As you may know from an email earlier this week from President Faust, race-conscious and holistic admissions at Harvard and in higher education at large are under threat from a lawsuit brought by Edward Blum under the guise of "Students for Fair Admissions” (SFFA). As part of our mission to fight for diversity, equity and inclusion, the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard decries Blum's ultimate goal of banning any consideration of race in admissions  and his divisive tactics. We write to help you be as informed as possible and to encourage you to share information with others. We anticipate a flood of communication and spin in the coming days, and to help you evaluate it, we want to highlight:

• Who is behind the lawsuit and their ultimate motives

• Our belief that inclusive, holistic admissions practices are crucial to achieving the multi-dimensional diversity that is key to Harvard’s educational mission

• The importance of viewing data and other evidence critically once both sides are heard.  

Who Is Behind the Lawsuit Against Harvard?

As you know, the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard was founded in 2016 to oppose five Overseer petition candidates (four of whom had written or testified extensively against affirmative action) and in favor of race-conscious and holistic admissions practices that support campus diversity. Together, we defeated the petition slate, whose leader had ties to anti-immigrant, racist, and anti-gay writers and groups, but the 2014 lawsuit brought by Blum, a long-time foe of efforts to promote access and diversity in American life, has proceeded. Critical evidence is about to be released in that case.

Blum, who has a network of conservative backers, has led challenges that dramatically weakened the Voting Rights Act’s protections for racial minorities. He previously sued the University of Texas at Austin on behalf of a white plaintiff in an attempt to end its consideration of race as one factor in its efforts to admit a diverse student body. Because the Supreme Court ruled against him twice in the Texas case, Blum was forced to switch tactics. In his continuing attempt to eliminate diversity initiatives in higher education, Blum, like the Overseer petition candidates, decided to allege discrimination against Asian Americans, saying that they are "systematically" excluded  in favor of less qualified Black and Latinx applicants. The goal of these lawsuits, he said in an April 2015 speech in Houston:

“. . . is to eliminate the use of race or ethnicity in applying. So, I needed plaintiffs. I needed Asian plaintiffs.”

In short, he acknowledged that he is using Asian Americans as a means to achieve what he failed to achieve in the Texas litigation. Indeed, the founders of SFFA include Blum, Abigail Fisher, the losing plaintiff in the Texas case, and her father. 18 Million Rising, an Asian American advocacy group, put it this way:  

​