A Harvard scholarship program, designed to offer lucrative summer internships, openly prioritized students based on race, a revelation brought to light by Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson and his organization, the Equal Protection Project.
Jacobson discovered the program’s website explicitly stated eligibility for “students of color,” effectively excluding white applicants despite the program’s substantial financial benefits – over $10,000 per student. This wasn’t a subtle implication; it was a direct statement of discriminatory practice.
The program, a collaboration between Harvard and the AFSCME Municipal Workers Union, used the term “historically marginalized communities” as a thinly veiled reference to non-white individuals. Jacobson argues this is a common tactic, a way to state the discriminatory intent while attempting to mask it with euphemistic language.
After the Equal Protection Project filed a complaint with the Department of Justice and the New York Post published an article detailing the findings, Harvard swiftly altered the language on its website. However, Jacobson emphasizes this reactive change doesn’t erase the initial discriminatory intent, as the original wording was meticulously documented and archived.
This case carries implications beyond the immediate scholarship program. It potentially strengthens arguments made by the Trump administration in a previous lawsuit against Harvard, where the university claimed immunity from federal penalties for its policies. Demonstrating a pattern of discrimination could bolster the case for holding Harvard accountable.
Jacobson believes Harvard’s attempt to conceal its practices is a clear admission of wrongdoing. The fact that they felt compelled to change the language after being exposed suggests a “consciousness of guilt,” revealing an understanding that their initial approach was indefensible.
The Equal Protection Project’s meticulous documentation – screenshots and archived webpages – ensures a permanent record of the original discriminatory language, preventing Harvard from rewriting history. This evidence is now in the hands of the Department of Justice, awaiting a decision on whether to pursue further action.
This incident underscores a troubling trend within higher education, a systemic bias that often operates beneath the surface. It highlights the urgent need for greater scrutiny and a fundamental reevaluation of practices within universities across the nation.
