Harvard University campus. Photo: Brooks Kraft/Corbis via Getty Images

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled in favor of Harvard’s race conscious admissions process, finding that the university did not discriminate against Asian American applicants.

Why it matters: The long-awaited decision reaffirms an admissions process that considers race and how diversity should influence the makeup of an incoming class. The ruling, which could be appealed, may impact recruitment programs and financial aid.

Background: Students for Fair Admissions filed a lawsuit in 2014, arguing that Harvard's admissions office holds Asian Americans to a higher standard and uses a subjective "personal rating" to limit their admission to the elite Ivy League school.

  • Lawyers for Harvard argued that Asian American applicants do not get penalized, but that black and Latin American students do sometimes get a “tip” when admissions officers are awarding an overall score for applicants.
  • The ruling said that the anti-affirmative action challenger did not present "a single admissions file that reflected discriminatory animus." The school’s admissions process is sound with Supreme Court precedents and does not violate federal civil rights law, the judge found.
"Removing considerations of race and ethnicity from Harvard’s admissions process entirely would deprive applicants, including Asian American applicants, of their right to advocate the value of their unique background, heritage, and perspective."
— U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs

The big picture: When Harvard was forced to reveal its secret method during trial, it revealed that it gave Asian American applicants lower ratings on average than applicants of other races in categories that included "positive personality" and being "widely respected," per an analysis of more than 160,000 student records.

  • Americans have long shown a dislike for considering race and ethnicity in the college admissions process. A survey from the Pew Research Center in February found that 73% of Americans believe it should not be a factor.

Between the lines: The admissions process is just as much about admitting Ivy League legacies, children of big donors and athletes as pitting Asian Americans up against Latino and black applicants.

What they're saying: House Education and Labor chairman and Harvard grad Bobby Scott (D-Va) supported the district court's decision, saying in a statement that it it "affirms the constitutionality of admissions policies that recognize that there is a compelling interest in advancing a diverse student body."

Go deeper

Big Tech marshals a right-leaning army of allies for antitrust fight

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

As tech's giants prepare to face off with antitrust enforcers this summer, they will draw support from an array of predominantly right-leaning defenders ranging from influential former government officials to well-connected think tanks.

The big picture: The Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and the states have multiple investigations of monopolistic behavior underway targeting Facebook and Google, with other giants like Amazon and Apple also facing rising scrutiny. Many observers expect a lawsuit against Google to land this summer.

John Roberts' long game

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is not the revolutionary that conservative activists want him to be.

He moves slower than they want, sides with liberals more than they want, and trims his sails in ways they find maddening. But he is still deeply and unmistakably conservative, pulling the law to the right — at his own pace and in his own image.

2 hours ago - Health

The U.S.' new default coronavirus strategy: herd immunity

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

By letting the coronavirus surge through the population with only minimal social distancing measures in place, the U.S. has accidentally become the world’s largest experiment in herd immunity.

Why it matters: Letting the virus spread while minimizing human loss is doable, in theory. But it requires very strict protections for vulnerable people, almost none of which the U.S. has established.