DEI departments don't send you any minority that fits a category, they look for qualified ones that also add diversity and send you those. No one wants to hire people who can't do the job you hired them to do.
Not all colleges are not concerned with filling their campuses with the best SAT test takers. Many colleges have arts and creative programs and believe diversity makes those stronger. Some consider a having a variety of backgrounds on their campus as something that will attract more students in the future and promote a better learning environment. I don't know what exactly Harvard did to Asians.
In its 2014 complaint, SFFA accused the College of “intentionally and improperly discriminating” against Asian American applicants in its admissions process, including by employing character ratings influenced by racial stereotypes and requiring Asian American applicants to meet a higher threshold in academic and extracurricular accomplishments.
Statistical evidence reveals that Harvard uses ‘holistic’ admissions to disguise the fact that it holds Asian Americans to a far higher standard than other students and essentially forces them to compete against each other for admission,” the complaint read.
Intentional discrimination occurs when the accused party engages in differential treatment motivated by race. In such legal proceedings, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, SFFA, to provide evidence of intentionality on the part of the defendant, Harvard.
SFFA pointed to the numbers, which indicated that Asian American applicants on average reported more impressive academic and extracurricular resumes — but were admitted at lower percentages.
During the screening process, Harvard admissions officers assigned ratings to each applicant across approximately 14 categories, including academic achievement, extracurricular involvement, athletic prowess, strength of character, and “personal” and “overall” ratings. Ratings ranged from 1 — the highest score an applicant can receive — to 6 — the lowest.
According to the district court’s findings of fact, 60 percent of Asian American applicants were given academic ratings higher than 3+ compared to 46 percent of white applicants. In the extracurriculars category, 28 percent of Asian American applicants received a 2 or higher, compared to 25 percent of white applicants.
A 2013 internal Harvard report also found that Asian American applicants received significantly higher test scores, higher grades, and better overall scores from alumni interviews. When the report surfaced during the 2018 trial, SFFA honed in on its conclusions while Harvard maintained that the report was inconclusive and incomplete.
The report indicated that there was only one of 10 characteristics in which white students on average performed significantly better than their Asian American counterparts: their personal qualities.
According to the district court, while 22.6 percent of white applicants received a personal rating of greater than 3+, 18 percent of Asian American applicants received the same — a disparity of about 4.6 percentage points.
SFFA alleged these statistical discrepancies were evidence of a penalty imposed on Asian American applicants that did not exist for their white counterparts.