In response to this summer’s Supreme Court decision rejecting race conscious admissions, Harvard has dutifully committed itself to image-building and damage control. From President Gay’s reassurance that Harvard will continue to commit itself to diversity to administrators affirming that Harvard must always be “a place whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed,” our school continues to brand itself as guardians of opportunity. Admissions and inclusion appear borderline synonymous in Harvard’s textbook, yet its track record seemingly tells a different story.
By proactively triaging the federal decision to ban affirmative action, Harvard has effectively campaigned itself as a do-gooder institution—guarding deserving, yet disadvantaged students— and becoming a benchmark to which other colleges may compare themselves. The danger arises when reporting from major media outlets and alignment from liberal-leaning organizations, in an attempt to criticize the court’s decision, have also inadvertently reinforced this narrative: Harvard has acted as a progressive bastion in its race conscious admissions, and they are now being punished for it.
Seth P. Waxman ’73, former US Solicitor General who argued in Harvard’s defense during the case, affirmed this generous view of Harvard in front of the Supreme Court. A diverse class can result in a place where “stereotypes are broken down, prejudice is reduced,” he exclaimed. But how fair and inclusive can a university that prides itself on selectivity be? After all, Harvard received 56,937 applicants for the Class of 2027 application cycle. Just 1,942 were admitted.
Waxman argued that our “country depends on having leaders who have enjoyed wide exposure to students as diverse as the nation itself.” Yet, there are nearly fifteen times more students at Harvard from the top twenty percent of the income distribution (67%) as there are from the bottom twenty (4.5%). More students from the top one percent make their way onto campus than the bottom sixty. Even then, it’s reported that half of low-income students at elite universities like Harvard still come from wealthy high schools, allowing admissions officers to look no further than what appear to be feeder schools to boost their socioeconomic diversity.
Instead of enforcing transparency of these economic distributions, Harvard continuously turns to their (admittedly generous) financial aid policies in defense. For example, after Justice Thomas brought attention to wealthy students making up 80% of Harvard’s class, Waxman simply responded with the fact that 20% of students and 70% of underrepresented minorities pay nothing. Waxman’s diffidence does not only fail to dispute this claim of a lack of socioeconomic diversity, but perhaps even highlights it.
There are thousands of potential applicants with incredible work ethic and intellectual curiosity who do not benefit from sufficient support networks to excel in high school or even consider schools like Harvard as an option. Many high achieving low-income students, often those who live outside of America’s largest cities, feel that admission to elite schools is “out of their league” due to the lack of guidance counselor support and interest from college recruiters. Many well-qualified high school seniors that come from underprivileged backgrounds, as a result, will not even apply.
This university has always prided itself on its insularity. Students are coddled, constantly told how special—and very much not like everyone else—they are. Former President Bacow’s convocation speeches frequently remind us of this—telling everyone in 2023 that each student “has been awestruck by this place,” and in 2022, that we were admitted because we “want to change the world.” According to him, “On any given day, you will have more opportunities to learn than most people get in a month or a year or a lifetime.” Harvard, by virtue of its selectivity, has always reinforced its elite status.
This begs the question: for what reason do so many look to Harvard’s policies as markers for how progressive this country is? Forbes ranks Harvard among the top ten most progressive colleges, ranking the university on factors including affordability for low-income families, ethnic, gender, and geographic diversity, and freedom of speech.
Yet contrary to the rags-to-riches narrative that we so commonly wish to believe in, this social and economic mobility does not happen as frequently as it should. According to a 2017 study by The New York Times, success stories in which the poorer students are able to become rich and powerful adults (moving from bottom to top quintile) makeup 1.8% of the Harvard student population. The classmates of ours that eventually become major politicians and business leaders, more often than not, were already wealthy to begin with.
Despite its constant sense of exclusivity, Harvard does enable many students to climb the proverbial ladder and build the next generation of global leaders. This ability to generate success subsequently translates into a responsibility to ensure that success is equal and diverse.
It is no wonder that criticism against Harvard’s hypocrisy and elitism often turns into criticism against affirmative action. This mismatch between the university’s rhetoric and its campus makeup are undeniable. In a post-affirmative action world, those frustrated with an irredeemably unfair system fraught with undue preference for the wealthy or well-connected have continued to push against Harvard. After all, if critics were allowed to question the legitimacy of admission spots held by students of color, why could that spotlight not shift to overwhelmingly advantaged students instead?
This tidal wave of support for Harvard from proponents of race-conscious admissions has already begun to turn. With the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights’ investigation into Harvard’s preference for legacy admissions, the strategy Harvard has successfully employed for decades may crumble. Instead of the progressive defenders fighting off conservative complaints, the university may soon need to guard their advantages it gives to its large population of disproportionately wealthy and white legacies.
Harvard’s self-built pedestal, one that has stood as a measuring stick for “equitable” admissions on the right side of history, may no longer work. But, despite fears from students and onlookers that admissions will become wholly race-blind, this reality may not manifest as fully accurate. For what it’s worth, Harvard is—or at the very least, appears to be—both committed to preserving a diverse campus and identifying (to some extent) the role race plays in educational opportunities.
In accordance with Chief Justice Roberts’ clarification that the decision will not “[prohibit] universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life,” the university has added a required short answer to their application, prompting applicants to explain how their life experiences will contribute to a diverse student body.
It may not be fair to disparage the merit of Harvard as trying to do better entirely. It’s clear that to some extent, this university believes in the words it says. However, students on campus and outlets looking in should not let unfounded criticism from others create blind loyalty—Harvard doesn’t need it.
Katy Lin ’26 (katylin@college.harvard.edu) writes Forum for the Independent.