[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 23, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1700-S1701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am sure you have been to Paris. The 
architect, as you undoubtedly know, who designed the Louvre's iconic 
glass pyramid was actually an American. He was an Asian American. His 
name was I.M. Pei. Mr. Pei emigrated from China to the United States in 
the 1930s.
  By the time he passed at the age of 102, he had designed a number of 
famous buildings. He had done that all across the world, including on 
U.S. soil, including the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.
  America is proud of Mr. Pei. He is just one of millions of Asian 
Americans whose talents have helped America continue to be an 
exceptional nation, a nation made up of exceptional people who take 
advantage of all of the opportunities that these United States have to 
offer.
  The contributions of individual Asian Americans have helped our 
country pioneer--and the Presiding Officer knows this--advances in 
architecture, in medicine, in art, and in technology. But, more than 
that, Asian Americans are our friends, and they are our neighbors.
  The recent murder of Asian-American women in an evil assault in 
Atlanta was an assault not just on the Atlanta community but on the 
United States of America. President Biden has correctly denounced these 
attacks, and he is not alone.
  I know the Presiding Officer can join me in this. I condemn these 
evil murders in the strongest possible terms. No one can justify--no 
one--the brutal theft of eight lives. Every community--every single 
one--across our country is grieving for the victims and is grieving for 
the families.
  These victims were all made, they were each made, in God's image, and 
Americans know that. I also feel the same way about the shooting in 
Boulder. We all do.
  America pioneered government that is based on inalienable rights that 
God gives each person. God has imbued every man and woman with dignity, 
and Americans answer that dignity with respect, respect for each 
individual and their right to make the most of the manifold 
opportunities our country offers.
  Unfortunately, President Biden's rhetoric in defense of the Asian-
American community is not altogether matched by respect for the right 
of Asian Americans to reap the reward of their talent and grit.
  The Biden administration, thus far--it has time to correct its 
course--has shown and did show right out of the gate a determination to 
stick its head in the sand while some of America's top universities are 
actively discriminating against Asian Americans.
  Last year, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Justice Department 
sued Yale University. The Justice Department contended that Yale 
rejected many qualified Asian-American applicants on the basis of 
race--not on the basis of qualification, on the basis of race.
  The decision by the Justice Department came 2 years after several 
Asian-American organizations filed a complaint with the Department of 
Justice

[[Page S1701]]

and the Department of Education that accused Yale of what I just 
described: racial discrimination.
  Yet only a few weeks--only a few weeks after President Biden set up 
shop in the Oval Office, the Department of Justice withdrew its own 
lawsuit based on racial discrimination against Yale University, and 
that is an actual fact. Watch what we say, not what we do.
  Unfortunately, Harvard University also seems determined to 
discriminate against Asian-American applicants. In 2014, Students for 
Fair Admissions sued Harvard, claiming that the school was using an 
application system that intentionally reduces the number of Asian 
Americans through evaluations that are subjective and potentially 
racially biased.
  You see, Harvard apparently believes it knows how to discriminate in 
the right way. It believed the same thing a number of years ago when it 
limited the number of Jewish people who could attend Harvard.
  When Harvard considers an applicant, the school doesn't just look at 
their grades or their test scores or their academic awards. In fact, 
the admissions team at Harvard often looks past these objective 
indicators to a student's--this is what Harvard calls it--personal 
ratings, which is an unfair, ridiculous, and a subjective standard.
  These personal ratings, as Harvard calls them, supposedly take into 
account character traits like humor, sensitivity, helpfulness, and 
courage. For years, Harvard has consistently granted lower personal 
ratings scores to Asian Americans than it has to other applicants, and 
that, too, is a fact.
  The judge in the Students for Fair Admissions' lawsuit wrote the 
following:

       The data demonstrates--

  These are the judge's words, not mine.

       The data demonstrates a statistically significant and 
     negative relationship between Asian American identity and the 
     personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers, 
     holding constant any reasonable set of observable 
     characteristics.

  I didn't say that; the judge in the case did.
  Now, I want to be fair. It may look smart or wise for Harvard to look 
for well-rounded applicants--I get that--until you realize and think 
about that these personal ratings are not just subjective; they are 
subversive. If you think about it, the scores, these scores--they are 
not objective like test scores or grades or extracurricular activities; 
these personal ratings are value judgments that can easily be tainted 
by racial bias. It is clear that the personal ratings minimize the 
accomplishments of Asian Americans in particular.
  Just look at the numbers. Harvard's admission scores work like this: 
They use a scale of 1 to 6. One is the strongest possible rating. When 
it comes to personal ratings--remember, this is the subjective analysis 
of the personhood of the applicant by Harvard, not the test scores, not 
the grades, not the extracurricular activities. When it comes to 
personal ratings, only 17.6 percent of Asian-American applicants 
receive a score of 1 or 2--17.6 for Asian Americans. For African 
Americans, that number is 19.01 percent. For Hispanic Americans, it is 
18.7 percent. In fact--and these are the numbers--Harvard gives Asian 
Americans the weakest personal ratings of any ethnic group, bar none.
  Harvard admissions officials have reportedly handed out these scores 
without even interviewing all of the candidates in question--personal 
ratings without interviewing the applicants. This happens now despite 
the fact that Asian Americans have the highest grades and test scores. 
So on the objective criteria--test scores, grades--Asian Americans have 
the highest scores. What pulls them down? The personal ratings.
  Harvard officials admitted in 2013 that if Harvard considered only 
academic achievement, then proportional Asian-American representation 
that year would have doubled. Think about that. If Harvard went on the 
objective criteria--extracurricular activities, grades, test scores--
twice as many Asian Americans would have been admitted to the 
university. Why weren't they? Because of the personal ratings. They 
call it ``personal'' even though many of the applicants are never even 
interviewed.
  The Department of Justice has historically supported the Students for 
Fair Admissions lawsuit. In 2018, the Justice Department filed a 
statement of interest in the case. Last year, the Justice Department 
filed an amicus brief in the case. A Federal judge ruled against the 
plaintiffs in 2019 in the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 
Circuit upheld that decision last November--this despite the fact that 
the Federal district court judge in the case openly acknowledged that 
Harvard grants lower personal ratings scores to Asian-American 
applicants.
  The fruits of Harvard's policy are pretty clear. You don't have to be 
Mensa material to figure this out. The Ivy League school has repeatedly 
rejected highly qualified Asian-American candidates because of their 
race.
  But there is still hope for justice for our Asian-American students. 
The Supreme Court may well take up this case, and the White House could 
defend the cause of merit against Harvard's alleged racial 
discrimination.
  So let me say this as clearly as I can. If President Biden--if the 
Biden team is committed to fighting racial discrimination against Asian 
Americans, if President Biden and his team want to lift up Asian 
Americans, as they say they do, it is not hard to see how countering 
racist policies within the privileged halls of Harvard--a school that 
receives Federal dollars--it is not hard to see how supporting that 
litigation must be part of President Biden's commitment. So today, with 
all the respect I can muster, I am calling on President Biden and his 
Justice Department to support the Asian-American students who have 
brought their case against Harvard.
  Harvard is an extraordinary school. Nothing I say is meant to 
denigrate the quality of that great university. But being a pillar of 
higher education doesn't mean that Harvard is above the law. I.M. Pei 
attended Harvard in the 1940s. Who knows if they would accept him today 
because of his personal rating. You know, that is a shame, and it 
shouldn't stand.
  President Biden should stand up for the rights of Asian Americans to 
be treated fairly by America's schools. His Justice Department should 
support this lawsuit.
  To be is to act. All we are is the sum of our actions. Everything 
else is just conversation. Don't just talk about supporting Asian 
Americans; do it. Do it. Please don't be selective in the reality you 
choose to accept.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
cloture motions filed during the session of the Senate on Thursday, 
March 18, ripen at 11:30 a.m., tomorrow, Wednesday, March 24.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.