Student Union
Harvard Cleared of Racial Bias in Admissions
Harvard does not discriminate against Asian American applicants, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a decision that offers relief to other colleges that consider race in admissions but also sets the stage for a potential review by an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision came from two judges on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston who rejected claims from an anti-affirmative action group that accused the Ivy League university of imposing a "racial penalty" on Asian Americans. The judges upheld a previous ruling clearing Harvard of discrimination when choosing students.
It delivers a blow to the suit's plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit that aims to eliminate the use of race in college admissions. In a statement, the group's president, Edward Blum, said he was disappointed but that "our hope is not lost."
"This lawsuit is now on track to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we will ask the justices to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities," Blum said.
Both sides have been preparing for a possible review by the Supreme Court, and some legal scholars say the issue is ripe to be revisited.
Race's role in admissions
Filed in 2014, the lawsuit has revived a national debate about race's role in college admissions. In multiple decisions spanning decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that colleges can consider race as a limited factor in order to promote campus diversity. But the practice faces mounting challenges in the courts, including three suits from Students for Fair Admissions.
Many elite colleges consider applicants' race and give an edge to some underrepresented students to promote diversity on campus. The Trump administration has opposed the practice and backed the lawsuit against Harvard. In October, the Justice Department filed a similar suit accusing Yale University of discriminating against Asian American and white applicants.
In Thursday's decision, however, the judges ruled that Harvard's admissions process passes legal muster and aligns with requirements that the Supreme Court laid out in previous cases.
"The issue before us is whether Harvard's limited use of race in its admissions process in order to achieve diversity in the period in question is consistent with the requirements of Supreme Court precedent. There was no error," the judges wrote.
Blum, a legal strategist, has spent years working to rid racial considerations from college admissions. Before the Harvard case, he orchestrated an unsuccessful fight challenging the use of race at the University of Texas. In that case, a white student said she was rejected by the university because she was white.
Several Asian American groups filed legal briefs supporting Harvard, while some others filed briefs backing the suit and alleging discrimination in Ivy League admissions.
The suit alleges that Harvard's admissions officers use a subjective "personal rating" to discriminate against Asian Americans who apply to the school. Using six years of admissions data, the group found that Asian American applicants were given the highest scores in an academic category but received the lowest scores on the personal rating.
The group's analysis found that Harvard accepted Asian Americans at lower rates than any other racial group, while giving preference to Black and Hispanic students with lower grades. The lawsuit also alleged that Harvard works to keep a consistent racial breakdown among new students, which the organization says amounts to illegal "racial balancing."
Statistically insignificant effect
Harvard denies any discrimination and says it considers applicants' race only in the narrow way approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. In close calls between students, some underrepresented students may get a "tip" in their favor, school officials have said, but students' race is never counted against them.
After a three-week trial that cast new light on Harvard's secretive selection process, a federal judge ruled that other factors could explain why Asian Americans are admitted at lower rates than other students. In her 2019 ruling, District Judge Allison D. Burroughs said Harvard's admissions process is "not perfect" but concluded that there was "no evidence of any racial animus whatsoever."
A three-judge panel of the appeals court heard arguments in September, but one of the judges, Juan Torruella, died in October before the case was decided. The ruling notes that Torruella heard oral arguments but did not participate in issuing the decision.
The judges agreed with a district court finding that Harvard's personal rating is not influenced by race. Although the rating may be correlated with race, the judges wrote, the link is more likely to be caused by outside factors including students' personal essays or letters of recommendation.
Ultimately, the judges wrote, Asian American identity has a statistically insignificant effect on admissions probability, and they concluded that Harvard does not place outsized emphasis on race.
"Harvard has demonstrated that it values all types of diversity, not just racial diversity," the judges wrote. "Harvard's use of race in admissions is contextual and it does not consider race exclusively."
The decision received praise from the American Council on Education, an association of university presidents, which called it a "clear win" for Harvard and other universities.
Some legal scholars, however, believe that the current makeup of the Supreme Court may be more likely to place tighter limits around the use of race in admissions or to forbid the practice entirely.
The three Supreme Court justices appointed to the court by President Donald Trump have pushed the nation's highest court more conservative than when it last ruled in favor of the consideration of race in college admissions in 2016.
See all News Updates of the Day
- By VOA News
Want to work in the US as an international student? Know the rules
The Economic Times of India outlines the rules for working in the U.S. as an international student. "[N]avigating the complex regulations and visa restrictions is crucial for securing a work opportunity in the US as a student," the story says.
Read the full article here. (August 2024)
- By VOA News
Columbia U. news site offers tips for international students
Bwog, a student-run campus news site at Columbia University, has a guide for international students spending their first semester in the U.S.
Among the tips:
Expect some culture shock
Don't be afraid to ask for help
Stay in touch with people from home.
Read the full article here. (August 2024)
NCAA's $2.78 billion settlement with colleges to allow athlete payments gets preliminary approval
A judge granted preliminary approval Monday to the $2.78 billion legal settlement that would transform college sports by allowing schools to pay players.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken released an order setting a timeline for a deal that would put millions of dollars into the pockets of college athletes, who can begin applying for payment on October 18.
A final hearing is set for April 7, 2025, the day of college basketball's national title game. If finalized, the deal would allow the biggest schools to establish a pool of about $21.5 million in the first year to distribute to athletes via a revenue-sharing plan. Athletes would still be able to cut name, image and likeness deals with outside groups.
"We are pleased that we are one step closer to a revolutionary change in college athletics that will allow billions in revenue sharing," said plaintiff attorney Steve Berman.
The judge's approval comes 11 days after attorneys tweaked wording in the original settlement agreement to address Wilken's concerns. The main change involved getting rid of the word "boosters" and replacing it with a better-defined description of whose potential NIL deals would be subject to oversight by a neutral arbitrator once the deal goes through.
That did not, however, strike to the heart of the settlement, which sets up a revenue-sharing arrangement between schools and the athletes. The $21.5 million figure comes from the 22% of average revenue that power conference schools generate through media rights, tickets and other sources. It will be recalculated periodically through the 10-year window that the agreement covers.
"We are thrilled by Judge Wilken's decision to give preliminary approval to the landmark settlement that will help bring stability and sustainability to college athletics while delivering increased benefits to student-athletes for years to come," NCAA President Charlie Baker said. "Today's progress is a significant step in writing the next chapter for the future of college sports."
This settlement also allows former players to apply for payments to make up for lost revenue they would have received through NIL deals that weren't allowed in college sports before 2021. It sets up a framework to regulate future NIL deals and replaces scholarship caps with "roster limits," which will grow to 105 for football, the biggest sport at most major universities.
This settlement resolves three major antitrust lawsuits filed against the NCAA, including one spearheaded by Grant House, a former swimmer at Arizona State University. Berman's law firm says the value of new payments and benefits to college athletes is expected to exceed $20 billion over 10 years.
Still unknown, however, is how long the terms of this deal will last. Litigation regarding the rights of players to unionize and potentially be considered employees remains unsettled. Meanwhile, the NCAA is pushing for federal legislation to knit together a streamlined policy for NIL, which is currently regulated by a patchwork of state laws, legal settlements and NCAA rules.
Grace period for US student loan payments is over. Here's what you need to know
The 12-month grace period for student loan borrowers ended on September 30. The "on-ramp" period helped borrowers who are struggling to make payments avoid the risk of defaulting and hurting their credit score.
"The end of the on-ramp period means the beginning of the potentially harsh consequences for student loan borrowers who are not able to make payments," said Persis Yu, Deputy Executive Director at the Student Borrower Protection Center.
Around 43 million Americans have student loan debt, amounting to $1.5 trillion. Around eight million of those borrowers had enrolled in the SAVE plan, the newest income-driven repayment plan that extended the eligibility for borrowers to have affordable monthly student loan payments. However, this plan is currently on hold due to legal challenges.
With the on-ramp period and a separate program known as Fresh Start ending and the SAVE plan on hold, student loan borrowers who are struggling to afford their monthly payments have fewer options, added Yu. Student loan borrowers who haven't been able to afford their monthly payments must consider their options to avoid going into default.
If you have student loans, here's what you need to know.
What was the on-ramp period?
The Education Department implemented this grace period to ease the borrower's transition to make payments after a three-year payment pause during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this year-long period, borrowers were encouraged to keep making payments since interest continued to accumulate.
"Normally, loans will default if you fall about nine months behind on making payments, but during this on-ramp period, missed payments would not move people towards defaulting and then being subject to forced collections. However, if you missed payments, you still be falling behind ultimately on repaying your loans," said Abby Shaforth, director of National Consumer Law Center's Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project.
Since this grace period has ended, student loan borrowers who don't make payments will go delinquent or, if their loans are not paid for nine months, go into default.
Borrowers who cannot afford to make payments can apply for deferment or forbearance, which pause payments, though interest continues to accrue.
What happens if I don't make my payments?
Borrowers who can't or don't pay risk delinquency and eventually default. That can badly hurt your credit rating and make you ineligible for additional aid and government benefits.
If a borrower missed one month's payment, they will start receiving email notifications, said Shaforth. Once the loan hasn't been paid for three months, loan servicers notify to the credit reporting agencies that the loan is delinquent, affecting your credit history. Once the borrower hasn't paid the loan for nine months, the loan goes into default.
If you're struggling to pay, advisers first encourage you to check if you qualify for an income-driven repayment plan, which determines your payments by looking at your expenses. You can see whether you qualify by visiting the Federal Student Aid website. If you've worked for a government agency or a non-profit organization, you could also be eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which forgives student debt after 10 years.
What happens when a loan goes into default?
When you fall behind on a loan by 270 days — roughly nine months — the loan appears on your credit report as being in default.
Once a loan is in default, it goes into collections. This means the government can garnish wages (without a court order) to go towards paying back the loan, intercept tax refunds, and seize portions of Social Security checks and other benefit payments.
What if I can't pay?
If your budget doesn't allow you to resume payments, it's important to know how to navigate the possibility of default and delinquency on a student loan. Both can hurt your credit rating, which would make you ineligible for additional aid.
If you're in a short-term financial bind, you may qualify for deferment or forbearance — allowing you to temporarily suspend payment.
To determine whether deferment or forbearance are good options for you, you can contact your loan servicer. One thing to note: interest still accrues during deferment or forbearance. Both can also impact potential loan forgiveness options. Depending on the conditions of your deferment or forbearance, it may make sense to continue paying the interest during the payment suspension.
What is an income-driven repayment plan?
The U.S. Education Department offers several plans for repaying federal student loans. Under the standard plan, borrowers are charged a fixed monthly amount that ensures all their debt will be repaid after 10 years. But if borrowers have difficulty paying that amount, they can enroll in one of several plans that offer lower monthly payments based on income and family size. Those are known as income-driven repayment plans.
Income-driven options have been offered for years and generally cap monthly payments at 10% of a borrower's discretionary income. If a borrower's earnings are low enough, their bill is reduced to $0. And after 20 or 25 years, any remaining debt gets erased.
What is the latest with the SAVE program?
In August, the Supreme Court kept on hold the SAVE plan, the income-driven repayment plan that would have lowered payments for millions of borrowers, while lawsuits make their way through lower courts.
Eight million borrowers who had already enrolled in the SAVE plan don't have to pay their monthly student loan bills until the court case is resolved. Debt that already had been forgiven under the plan was unaffected.
The next court hearing about this case will be held on October 15.
What happened with the Fresh Start program?
The Fresh Start program, which gave benefits to borrowers who were delinquent prior to the pandemic payment pause, also closed on September 30. During this limited program, student loan borrowers who were in default prior to the pandemic were given the opportunity to remove their loans from default, allowing them to enroll in income-driven payment plans, or apply for deferment, among other benefits.
Boston university relaunches journalism curriculum to encompass humanities
As the fall semester begins, a women’s college in Boston, Massachusetts, has retooled its media-related curriculum to best reflect the ideals of the school’s namesake, the late journalist Gwen Ifill.
Simmons University announced it would relaunch the media school as the Gwen Ifill School of Media, Humanities and Social Sciences. A search committee also named media scholar Ammina Kothari as the new dean.
The Ifill School’s new structure expands its media curriculum to include humanities and social sciences. The attributes that defined Ifill also shape a new, holistic approach, “An unwavering commitment to accuracy and objectivity, a nuanced understanding of social and historical context and a compassion-based appreciation of policymaking’s real-world implications,” according to a Simmons press release.
“Folks here are very proud of Gwen’s legacy and want to honor it in many different ways,” said Bert Ifill, Gwen’s brother and a longtime university administrator.
A crucial component of the Ifill School is its emphasis on communications, a field Gwen excelled in, Bert told VOA.
After graduating from Simmons in 1977, she had long careers in both print and television journalism, working for The Baltimore Evening Sun, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC and PBS. She covered seven presidential campaigns and died in 2016 at age 61.
Ifill was the first African American woman to moderate a vice presidential debate and to coanchor a national newscast, “PBS NewsHour.”
“Gwen valued storytelling, and she was an amazing journalist,” Kothari, the school’s new dean, told VOA. “But she also worked really hard to raise awareness about important social issues and to highlight underrepresented voices.”
Abigail Meyers, a current junior at the Ifill School, admires the journalist’s “groundbreaking work” in both journalism and racial justice, she told VOA. Raised near Baltimore, Maryland, Meyers feels a special connection to Ifill’s work for the Baltimore Evening Sun newspaper.
The school has been instrumental in supporting Meyers’ aspirations to become a professional journalist, she told VOA.
“The support that you get from the faculty and alumni is unlike really any other journalism program,” she said.
Being a double major in communications and political science, Meyers appreciates the new curriculum’s flexibility, as she is able to take classes across different disciplines.
This flexibility will help prime Simmons’ students to achieve success, Kothari said. She believes interdisciplinary training leads to stronger leaders in the world.
“As we think about communications or media, including journalism or social sciences, we need a strong foundation in humanities to understand the historical context for what we see happening today,” Kothari said.
The school’s increased focus on humanities “couldn’t be more timely,” according to the press release. Nearly three of four Americans believe media literacy is an important skill in today’s news landscape, a 2023 Boston University survey found.
However, humanities-focused degree programs like the Ifill School’s receive little recognition. Of all the bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2020, humanities degrees made up less than 10%, a number that has only been decreasing, according to a 2022 MIT study. Meanwhile, science, technology, engineering and math degrees, or STEM, have grown exponentially.
But humanities and STEM shouldn’t be seen as opposites, Kothari said.
She cited the COVID-19 pandemic response as an example. Many precautionary measures such as social distancing were grounded in “amazing scientific research,” but weren’t effectively communicated to the public, she said.
“As we have new knowledge being produced, we also need journalists,” Kothari said. “We need communicators who are able to translate very complex information to the audience so they can see, ‘How does it matter to me? What is the effect for me?’”
Ifill’s legacy is not only celebrated within her namesake school, but also through press freedom organizations around the world.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a press freedom nonprofit, honors Ifill with the annual Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award, which is presented to individuals who have “shown extraordinary and sustained achievement in the cause of press freedom,” according to CPJ’s website.
Christophe Deloire, the late director of international media freedom organization Reporters Without Borders, or RSF, received the 2024 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award.
“Christophe was one of journalism's greatest-ever champions,” RSF Executive Director Clayton Weimers told VOA in an email. “There was hardly a fight or an advance in press freedom in the past decade that he wasn't a part of, if not leading.”
As Ifill’s legacy spreads, there is one person who couldn’t be prouder: her brother, Bert. He told VOA it often seems as though his full-time job is “to talk nicely about Gwen.”
“It's always a great pleasure and honor for me to talk about her and to talk about her legacy, not only as obviously a very skilled journalist, but as an extraordinary mentor and confidant,” he said.
