Regardless of Harvard’s immediate reaction, the decision pushed Harvard’s policy into the spotlight. Soon Harvard’s holistic approach became the paragon for affirmative action policies.

“I think Justice Powell was clearly trying to articulate a road map for universities that would work,” said Richard D. Kahlenberg ’85, senior fellow at The Century Foundation. “Harvard was the model that the Supreme Court pointed to, and so that’s what universities sought to do.”

In 2003, when the Court reconsidered affirmative action in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, Harvard again sought to influence the debate by filing an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan. Though the Court did not cite the document specifically, it upheld Bakke, leaving Harvard’s program as the model framework.

A YEAR OF CHALLENGES

Though it has been 35 years since Harvard helped to lay the legal foundation for affirmative action, diversity remains a controversial topic when it comes to college admissions. In the past year, Harvard has found itself at the center of debate after it was accused of discriminating against Asian-American applicants and after it reinstated its early action admissions program.

As the tug-of-war between supporters and detractors of affirmative actions continues, Harvard has been forced to navigate choppy waters—reaffirming its commitment to diversity while wavering on the means to get there.

In August, an Asian-American student whose undergraduate application had been turned down by Harvard filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education alleging that the rejection was based on race. The Department of Education opened an investigation which lasted several months before the student withdrew the complaint.

When news of the investigation broke, the University defended the legality of its admissions policies using language reminiscent of the majority opinion in Bakke.

“Our review of every applicant’s file is highly individualized and holistic, as we give serious consideration to all of the information we receive and all of the ways in which the candidate might contribute to our vibrant educational environment and community,” wrote Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesperson Jeff Neal in a statement at the time.

Harvard Law School professor Mark V. Tushnet ’67 said that universities are always vulnerable to attacks from disgruntled applicants.

“It’s always a threat that some disappointed applicants would invoke Title VI,” said Tushnet, referring to the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination at institutions that receive federal funding. “As far as I know, it’s an effort that has been met with little success.”

In addition to the negative publicity surrounding the civil rights complaint, many criticized the College’s restoration of its early action admissions option, which it had eliminated in 2007, arguing at the time that it advantaged students from privileged backgrounds. This year’s admissions cycle was the first in four years to offer an early action option.

“I thought it was unfortunate that Harvard reversed itself on early admission. I thought it was a step background,” said Kahlenberg, who praised Harvard for its other efforts to improve economic diversity.

Despite this criticism, administrators maintain that early admission no longer detracts from efforts to promote diversity.

When early admission was reinstated, University President Drew G. Faust said that the return of early action had become “consistent with our bedrock commitment to access, affordability, and excellence.”