Harvard Expert Testifies 'No Evidence' Of Applicant Bias
Law360, Boston (October 30, 2018, 6:03 PM EDT) -- There is no statistical evidence Harvard University discriminates against Asian-American applicants or engages in so-called racial balancing, according to testimony Tuesday by an expert witness for the Ivy League school who rebutted claims made by the group bringing the landmark lawsuit, Students for Fair Admissions.
Harvard’s expert, University of California, Berkeley professor David Card, spent his afternoon in Massachusetts federal court pushing back on the allegations that Harvard unfairly caps the number of Asian-Americans who earn any of the coveted spots in each year’s class. The school had admitted it uses race in the admissions process as a “plus factor” in the narrowly tailored way sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Card, a noted economist, reviewed six years' worth of Harvard admissions data and said he saw nothing to suggest anything improper.
“The statistical evidence does not support the claim Harvard is discriminating against Asian-American applicants,” Card said, summarizing his findings. “There is no statistical evidence Harvard has engaged in racial balancing.”
Using the same six years of admissions data, Card arrived at dramatically different conclusions than the SFFA’s expert, Duke professor Peter Arcidiacono, who said there is an “Asian penalty” embedded in the Harvard process. Arcidiacono said Harvard’s use of race as a boost, or “tip,” in the process resulted in more Hispanic or African-American applicants being admitted to the detriment of Asian-American Harvard hopefuls, but Card testified that race is just like any other tip and his fellow economist has it wrong.
“The way they are thinking of it is for well-qualified candidates with a level of academic and extracurricular qualifications and so on, for those candidates, race can be an additional tip just like being an accomplished musician can be a tip, or being from sparse country or having, say, a strong athletic record,” Card said.
“I don't think it's appropriate to think of it as being discrimination against people who don't play the cello as well as Yo-Yo Ma, just because Yo-Yo Ma is so accomplished,” the professor added, citing an actual Harvard graduate. “A positive benefit for a certain group does not represent negative discrimination against others.”
In denying cross-summary judgment motions prior to the start of the three-week trial, which is set to wrap up Friday, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs suggested the credibility of the dueling expert data may be central to deciding the issue.
The SFFA has argued Asian-American applicants consistently outperform all other ethnicities in objective academic factors considered in that category’s profile rating by admissions officials, but are penalized on Harvard’s subjective personal rating due to their race. Card said his evaluation of the data “did not support” an allegation of bias in the personal rating. There are far too many applicants with perfect GPAs or SAT scores relative to the number of seats Harvard has available, he said, so the school looks for students who are strong in academics and other areas.
“I don’t think it’s possible to overemphasize how important multidimensionality is,” Card said, calling it the most important factor in the admissions process.
Card also said his statistical model included more variables than the one presented by Arcidiacono, such as considering applicants who are recruited athletes, legacies, Dean’s List preference candidates, or children of faculty and staff, so-called ALDC applicants. Data show Asian-American applicants are admitted at a higher rate than the average admission rate in those categories.
Card also analyzed the data year-by year, rather than in a six-year block, and considered other variables omitted from the SFFA expert analysis such as a student’s intended career path or their parents’ occupations.
Weighing all of those variables, Card said there is “no statistically significant difference” in the admission rates between Asian-American and white Harvard applicants.
“How can two models of the same process reach different conclusions?” asked WilmerHale’s Seth P. Waxman, counsel for Harvard.
“He has excluded the ALDC group, among which there is a large positive effect,” Card said, referring to Arcidiacono’s data. “He has also made a set of choices about variables to exclude from his analysis. … That combination of choices to exclude variables and exclude ALDCs directly accounts for the difference in our findings."
Whether to include ALDC students, who comprise around 30 percent of the class, has been a major point of difference between the two experts. Arcidiacono said that, because ALDCs are admitted at much higher rates than the typical student, they should not be part of an “apples to apples” comparison. Card said it did not make sense to exclude them, since they are a significantly large part of the admissions process.
“Excluding this highly competitive group in my mind would be like estimating a model for retirement and excluding all the people over 65, or something like that,” Card said. “It seems completely nonsensical to me. It seems like you’re ignoring a very big group of people.”
Similarly, Card said lumping all of the data in one six-year set, as opposed to a year-by-year analysis, did not make sense. Harvard’s priorities, such as opening a school or starting a new program, or shifting student interests, like fewer applicants who want to study humanities, require breaking down the data year-by-year, Card argued.
As has been the case at various points throughout the bench trial, Judge Burroughs asked questions about the conflicting data, referring to it as a sort of “à la carte menu” in which both economists could add or subtract variables to buttress their own models. The judge said she is trying to figure out if she wanted to “buy into some variables and not others,” whether there was a way to figure out how it would impact various models.
Card said that, while the numbers may change based on the order in which variables are added into or taken out of the mix, “the general tenor would remain the same.”
Card will be back on the stand Wednesday and will be cross-examined. Before he testified Tuesday, Prairie View A&M University President Ruth Simmons, who became the first African-American president at an Ivy League school when she held that position at Brown, testified for Harvard extolling the benefits of diversity in higher education.
“Diversity provides an opportunity to deepen that learning, to give students first-hand experience with difference,” Simmons said. “Diversity is one of the primary means for students to test themselves, to test their backgrounds, to test their ideas. It is through coming in contact with difference that we deepen our learning.”
Judge Burroughs pointed out that, in a practical sense, Harvard cannot have quotas or floors, something the school has denied.
“You're talking about a place that accepts 2,000 kids a year, looking for 1,600,” the judge said. “We can agree one black student is not enough, five is not enough. If you are trying to get to a number to meet the goals you talk about, how do you avoid a floor?”
Simmons, who also served as the president of Smith College in western Massachusetts, said no school has got it completely figured out when it comes to admissions.
“It’s not scientific, it just isn't,” Simmons said. “In every year, in every way, you are still striving to learn about difference; it’s the striving that matters. As long as you are doing that, you’re making progress.”
Students for Fair Admissions is represented by Adam K. Mortara, J. Scott McBride, John M. Hughes, Katherine L.I. Hacker and Krista J. Perry of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, William S. Consovoy, Thomas R. McCarthy, Michael H. Park, John Michael Connolly and Patrick Strawbridge of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC and Paul M. Sanford of Burns & Levinson LLP.
Harvard is represented by Seth P. Waxman, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Daniel Winik, Debo P. Adegbile, William F. Lee, Felicia H. Ellsworth, Andrew S. Dulberg, Elizabeth C. Mooney and Danielle Conley of WilmerHale.
The case is Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, case number 1:14-cv-14176, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
--Editing by Bruce Goldman.
The Chronicle of Higher Education对10/30/2018庭审的报道:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Dueling-Economists-Rival/244964
The Card Report:
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf
其他有关旧帖：
-1. Law360对10/29/2018庭审的报道
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4280935.html
0. Law360对10/26/2018的报道
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4279456.html
1. 这是哈弗案里原告的expert对哈佛打分的主观那部门的数据分析报告：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4278019.html
对以上报告的分析的总结和评论：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4146161.html
2.Law360对10/25/2018庭审的报道：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4274923.html
3. 对10/23/2018庭审的报道：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4272459.html
4. Casual comments:
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4272459.html
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4262045.html
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4248449.html
5. Ron Unz 文章：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4260188.html
Harvard’s expert, University of California, Berkeley professor David Card, spent his afternoon in Massachusetts federal court pushing back on the allegations that Harvard unfairly caps the number of Asian-Americans who earn any of the coveted spots in each year’s class. The school had admitted it uses race in the admissions process as a “plus factor” in the narrowly tailored way sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Card, a noted economist, reviewed six years' worth of Harvard admissions data and said he saw nothing to suggest anything improper.
“The statistical evidence does not support the claim Harvard is discriminating against Asian-American applicants,” Card said, summarizing his findings. “There is no statistical evidence Harvard has engaged in racial balancing.”
Using the same six years of admissions data, Card arrived at dramatically different conclusions than the SFFA’s expert, Duke professor Peter Arcidiacono, who said there is an “Asian penalty” embedded in the Harvard process. Arcidiacono said Harvard’s use of race as a boost, or “tip,” in the process resulted in more Hispanic or African-American applicants being admitted to the detriment of Asian-American Harvard hopefuls, but Card testified that race is just like any other tip and his fellow economist has it wrong.
“The way they are thinking of it is for well-qualified candidates with a level of academic and extracurricular qualifications and so on, for those candidates, race can be an additional tip just like being an accomplished musician can be a tip, or being from sparse country or having, say, a strong athletic record,” Card said.
“I don't think it's appropriate to think of it as being discrimination against people who don't play the cello as well as Yo-Yo Ma, just because Yo-Yo Ma is so accomplished,” the professor added, citing an actual Harvard graduate. “A positive benefit for a certain group does not represent negative discrimination against others.”
In denying cross-summary judgment motions prior to the start of the three-week trial, which is set to wrap up Friday, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs suggested the credibility of the dueling expert data may be central to deciding the issue.
The SFFA has argued Asian-American applicants consistently outperform all other ethnicities in objective academic factors considered in that category’s profile rating by admissions officials, but are penalized on Harvard’s subjective personal rating due to their race. Card said his evaluation of the data “did not support” an allegation of bias in the personal rating. There are far too many applicants with perfect GPAs or SAT scores relative to the number of seats Harvard has available, he said, so the school looks for students who are strong in academics and other areas.
“I don’t think it’s possible to overemphasize how important multidimensionality is,” Card said, calling it the most important factor in the admissions process.
Card also said his statistical model included more variables than the one presented by Arcidiacono, such as considering applicants who are recruited athletes, legacies, Dean’s List preference candidates, or children of faculty and staff, so-called ALDC applicants. Data show Asian-American applicants are admitted at a higher rate than the average admission rate in those categories.
Card also analyzed the data year-by year, rather than in a six-year block, and considered other variables omitted from the SFFA expert analysis such as a student’s intended career path or their parents’ occupations.
Weighing all of those variables, Card said there is “no statistically significant difference” in the admission rates between Asian-American and white Harvard applicants.
“How can two models of the same process reach different conclusions?” asked WilmerHale’s Seth P. Waxman, counsel for Harvard.
“He has excluded the ALDC group, among which there is a large positive effect,” Card said, referring to Arcidiacono’s data. “He has also made a set of choices about variables to exclude from his analysis. … That combination of choices to exclude variables and exclude ALDCs directly accounts for the difference in our findings."
Whether to include ALDC students, who comprise around 30 percent of the class, has been a major point of difference between the two experts. Arcidiacono said that, because ALDCs are admitted at much higher rates than the typical student, they should not be part of an “apples to apples” comparison. Card said it did not make sense to exclude them, since they are a significantly large part of the admissions process.
“Excluding this highly competitive group in my mind would be like estimating a model for retirement and excluding all the people over 65, or something like that,” Card said. “It seems completely nonsensical to me. It seems like you’re ignoring a very big group of people.”
Similarly, Card said lumping all of the data in one six-year set, as opposed to a year-by-year analysis, did not make sense. Harvard’s priorities, such as opening a school or starting a new program, or shifting student interests, like fewer applicants who want to study humanities, require breaking down the data year-by-year, Card argued.
As has been the case at various points throughout the bench trial, Judge Burroughs asked questions about the conflicting data, referring to it as a sort of “à la carte menu” in which both economists could add or subtract variables to buttress their own models. The judge said she is trying to figure out if she wanted to “buy into some variables and not others,” whether there was a way to figure out how it would impact various models.
Card said that, while the numbers may change based on the order in which variables are added into or taken out of the mix, “the general tenor would remain the same.”
Card will be back on the stand Wednesday and will be cross-examined. Before he testified Tuesday, Prairie View A&M University President Ruth Simmons, who became the first African-American president at an Ivy League school when she held that position at Brown, testified for Harvard extolling the benefits of diversity in higher education.
“Diversity provides an opportunity to deepen that learning, to give students first-hand experience with difference,” Simmons said. “Diversity is one of the primary means for students to test themselves, to test their backgrounds, to test their ideas. It is through coming in contact with difference that we deepen our learning.”
Judge Burroughs pointed out that, in a practical sense, Harvard cannot have quotas or floors, something the school has denied.
“You're talking about a place that accepts 2,000 kids a year, looking for 1,600,” the judge said. “We can agree one black student is not enough, five is not enough. If you are trying to get to a number to meet the goals you talk about, how do you avoid a floor?”
Simmons, who also served as the president of Smith College in western Massachusetts, said no school has got it completely figured out when it comes to admissions.
“It’s not scientific, it just isn't,” Simmons said. “In every year, in every way, you are still striving to learn about difference; it’s the striving that matters. As long as you are doing that, you’re making progress.”
Students for Fair Admissions is represented by Adam K. Mortara, J. Scott McBride, John M. Hughes, Katherine L.I. Hacker and Krista J. Perry of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, William S. Consovoy, Thomas R. McCarthy, Michael H. Park, John Michael Connolly and Patrick Strawbridge of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC and Paul M. Sanford of Burns & Levinson LLP.
Harvard is represented by Seth P. Waxman, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Daniel Winik, Debo P. Adegbile, William F. Lee, Felicia H. Ellsworth, Andrew S. Dulberg, Elizabeth C. Mooney and Danielle Conley of WilmerHale.
The case is Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, case number 1:14-cv-14176, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
--Editing by Bruce Goldman.
The Chronicle of Higher Education对10/30/2018庭审的报道:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Dueling-Economists-Rival/244964
The Card Report:
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_-_2017-12-15_dr._david_card_expert_report_updated_confid_desigs_redacted.pdf
其他有关旧帖：
-1. Law360对10/29/2018庭审的报道
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4280935.html
0. Law360对10/26/2018的报道
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4279456.html
1. 这是哈弗案里原告的expert对哈佛打分的主观那部门的数据分析报告：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4278019.html
对以上报告的分析的总结和评论：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4146161.html
2.Law360对10/25/2018庭审的报道：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4274923.html
3. 对10/23/2018庭审的报道：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4272459.html
4. Casual comments:
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4272459.html
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4262045.html
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4248449.html
5. Ron Unz 文章：
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/4260188.html
