter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.11.Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1391because the events giving rise to the claims detailed herein occurred in the District ofMassachusetts.III.THE PARTIESA.Plaintiff12.Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (“SFFA”) is an InternalRevenue Code Section 501(c)(3) organization formed for the purpose of defendinghuman and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equalprotection under the law, through litigation and any other lawful means.Morespecifically, SFFA seeks to promote and protect the right of the public to be free fromdiscrimination on the basis of race in higher education admissions.13.SFFA is a coalition of prospective applicants and applicants to highereducation institutions who were denied admission to higher education institutions, theirparents, and other individuals who support the organization’s purpose and mission ofeliminating racial discrimination in higher education admissions. SFFA has membersthroughout the country.7

14.Edward Blum is the President of SFFA. See Exhibit A, Declaration ofEdward Blum (“Blum Dec.”) ¶ 2.15.SFFA has at least one member (“Applicant”) who applied for and wasdenied admission to Harvard’s 2014 entering class. Blum Dec. ¶ 4.16.Applicant is Asian American. Blum Dec. ¶ 5.17.Applicant’s parents are first-generation immigrants to the United Statesfrom China. Blum Dec. ¶ 6.18.Applicant graduated from high school ranked 1 out of 460 students byweighted and un-weighted grade point average. Blum Dec. ¶ 7.19.U.S. News and World Report ranks Applicant’s high school in the top 5percent of all high schools in the United States. Blum Dec. ¶ 8.20.Applicant achieved a perfect score of 36 on the ACT. Applicant achieveda perfect score of 800 for SAT II History and a perfect score of 800 for SAT II Math.Among other academic achievements, Applicant was named an AP Scholar withdistinction, a National Scholar, and a National Merit Scholarship semifinalist. Blum Dec.¶¶ 9-10.21.While in high school, Applicant participated in numerous extracurricularand volunteer activities. Among other things, Applicant was captain of the varsity tennisteam, volunteered at a community tennis camp, volunteered for the high school’s studentpeer tutoring program, was a volunteer fundraiser for National Public Radio, and traveledto China as part of a program organized by the United States Consulate General andChinese American Students Education and Exchange to assist students in learningEnglish writing and presentation skills. Blum Dec. ¶ 11.8

22.Applicant was denied the opportunity to compete for admission to Harvardon equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due to Harvard’sdiscriminatory admissions policies. Blum Dec. ¶ 12.23.Applicant was accepted to and has enrolled at a university that is ranked inthe Top 20 in the nation by U.S. News and World Report. That university does not grantan admissions preference on the basis of race or ethnicity. Blum Dec. ¶ 13.24.Applicant is ready, able, and intends to seek to transfer to Harvard when itceases the use of race or ethnicity as an admissions preference and ceases its intentionaldiscrimination against Asian Americans. Blum Dec. ¶ 14.25.SFFA has members who are currently in high school and intend to applyfor admission to Harvard (“Future Applicants”). Some of these Future Applicants areAsian American. Blum Dec. ¶ 15.26.Future Applicants will be denied the opportunity to compete for admissionto Harvard on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due toHarvard’s discriminatory admissions policies. As a result, Future Applicants may bedenied admission to Harvard because of these discriminatory policies. Blum Dec. ¶ 16.27.SFFA has members whose children intend to apply for admission toHarvard (“Parents”). Some of these Parents are Asian Americans. Blum Dec. ¶ 17.28.Parents’ children will be denied the opportunity to compete for admissionto Harvard on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due toHarvard’s discriminatory admissions policies. As a result, Parents’ children may bedenied admission to Harvard because of these discriminatory policies. Blum Dec. ¶ 18.9

B.Defendants29.Defendants, the Harvard Corporation and Harvard Board of Overseersgovern Harvard University.30.Harvard University is a private educational institution based inCambridge, Massachusetts.31.Harvard College is a component of Harvard University that offersundergraduate, graduate, professional, and research programs in the fields of arts,science, medicine, business, design, and public health.32.Despite having an endowment of approximately 36.4 billion, Harvardaccepts substantial direct financial assistance from the Federal government through,among other things, grants and loans. In 2010, Harvard accepted more than 6.6 millionin federal funds. In 2011, Harvard accepted more than 11.9 million in federal funds. In2012, Harvard accepted more than 20.9 million in federal funds. In 2013, Harvardaccepted more than 13.4 million in federal funds. Harvard also has received and willfurther receive substantial direct financial assistance from the Federal government in2014.33.Harvard also accepts substantial indirect Federal financial assistance by,among other things, enrolling students who pay, in part, with Federal financial aiddirectly distributed to those students.34.As a recipient of Federal financial assistance, Harvard University, and allof its programs and activities, which includes Harvard College, are subject to Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.10

ON ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR ETHNICITYAGAINST DISFAVORED MINORITY APPLICANTS.35.Discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity is longstanding at Harvard.The “Harvard Plan” itself—and the concept of an admissions system based on a“holistic” review of applicants instead of admission based on academic qualifications—was formulated for the specific purpose of discriminating against disfavored minoritygroups. “Indeed, the historical evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that thecurrent Harvard College admissions system was born out of one of the most shamefulepisodes in the history of American higher education in general, and of Harvard collegein particular.” Alan Dershowitz and Laura Hanft, Affirmative Action and the HarvardCollege Diversity-Discretion Model: Paradigm or Pretext, 1 Cardozo L. Rev. 379, 385(1979).A.1900s to 1920s: Before “Selective Admissions”36.Until the early 1920s, Harvard, like all other Ivy League schools, selectedits students by admitting applicants who passed a required examination.37.Because Harvard’s entrance examination was not especially demanding,an applicant for undergraduate admission with average intelligence from a prominentschool could usually pass with ease.38.Though the performance of some students placed them in a gray zonefrom which they could be admitted “with conditions,” most applicants were admittedbased solely on objective academic criteria.39.Under this system, the number of students entering Harvard fluctuated,sometimes quite widely, from year to year.11

40.Harvard’s student body during this time period was fairly homogenous interms of class, race, religion, and ethnicity.Students during this time period wereoverwhelmingly from affluent backgrounds, almost exclusively white, and composedlargely of graduates of elite private secondary schools.41.Harvard was considered somewhat open to African Americans,immigrants, and foreigners, though the numerical presence of each of these groups ofstudents on campus was relatively small.B.1920s to 1930s: Harvard’s “Jewish Problem”42.Ivy League schools began to reevaluate their admissions systems whenstudents deemed socially “undesirable”—most prominently, Jewish applicants—startedto pass the examinations and enroll in greatly increasing numbers.43.In or around the late 1910s, the number of Jewish students enrolling atHarvard began to increase, and Harvard administrator determined that the college had a“Jewish problem” that it needed to address.44.By 1918, Harvard’s freshman class was 20 percent Jewish, three times thepercentage at Yale and six times that at Princeton.45.The President of Harvard, A. Lawrence Lowell, was deeply troubled bythis rising Jewish population.46.President Lowell feared that the enrollment of too many Jewish studentswould cause students from Protestant upper and upper-middle class families to chooseother elite colleges over Harvard.12

47.In 1920, in a letter to William Hocking, a Harvard philosophy professor,President Lowell wrote that the increasing number of Jewish students enrolling atHarvard would ultimately “ruin the college.”48.To combat this “Jewish problem,” President Lowell sought to institute acap on Jewish enrollment in each entering class.49.In his letter to Hocking, President Lowell stated that the best approachwould be “to state frankly that we thought we could do the most good by not admittingmore than a certain proportion of men in a group that did not intermingle with the rest,and give our reasons for it to the public.” According to Lowell, “[e]xperience seems toplace that proportion at about 15%.”50.Yet President Lowell knew that such overt discrimination would meetresistance. He believed that the faculty, and probably the governing boards, would preferto make a rule whose motive was less obvious on its face, such as giving to theCommittee on Admission authority to refuse admittance to persons who possessedparticular qualities believed to be characteristic of Jewish applicants.51.If such a system was instituted, however, President Lowell wished toensure that the faculty knew “perfectly well what they are doing, and that any vote passedwith the intent of limiting the number of Jews should not be supposed by anyone to bepassed as a measurement of character really applicable to Jews and Gentiles alike.”52.By the spring of 1922, the proportion of Jewish students had reached 21.5percent. President Lowell warned that unless immediate measures were taken “the dangerwould seem to be imminent.”13

53.President Lowell made clear that absent the rise in Jewish enrollment, nochange in Harvard’s admissions policies would be needed. The problem was not with theacademic method of selection per se, but with its results: it was now yielding too manyJewish students at Harvard.54.In a 1922 letter President Lowell wrote: “We can reduce the number ofJews by talking about other qualifications than those of admission examinations. If theobject is simply to diminish the Jews, this is merely an indirect method of avoiding aproblem in American life which is really important. This is the feeling of the mostthoughtful people here, both gentile and Jew. On the other hand, we are in no presentdanger of having more students in college than we can well take care of; nor, apart fromthe Jews, is there any real problem of selection, the present method of examination givingus, for the Gentile, a satisfactory result.”55.In May 1922, Professor Ropes proposed that the Committee on Admission“take into account the proportionate size of racial and national groups in the membershipof Harvard College,” declaring that “it is not desirable that the number of students in anygroup which is not easily assimilated into the common life of the College should exceed15 percent of the whole college.”56.As one Harvard alumnus noted, “I am fully prepared to accept thejudgment of the Harvard authorities that a concentration of Jews in excess of fifteenpercent will produce a segregation of culture rather than a fusion.”57.President Lowell’s plans received pushback. One petition, signed by 31faculty members, described the “action of the Faculty relating to controlling thepercentage of the Jews in Harvard College” as “a radical departure from the spirit and14

practice of the College” and declared “that racial consideration should not influence theCommittee on Admission before a careful and deliberate study of the whole question ofthe Jews shall be made by the Faculty.”58.At the same time, Harvard was beginning to gather the information thatwould permit it to identify which applicants were Jewish.59.Starting in the fall of 1922, applicants were required to answer questionson “Race and Color,” “Religious Preference,” “Maiden Name of Mother,” and“Birthplace of Father,” as well as the question, “What change, if any, has been madesince birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully.)”60.In addition, Harvard asked high school principals and private schoolheadmasters to fill out a form indicating “by a check [the applicant’s] religiouspreference so far as known . . . Protestant . . . Roman Catholic . . . Hebrew . . .Unknown.”61.Harvard also created a committee tasked with counting the number ofJewish students at Harvard.62.After analyzing all the student information it could obtain, the committeebegan classifying each Harvard student into one of four categories: “J1,” “J2,” “J3,” and“other.” A “J1” was assigned “when the evidence pointed conclusively to the fact thatthe student was Jewish;” a “J2” was assigned when a “preponderance of evidence”suggested the student was Jewish; and a “J3” was assigned when “the evidence suggestedthe possibility that the student might be Jewish.”63.During this time period, Harvard also adopted a “one-seventh plan,” whichpurported to target “a new group of men from the West and South” who were in the top15

seventh of their graduating class. In reality, however, it was a “thinly disguised attemptto lower the Jewish proportion of the student body by bringing in boys—some of themacademically ill equipped for Harvard—from regions of the country where there werefew Jews.”64.After President Lowell’s intentions of imposing a Jewish cap becameknown to the public, opponents began mobilizing opposition.65.In 1923, Harvard’s Committee on Methods of Sifting Candidates forAdmission defeated President Lowell’s requests for a cap on Jewish enrollment. In doingso, the committee issued a statement indicating its opposition to “an arbitrary limitationof the number of students to be admitted” and specifying that “if the size of our Freshmanclass is to be reduced, the reduction can best be accomplished by raising the standard foradmission.”66.Despite this defeat, President Lowell pressed forward. In June 1923, hecommissioned a study to determine “whether it might be wise to limit the number ofstudents admitted to the Freshman class to one thousand.”67.President Lowell realized that a ceiling on the size of the class was thenecessary precondition for addressing the “Jewish problem,” for as long as Harvard hadan absolute standard of admission, discretionary selection policy using nonacademic aswell as academic criteria would not be possible.68.Lowell’s proposal “signaled the beginning of a new, more subtlecampaign to restrict Jewish enrollment.”69.By the end of 1923, President Lowell’s committee issued a reportrecommending a limit of 1,000 on the size of the freshman class and additional changes16

in the criteria for admission.Instead of making decisions based on academicachievement, the committee proposed using letters from teachers and personal interviewsto shed light on the candidates’ “aptitude and character.” However, no changes weremade in 1923.70.By 1924, Harvard’s Jewish enrollment had risen to 25 percent.71.According to President Lowell, Harvard’s “reputation of having so manyJews” was hurting its ability to “attract applicants from western cities and the greatpreparatory schools.”72.By 1925, the dean’s office reported that the proportion of known Jewishfreshmen (the J1s and J2s) had risen to 27.6 percent, with an additional 3.6 percent in theJ3 category.73.As President Lowell was contemplating these figures, he was receivingletters from alumni castigating the school for being overrun by Jewish students. Amongthese letters was one from W.F. Williams ’01, who had attended a recent Harvard-Yalefootball game. Williams recommended using the school’s admissions program todiscretely limit the number of Jewish students enrolling at Harvard: “Naturally, aftertwenty-five years, one expects to find many changes but to find that one’s University hadbecome so Hebrewized was a fearful shock. There were Jews to the right of me, Jews tothe left of me, in fact they were so obviously everywhere that instead of leaving the Yardwith pleasant memories of the past I left with a feeling of utter disgust of the present andgrave doubts about the future of my Alma Mater . . . . The Jew is undoubtedly of highmental order, desires the best education he can get CHEAPEST, and is more persistentthan other races in his endeavors to get what he wants. It is self evident, therefore, that17

by raising the standard of marks he can’t be eliminated from Harvard, whereas by thesame process of raising the standard ‘White’ boys ARE eliminated. And is this to go on?Why the Psychology Test if not to bar those not wanted? Are the Overseers so lacking ingenius that they can’t devise a way to bring Harvard back to the position it always held asa ‘white man’s’ college?”74.President Lowell agreed with Williams’ assessment, responding that he“had foreseen the peril of having too large of a number of an alien race and had tried toprevent it,” but that “not one of the alumni ventured to defend the policy publicly.”President Lowell was “glad to see from your letter, as I have from many other signs, thatthe alumni are beginning to appreciate that I was not wholly wrong three years ago intrying to limit the proportion of Jews.”75.Despite increasing alumni approval, President Lowell still facedsignificant obstacles to his plan.He needed Harvard’s “Special Committee on theLimitation of the Size of the Freshman Class” to approve his new admissions plan.76.In a letter to the chairman of the committee, President Lowell wrote that“questions of race,” though “delicate and disagreeable,” were not solved by ignoringthem. The solution was a new admissions system giving the school wide discretion tolimit the admission of Jewish applicants: “To prevent a dangerous increase in theproportion of Jews, I know at present only one way which is at the same timestraightforward and effective, and that is a selection by a personal estimate of characteron the part of the Admissions authorities, based upon the probable value to the candidate,to the college and to the community of his admission. Now a selection of this kind canbe carried out only in case the numbers are limited. If there is no limit, it is impossible to18

reject a candidate who passes the admissions examinations without proof of defectivecharacter, which practica

the undergraduate admissions program at Harvard College in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. ("Title VI"). Harvard's . Technology, Engineering and Math Careers, Briefing Report (October 2010); Richard Sander and Roger Bolus, Do Credential Gaps in College Reduce the Number of Minority .