The Harvard Crimson - Volume CXLVI, No. 95

The Harvard Crimson THE UNIVERSITY DAILY, EST. 1873 | VOLUME CXLVI, NO. 95 | CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS | WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2019

EDITORIAL PAGE 6

EDITORIAL PAGE 6

SPORTS PAGE 8

The UC’s delivery robots are an example of its shortsightedness.

DSO will discipline clubs with leaders in unrecognized social organizations.

Ivy League play begins for men’s soccer.

Judge Rules in Favor of Harvard in Admissions Suit Burroughs Backs RaceConscious Admissions

Affiliates Celebrate Harvard’s Legal Win

By CAMILLE G. CALDERA, DELANO R. FRANKLIN, and SAMUEL W. ZWICKEL

By SHERA S. AVI-YONAH and AMANDA Y. SU

CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Harvard College’s race-conscious admissions policies do not illegally discriminate against Asian American applicants, federal judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled Tuesday.

The ruling brings an end to this stage of the lawsuit filed against the University by anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions in 2014. SFFA alleged that the College’s admissions policies discriminate against Asian American applicants by holding them to higher standards. Burroughs, however, found that Harvard’s use of race in its admissions process is legal.

“Ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race conscious admissions. Harvard’s admission program passes constitutional muster,” Burroughs wrote in her decision.

In addition to arguing that Harvard’s policies are discriminatory, SFFA contended that the College had artificially capped the number of students from certain racial groups and had failed to seriously consider alternative raceblind strategies for admitting a diverse class — practices which the Supreme Court previously deemed illegal.

Burroughs determined the University was not liable on all four counts of alleged wrongdoing: intentionally discriminating against Asian Americans,

lawsuit against the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

That case challenges the legality of the school’s admissions policies, but unlike the complaint against Harvard, it alleges that UNC discriminates against white applicants rather than Asian American applicants.

District Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the Middle District of North Carolina ruled Monday to reject the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgement, indicating that the case will proceed to trial. Biggs also granted the plaintiff’s motion to

As Catherine H. Ho ’21 sat in a lab on Tuesday, her mind was far from the federal courthouse where she had testified in the Harvard admissions trial nearly a year ago.

Then her phone lit up with a news alert. Judge Allison D. Burroughs had ruled in Harvard’s favor. Ho said the news immediately brought back memories of her time on the stand and her work last year to defend affirmative action alongside other undergraduates and alumni.

“Within the next 10 minutes I got a bunch of texts from different people asking for it to be confirmed or not confirmed,” she said. “We kind of had hopes or expectations that the decision would come out in September, October, but obviously you live day to day.”

Burroughs’s ruling affirmed Harvard’s argument that race-conscious admissions policies are necessary to admit a diverse class. When anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions sued Harvard in 2014, they alleged that the College’s holistic admissions process discriminates against Asian American applicants.

“Removing considerations of race and ethnicity from Harvard’s admissions process entirely would deprive applicants, including Asian American applicants, of their right to

SEE ROADMAP PAGE 5

SEE REACTIONS PAGE 3

SEE RULING PAGE 7

MARGOT E. SHANG—CRIMSON DESIGNER

Harvard to Face Lengthy Admission Case May Offer Appeals Process, Experts Say ‘Roadmap’ For Other Schools

By CAMILLE G. CALDERA, DELANO R. FRANKLIN, and SAMUEL W. ZWICKEL CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Tuesday’s long-awaited ruling on the Harvard admissions case brings one stage of the fouryear-old lawsuit to a close — but the case is not expected to end anytime soon.

Edward Blum, president of plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions, vowed to appeal the decision in his statement following Judge Allison D. Burroughs’s ruling, a move experts say is likely to tangle the case in years of further litigation.

Burroughs’s Tuesday rul-

ing upheld Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process as legal. Vinay Harpalani, a law professor at the University of New Mexico, said SFFA’s appeal will likely argue that Burroughs was incorrect in her decision.

“The next step for SFFA, the plaintiff, is going to be to appeal,” Harpalani said. “Harvard is, of course, going to respond.”

Blum said in a press release that SFFA plans to take the case as far as they need to in an attempt to get a ruling in their favor.

“SFFA will appeal this decision to the First Court of

SEE APPEAL PAGE 5

By CAMILLE G. CALDERA, DELANO R. FRANKLIN, and SAMUEL W. ZWICKEL CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Tuesday’s ruling upholding the legality of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process could foreshadow decisions in other cases challenging affirmative action programs at colleges and universities across the country, according to legal experts.

Harvard is not the only university currently facing a challenge to its admissions policies.

The plaintiff in Harvard’s case — anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions is also the plaintiff in a pending

FAS Warned of Financial Peril

By JONAH S. BERGER and MOLLY C. MCCAFFERTY CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Professors and administrators walk into University Hall ahead of their monthly faculty meeting Tuesday.

KATHRYN S. KUHAR—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Sen. Grassley Makes Sullivan Inquiry

By SHERA S. AVI-YONAH and DELANO R. FRANKLIN CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

United States Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to University President Lawrence S. Bacow last week requesting that he explain the College’s decision not to renew former Winthrop Faculty Dean Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr. Grassley asked Bacow to provide responses to a series of questions about how administrators decided to remove Sullivan, and about the state of academic freedom at the University more broadly. Grassley asked Harvard to send its reply to the INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Harvard Today 2

Senate Finance Committee before Oct. 25.

“To be clear, it is generally Harvard College’s business as to what faculty members it employs and how it employs them,” Grassley wrote. “But this episode raises significant concerns that have implications for the state of tax-exempt higher education in the United States and how it is preparing the next generation of our Nation’s leaders.”

The College’s decision not to renew Sullivan followed a months-long controversy over his decision to represent Hollywood producer Harvey

SEE SULLIVAN PAGE 7

News 3

Editorial 6

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences expects its financial woes to “deepen” as the University braces for an impending recession, Dean of Administration and Finance Leslie A. Kirwan ’79 told the Faculty at its monthly meeting Tuesday.

In a presentation of the FAS Dean’s annual report on the school’s finances and hiring, Kirwan warned the faculty of “ominous financial signs on the horizon,” including uncertain federal research funding and

the endowment tax that took effect this year.

“Our challenges will continue and are expected to deepen in the near future,” she said.

Despite raking in a $13.6 million surplus this year, FAS continues to operate on “infinitesimal” margins, Kirwan said.

She said the surplus is relatively small compared to FAS’s budget of approximately $1.5 billion, and the school is restricted in its ability to spend its budget. Without an internal debt restructuring agreement FAS reached with the University in

SEE FACULTY PAGE 5

SEE PAGE 4

CNN Political Commentator Alice Stewart (left) and CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta (right) discussed journalism in the age of Trump at the IOP Tuesday evening. KAI R. MCNAMEE—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Sports 8

TODAY’S FORECAST

RAINY High: 75 Low: 47

Harvard Weighs In On New Tax

By ALEXANDRA A. CHAIDEZ and CINDY H. ZHANG CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Harvard and more than 30 other colleges and universities jointly submitted their formal opposition to the United States Treasury’s proposed rules for levying a tax on some universities’ endowments that was originally passed into law in December 2017.

The comments — addressed to U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin — detailed issues the schools have with the guidance surrounding filing the endowment tax. In a letter accompanying the 32page comments document, the signatories warn that the tax will hinder their ability to “promote excellence” in academics and award financial aid.

“We remain opposed to this damaging and unprecedented tax that will not only reduce resources available to colleges and universities to promote excellence in teaching and to sustain innovative research, but also to increase access for low and moderate-income families through financial aid,” the letter read.

The proposed endowment tax rules — released more than a year after its passage — specify that universities with at least 500 tuition-paying students and total assets of at least $500,000 per student are

SEE TAX PAGE 7

VISIT THECRIMSON.COM. FOLLOW @THECRIMSON ON TWITTER.

duh

THE HARVARD CRIMSON |

October 2, 2019

Page 2

Harvard Today

For Lunch Grilled Reuben Sandwich Red Spiced Chicken Spicy Jalapeno and Jack Mac

For Dinner Seitan Pepper Sizzle Red’s Best Fresh Catch Grilled BBQ Pork Chops

Today’s Events A Celebration of 50 Years of Sesame Street Sanders Theater, 4:30 - 6 p.m.

in The Real World Johnson & Johnson Reaches Settlement in Ohio Opioid Case

Learn about how the Graduate School of Education has played a part in the evolution of Sesame Street over the years! Also, learn why the event notes that this event is not for children in two separate places. The show will take place at Sanders Theater and tickets are free with HUID; just don’t count on there being any left right before 4:30.

Lunchtime Organ Recital: David von Behren Memorial Church, 12:15 - 12:45 p.m.

If you want to feel more cultured today, head over to Memorial Church on your lunch break! David von Behren will be performing 30 minutes of organ music on the church’s Fisk and Skinner organs. At best, you’ll get an interesting, relaxing lunch break, and at worst, you’ll have a great conversation topic to bring up at dinner.

Two Ohio counties reached a $20.4 million settlement over responsibility for the opioid epidemic with healthcare company Johnson & Johnson — partly in cash, partly as legal reimbursement, and partly to nonprofits for opioid-related programs. The settlement terms include no admission of liability; six other defendants remain in the case.

Trump Administration and Congress Clash Over Deposition in Impeachment Investigation

The Harvard Athletics complex gate on sunny Tuesday afternoon. Kathryn S. Kuhar—Crimson photographer

Daily Briefing A federal judge ruled Tuesday in favor of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies after nearly five years of litigation on the case. Harvard prevailed over anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions, which filed the case in 2014 alleging that the University’s policies unfairly discriminate against Asian American applicants. SFFA President Edward Blum immediately announced that the group plans to appeal the ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Crimson breaks down the decision, appeals process, and what this ruling means for other institutions of higher education embroiled in their own affirmative action lawsuits.

United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized House committees that have sought confidential interviews with diplomats relevant to the impeachment investigation, calling this “an act of intimidation.” In response, those committees took Pompeo to task for questioning them.

Harry and Meghan Sue Tabloid Over Letter Allegations

British tabloids’ coverage of the Duchess of Sussex came to a head after the Mail on Sunday published a letter that Harry and Meghan allege was illegally obtained. In a lengthy statement, Harry announced the couple’s intent to sue the Mail in response.

Around the Ivies Penn University of Pennsylvania junior Brandon Nguyen traveled to New York City last month to represent his home country of Canada at the United Nations Youth Climate Summit, the Daily Pennsylvanian reported Tuesday. Nguyen, who has previously been recognized as a top young environmental leader, was among 100 college students chosen to attend the event representing 100 different countries around theworld. As a high school student, Nguyen founded the Toronto Coalition of Ecoschools and drafted an educational program to teach students about environmental policy issues.

Yale

Yale posted 5.7 percent returns on its endowment for the more recent fiscal year, according to the Yale Daily News. Its endowment reached $30.3 billion, breaking $30 billion for the first time. Yale’s returns fall below its average of 11.4 percent over the past 20 years and also below the returns of its peer schools such as Harvard and Dartmouth, which posted returns of 6.5 percent and 7.5 percent respectively for the 2019 fiscal year. For the next fiscal year, Yale plans to spend roughly a third of its net endowment revenues — its largest source of income — on operational costs.

Dartmouth

Dartmouth’s Sexual Violence Prevention Project unveiled a new sexual assault prevention program after the student group Movement Against Violence announced that SVPP would absorb its programming, the Dartmouth reported.

While students largely researched and wrote the curriculum for MAV, staff members at the college will develop the curriculum for SVPP. The SVPP program takes place throughout students’ four years at college and includes peer-to-peer facilitated discussions, as well as programming targeted at freshmen and members of Greek life organizations.

THE UNIVERSITY DAILY, EST. 1873

The Harvard Crimson Kristine E. Guillaume President Angela N. Fu Managing Editor Charlie B. Zhu Business Manager

Staff for This Issue

Associate Managing Editor Jamie D. Halper ’20

Arts Chairs Kaylee S. Kim ’20 Caroline A. Tsai ’20

Design Chairs Elena M. Ramos ’20 Akhil S. Waghmare ’20

Associate Business Manager Amy E. Zhou ’20

FM Chairs Norah M. Murphy ’20 Abigail L. Simon ’20

Multimedia Chairs Kathryn S. Kuhar ’20 Kai R. McNamee ’21

Editorial Chairs Jessenia N. Class ’20 Robert Miranda ’20

Blog Chairs Lorenzo F. Manuali ’21 Trula J. Rael ’21

Technology Chairs Nenya A. Edjah ’20 Theodore T. Liu ’20

Sports Chairs Joseph W. Minatel ’21 Henry Zhu ’20

Copyright 2019, The Harvard Crimson (USPS 236-560). No articles, editorials, cartoons or any part thereof appearing in The Crimson may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the President. The Associated Press holds the right to reprint any materials published in The Crimson. The Crimson is a non-profit, independent corporation, founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1967. Second-class postage paid in Boston, Massachusetts. Published Monday through Friday except holidays and during vacations, three times weekly during reading and exam periods by The Harvard Crimson Inc., 14 Plympton St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138 Weather icons made by Freepik, Yannick, Situ Herrera, OCHA, SimpleIcon, Catalin Fertu from flaticon.com is licensed by CC BY 3.0.

Night Editor Luke W. Xu ’20

Design Editor Margot E. Shang ’21

Assistant Night Editors Kevin R. Chen ’22 Aidan F. Ryan ’21

Photo Editors Kathryn S. Kuhar ’20 Kai R. McNamee ’21

Story Editors Angela N. Fu ’20 Jamie D. Halper ’20 Jordan E. Virtue ’20 Michael E. Xie ’20 Luke W. Xu ’20 Andrew J. Zucker ’20

Editorial Editor Anna M. Kuritzkes ’20 Sports Editor David Manikas ’22

Corrections The Harvard Crimson is committed to accuracy in its reporting. Factual errors are corrected promptly on this page. Readers with information about errors are asked to e-mail the managing editor at managingeditor@thecrimson.com.

Page 3

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | October 2, 2019

Students Discuss Social Media in Admissions

By Camille G. Caldera Crimson Staff Writer

Diversity Peer Educators — students who work for the Office of Diversity Education and Support — discussed whether social media should be part of Harvard’s holistic review of applicants at an event Monday evening.

The conversation functioned as an opportunity for students to reflect on their own use of social media, how they handled it during the application process, and debate what behavior merits having an offer of admission rescinded.

“We knew that a lot of students — especially students of color and students from marginalized backgrounds — had a lot of thoughts about the Kyle Kashuv rescindment case,” said Sydney A. Lewis ’22, one of the DPEs facilitating the discussion.

Over the summer, the College rescinded an offer of admission to conservative gun rights activist and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor Kyle Kashuv after former classmates posted screenshots of his use of racist and anti-semetic slurs in private messages.

“We always aim to hold space for topics that are relevant, that have a pulse on campus and that people are talking about,” Lewis said. “That’s what our office is for — it’s to be responsive to student needs.”

Kaya R. Bos ’20, the other student-facilitator, said that ­

students picked the topic from a list of 30 potential themes.

“This was something we all wanted to talk about,” Bos said.

At the event, students discussed how applicant’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech differ from those of students who have matriculated at the College, and how such rights apply to private communications, like texts, as opposed to posts on social media.

They also reflected on how each of them had agreed to “abide by Harvard College’s conditions for acceptance” when they accepted their offers

We always aim to hold space for topics that are relevant, that have a pulse on campus and that people are talking about.

Sydney A. Lewis ’22 Diversity Peer Educator

of admission.

Specifically, the College “reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission,” including when applicants have “engaged in behavior that brings into questio your honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

“There was a pretty healthy balance of agreement and disagreement,” Lewis said. “I think that a lot of ideas did receive support, and people were

able to share their feelings and get some affirmative responses and other responses that challenged their ways of thinking.”

Event organizers passed out a fact sheet listing “several cases” in which “Harvard has rescinded applications,” though the College has not confirmed any of these cases. It is against College policy to comment on the status of individual applicants, according to College spokesperson Rachael Dane.

The sheet included a student admitted in 1995 who ommitted from her application the fact that she had been charged with the murder of her mother; a student admitted in 2003 who was accused of plagiarism; at least 10 students admitted in 2017 who exchanged explicit memes in a private Facebook chat; and Kashuv’s case in 2019.

Roughly 15 students attended the discussion. Lewis called the turnout “really good.”

“It was way larger than our normal dialogues, and it was really great to see a lot of first years come out,” Lewis said.

“You could just tell that it’s a topic that a lot of first years are thinking about, because they just got accepted and it’s on their minds, and Kyle wouldn’t have been in their class, but he’d be in the same cohort.”

The discussion was the first of four Diversity Dialogues to be held by DPEs in fall 2019. The next will focus on the issues of environmental justice and divestment. camille.caldera@thecrimson.com

Harvard, from the Law School to Longwood.

The Crimson thecrimson.com

Athletics Dept., Health Services Receive Donation

The Harvard Athletics Department’s “Crimson Mind and Body Performance Program” received a donation to expand its ability to offer mental health services to Harvard athletes. Kathryn S. kuhar—Crimson photographer

By Michelle G. Kurilla and Devin B. Srivastava Crimson Staff Writers

Over the summer, the Harvard Athletics Department and Harvard University Health Services received an anonymous donation to provide additional mental health services for student-athletes.

The gift comes one year after the launch of the Crimson Mind and Body Performance Program. Specifically tailored to College students on varsity sports teams, the Crimson Mind and Body Performance Program offers mental health screenings, education, and care through workshops designed for student-athletes and their coaches. The program started in response to survey data collected by HUHS from several varsity seasons, according to a press release.

HUHS Director Paul J. Barreira said in a summer press release that he was grateful to the anonymous donors for funding the continued growth of the mental health program.

“By providing this gift, the donors are recognizing in a public way the need to support these kinds of initiatives, not only for student athletes but all college students,” Barreira said.

Prior to the gift, the Crimson Mind and Body Performance Program held student-athlete discussion workshops every 3-4 weeks, along with coaches workshops to promote communication between Counseling and Mental Health Services and the Harvard Athletics Department. Let’s Talk — a University-wide program that provides informal, confidential 15-minute conversations with CAMHS clinicians — offers services

at Blodgett Pool, in the center of the athletics complex. Crimson Mind and Body has also designated two licensed clinicians specifically for student-athletes; beginning this year, both clinicians will now focus exclusively on student-athlete mental health services.

By providing this gift, the donors are recognizing in a public way the need to support these kinds of initiatives.

Paul J. Barreira HUHS Director

Michael J. Zarian ’21, cochair of the Student Wellness Committee on the Student Athlete Advisory Council, said the impact of having full-time clinicians for SAAC and student-athletes as a whole was measurable.

“To see that we have two clinicians that are dedicated just to the athletics program is really reassuring for a lot of athletes,” Zarian said.

Licensed independent clinical social worker Melissa Nauman said her goal for this year was to expand on last year’s resources by increasing workshops for teams and coaches while also creating more availability for individual counseling sessions.

“It’s really been an expansion of doing more of what we did last year,” Nauman said.

Licensed mental health counselor Darryl Lemus said anonymous surveys guide the program on how effectively

it has reached Harvard’s student-athlete population and how to best supplement mental health support given by coaches.

Associate Director of Athletics for Student-Athletic Health and Performance Brant Berkstresser wrote in an emailed statement that the Athletics Department is collecting metrics on the utilization of the program’s services – including the number of student-athletes attending workshops, the number of individual student-athlete appointments, coaches’ utilization of drop-in hours, and overall student-athlete mental health statistics.

“These metrics will help drive the programing and direction of the program moving forward,” Berktresser wrote.

Additionally, student athletes on the SAAC have input into topics that Nauman and Lemus address, according to SAAC Co-President Madison Earle ’20.

“Some [topics] include freshman transition, struggling with an injury, or how to transition into not playing a sport any more after your senior year,” Earle said.

Earle added that the program aims to both support student athletes from a mental health perspective while also forging new relationships across teams.

“That’s probably the ultimate goal — to create a program that not only highlights that mental health and well being is important but also creates a community within athletics that allows positive relationships,” she said. michelle.kurilla@thecrimson.com devin.srivastava@thecrimson.com

Reactions From Page 1

Students and Faculty Celebrate Admissions Suit Decision advocate the value of their unique background, heritage, and perspective and would likely also deprive Harvard of exceptional students who would be less likely to be admitted without a comprehensive understanding of their background,” Burroughs wrote.

The lawsuit — and its threeweek trial last fall — galvanized Harvard’s campus. Student groups and administrators held workshops, circulated emails, and spoke out in favor of diversity. A group of undergraduates trekked to the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse to watch their peers testify, donning t-shirts that read “#DefendDiversity.”

Though Burroughs has deemed Harvard’s admissions policies constitutional, the case is far from over — SFFA President Edward Blum announced almost immediately that the organization will appeal her decision.

Still, Harvard administrators welcomed Burroughs’s verdict. In a faculty meeting Tuesday afternoon, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Claudine Gay announced the decision to thunderous applause.

“It is a victory for the diversity … that, I think, contributes significantly to our excellence,” Gay said. “If it was a cloudy day to start, hopefully it’s ending with a few more bits of sun.”

Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana, who took to the stand during the trial’s second week,

wrote in an email to The Crimson that he is “profoundly grateful” for the decision.

“Each day I am privileged to witness the education of our students through exposure to novel ideas and interactions with people whose backgrounds, points of view, and life experiences are profoundly different from their own,” he wrote. “A Harvard education extends far beyond our classrooms and lecture halls to our dining halls, residences, and the many formal and informal opportunities for our students to learn from each other.”

It is a victory for the diversity ... that, I think, contributes significantly to our excellence.

Claudine Gay Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Students and alumni — including Ho and the other student witnesses — said the decision is a welcome capstone to more than a year of activism on their part. They said they saw the decision not as a sign that Harvard’s admissions processes are perfect, but rather that affirmative action has a strong legal basis.

Several months before the trial began in October 2018, 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations signed an amicus

brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund supporting Harvard. In the week before the lawsuit went to trial, various student groups hosted a series of panels and teach-ins, as well as a rally in Harvard Square defending affirmative action.

The NAACP LDF also helped Ho and the other four student witnesses prepare for their day on the stand.

Student witnesses Thang Q. Diep ’19 and Madison A. Trice ’21 both said that — like Ho — the decision caught them by surprise. Trice said she got an email from the LDF about the verdict during a Harvard Divinity School lecture and immediately called her mother.

Diep heard about the decision via text messages from friends while he was in a meeting with the Boston Public Schools’ superintendent.

“I was so happy. Holistic admissions has been something that has been on my heart for a really long time, honestly, since I was a little girl,” Trice said. “I always dreamed of the place I would get to study and dreamed about college. I would talk to my parents a lot and I think I came to the conclusion at a very early age that without holistic admissions, that wouldn’t happen.”

In Burroughs’s decision, she referenced the alumni and student testimonies multiple times.

She wrote that their testimonies showed how race played a critical role in their experiences

before and during their time at Harvard.

Jeannie Park ’83, president of the Harvard Asian American Alumni Alliance and Coalition for a Diverse Harvard co-founder and board member, said she found Burroughs’s use of the alumni and student testimonies to be the most “gratifying” part of the verdict.

I think that all of those efforts reflect what happened in the decision today.

Michael G. Williams ’81 Co-Founder of Coalition for a Diverse Harvard

“She really heard what the alumni and students said in terms of how inextricable race is from their lives, from their lived experiences, from their education, and from presenting themselves in the application process,” Park said.

Michael G. Williams ’81, a Coalition for a Diverse Harvard co-founder and board member, praised both Burroughs’s decision and coalition-building among diverse student and alumni groups.

“All these different organizations with different experiences, different backgrounds, different commitments, different ideas were able to come together in support of diversity and race conscious admissions,”

Williams said. “I think that all of those efforts reflect what happened in the decision today.”

In statements and interviews, leaders of several student organizations that signed on to the NAACP brief said they would continue pro-affirmative action activism.

Black Students Association President Aba A. Sam ’21 said her organization will continue to be “active and engaged.”

She added that the trial caused her and BSA members to reflect upon personal experiences and their commitment to diversity.

“Thinking about admissions inadvertently kind of brings your own admission to the forefront of your mind, at least for me,” she said. “I think that it’s been a very reflective year in that sense. When you get into talking about what value does a student bring, how do you measure value, that kind of thing, it’s sort of a really meta conversation.”

“I think it sort of reminded us about exactly why we love diversity on campus,” Sam added.

Not all students reacted to Burroughs’s ruling happily, though. Kelley A. Babphavong ’20 — who spoke at an SFFA rally the weekend before the trial — said that while she is not surprised by the ruling, she hopes the verdict changes upon appeal.

“I really hope the case is appealed, and I want this to make its way all the way to the Supreme Court,” she said. “I do not believe in affirmative action in

the way it currently stands today.”

Former Asian American Association Co-President Jonathan T. Paek ’20 said that many of the student activists involved in last year’s trial will graduate before the appeal begins in earnest.

He added that he believes a future trial will see similar levels of undergraduate engagement.

Thinking about admissions inadvertently kind of brings your own admission to the forefront of your mind.

Aba A. Sam ’21 Black Students Association President

“I have the utmost faith in the next generation of Harvard’s leaders to take on that mantle and really do a good job,” he said.

Trice agreed, adding that she expects to do more work to defend affirmative action in the future.

“Today is a day of celebrating. Then tomorrow, I’ll be back to try to think about ways to push forward,” she said. shera.avi-yonah@thecrimson.com amanda.su@thecrimson.com

THE HARVARD CRIMSON |

october 2, 2019

Page 4

CNN Correspondent Jim Annual Security Report Acosta Speaks at IOP Shows Less Campus Crime By ruoqi zhang Crimson Staff Writer

Jim Acosta – CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent – discussed the United States House of Representatives impeachment inquiry and the contemporary media environment Tuesday evening at the Institute of Politics.

IOP Resident Fellow Alice Stewart, a CNN Political Commentator, moderated the conversation.

She initiated the discussion with a question about the future of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, which was first announced by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi last week.

The announcement came after the Washington Post reported that a whistleblower was concerned about Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Acosta said whistleblower complained “merits serious consideration” and that the current House inquiry is a serious historical moment for the United States, posing significant difficulties to the Trump adminis­

tration.

“He’s up against some very difficult circumstances at the moment,” Acosta said, citing widening popular support for removing Trump from office.

“Back in May, only 41 percent of Americans are in favor of impeaching and removing the president the office. We had a poll out on CNN last night that said that it had shifted to 47 percent.”

Acosta continued the coversation, recounting his career as a political correspondent and presented his view of the current American political atmosphere.

He said Trump’s escalating “enemy of the people” rhetoric on media is dangerous due to the enormous media influence he wields.

“After he finishes calling the press ‘the enemy of the people,’ which segment of American society comes after that,” Acosta asked. “Is it academia? Law enforcement?”

“There are limits to what a society can withstand in terms of absorbing the rhetoric,” he added.

Trump’s rhetoric also often

distracts from his policy agenda, Acosta said.

Acosta specifically referred to controversial comments Trump made in a press conference after an August 2017 white supremicist rally in Charlottesville, Va. In the press conference, Trump said that there were “very fine people on both sides” in reference to counter-protestors and white supremacists.

His comment — which sparked public backlash — led to back and forth between the press and Trump on the remark in a press conference originally planned to outline the administration’s infrastructure policy, according to Acosta.

“At times, he is his own worst enemy. He steps on his message all the time,” Acosta said.

Chase J. Souder ’23, who attended the talk, said Acosta’s account of how the term “fake news” impacted CNN reporters “on a day to day basis” was a memorable moment for him.

“It’s definitely interesting just to hear from his perspective,” Souder said. ruoqi.zhang@thecrimson.com

By Declan j. knieriem Crimson Staff Writer

Harvard University saw a decrease in the overall number of reported campus crimes in 2018, according to the Harvard University Police Department’s annual security report released on Tuesday. The total number of on-campus crimes numbered 163, down from 194 in 2017. The report indicated there were 43 reported on-campus burglaries in 2018, down from 48 burglaries in 2017. This also represents a consistent drop in on-campus burglaries, down from 70 in the 2016 report. The report also tracked incidences of sexual assault on campus. There were 30 reported on-campus rapes in 2018, a decrease from the 2017 report, which reported 35 rape cases.

Reported cases of on-campus dating violence numbered 5, down from 26 in 2016 and 9 in 2017. According to the report, there were two on-campus arrests in the past year, while there were none the previous year. In addition, there were 51 instances of on-campus disciplinary action, down slight­

ly from the 56 in 2017, though still nearly double the 33 cases in 2016. HUPD spokesperson Steven G. Catalano announced the report’s release — along with the University’s annual fire safety report — in an email to University affiliates Oct. 1.

The repor contains directions for reporting crimes; accessing crime prevention programs and substance abuse initiatives; and statisctics, among other things, Catalano wrote. The report is mandated by the federal Clery Act. The report also includes details about the University’s crime policies, which outline the definitions for hate crimes, harassment, drug and alcohol offenses, and missing persons.

In addition, the report provides three years worth of crime statistics on Harvard’s campuses.

Harvard Police Chief Francis D. “Bud” Riley wrote in the report that HUPD is working to eliminate the “distraction of criminal activity and disorder” from Harvard’s campuses.

“Although reported crime at Harvard is low (and about 93 percent of it is property crime), it is important for students, faculty, staff, and visitors to re-

The latest on music, film, theater, and culture.

That’s artsy.

The Crimson

thecrimson.com/arts

member that we are located in an urban setting and must contend with may of the crime and safety issues that exist in any city,” he wrote.

Similar to the past two years, reported crime in Harvard’s Longwood and Cambridge campuses shows a drastic disparity. While the Longwood Medical Area campus in Boston only saw 2 on-campus criminal offenses in 2018, the Cambridge campus saw 123. The University Environmental Health and Safety Department publishes the annual fire safety report, which was released alongside the HUPD report. This report includes University fire safety policies, evacuation procedures, and fire statistics.

The report indicated a total of 4 on-campus fires in 2018, one of which occurred in freshman dorm Weld Hall, causing minor damage. The other three — one of which caused upwards of $25,000 in damage, according to the report — occurred in Harvard University Housing, which houses mostly graduate students and researchers. declan.knieriem@thecrimson.com

PAGE 5

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | OCTOBER 2, 2019

DSO Outlines Sanctions Discipline

By SANJANA L. NARAYANAN and SAMUEL W. ZWICKEL CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

The Dean of Students Office will discipline extracurricular groups whose leaders or board members are members of unrecognized single-gender social groups, according to the 20192020 policy guidelines provided to student organizations.

“Student Organizations who are found to have elected a member of a USGSO to a leadership position will be put through the Student Organization Discipline process and that student will be removed from the leadership position,” the 2019-2020 Recognized Student Organization Resource and Policy Guide reads.

The College’s social-group sanctions — which took effect with the Class of 2021 — prohibit members of unrecognized single-gender final clubs and Greek organizations from leading campus organizations, holding athletic captaincies, and receiving College endorsement for prestigious fellowships like the Rhodes.

When the policy’s implementation was first announced in March 2018, College administrators said the Administrative Board would adjudicate penalties for individual stu­

dents found in violation of the policy.

This is the first time, however, that the College has formally documented a disciplinary process for student organizations whose members do not comply with the sanctions. Harvard debuted the Student Organization Discipline process in last year’s iteration of the resource guide.

Possible outcomes of this four-step review include loss of access to University facilities and Undergraduate Council funding.

The 2018-2019 resource guide did not address the social group policy in its discussion of the new disciplinary procedure.

“This is just another moment where we’re trying to clarify what happens in the process, but we’ve always said that leadership positions and all those things would kind of go through our student org discipline process,” Associate Dean of Student Engagement Alex R. Miller said in an interview Tuesday.

Miller said the DSO provides advising and training to student organizations about all the College’s policies, rather than isolating the sanctions policy as a separate case.

“We don’t give instructions to student organizations, but we do give them guidance on policy,” Miller said. “And so we have

done that in several moments, whether it be our student or leadership training.

We’ve done it in the actual resource guide, and we also make student organizations certify that they are aware of all policies, not just this one, when they register as a student organization.”

Dean of Students Katherine G. O’Dair said she trusts College students to hold themselves accountable to the policies.

“We place a great deal of trust in our students in our student leadership. We don’t consider it students’ responsibility to enforce University policy,” O’Dair said Tuesday. “That said, students should know that our doors are open if they want to bring concerns to us about any number of policies.”

Miller also said there is no formal process in place for reporting violations of the sanctions policy by student group leaders.

The person launching the complaint cannot be anonymous but can be any member of the Harvard community.

“It can be email, it can be a phone call, it would have to be someone coming forward to communicate with our office, whether verbally or in writing, but there is no form,” Miller said.

After the initial report, Miller said that the College would meet with the student in question and “find out more information.”

“We don’t assume anything,” he added.

Miller and O’Dair said they believe the sanctions have propelled a positive “culture shift” on campus.

“I think I’m excited that we have 13 gender-neutral social organizations on campus,” Miller said. “That wasn’t the case, you know, two years ago.”

“I think it’s changing the way students socialize on campus,” he added. “I think now when you ask around what is social life like and how are students engaging, and you hear more like ‘Oh, I’m going to a House event’ or, ‘Oh, I’m going to a CEB event.’ I think that’s what I’m calling a cultural shift.”

The handbook’s new statement on disciplinary action arrives amidst a pair of ongoing state and federal lawsuits claiming that the sanctions infringe upon students’ freedom of association and illegally discriminate on the basis of sex.

A judge ruled in August that the federal suit will move forward. sanjana.narayanan@thecrimson.com samue;.zwickel@thecrimson.com

FACULTY FROM PAGE 1

FAS Expects Future Financial Issues 2017, it would likely be running a deficit, Kirwan added.

Before 2018, FAS ran deficits for at least four consecutive years. The school also faced trouble during the 2008 recession, which stalled House Renewal, froze faculty hiring, and decreased the number of graduate students admitted annually.

Even after more than a decade of constrained revenues in the wake of the recession, FAS still has limited “flexibility” to address the financial challenges on the horizon, Kirwan said.

She noted that FAS is not growing its administrative portfolio staff, though it is growing its research staff.

Kirwan praised FAS’s “fiscal discipline,” saying that despite growing depreciation of its assets, it has attained the “elusive goal” of a balanced budget. She also highlighted the continued growth of the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative — which for the first time this year topped $200 million — as a financial bright spot.

The faculty also discussed climate change — and possible responses that the University could take to address the ­

crisis — at Tuesday’s meeting.

Though University President Lawrence S. Bacow did not attend the meeting, his perspective on the University’s endowment loomed large in the discussion.

Several faculty members demanded more decisive action from the University, including divesting its endowment from fossil fuel-related companies.

More than 350 faculty members have already signed a petition calling on Harvard to divest from fossil fuels.

Philosophy professor Edward J. Hall called on the University to demonstrate “true leadership” among its peer institutions and the broader public in an address that garnered thunderous applause from the hundreds of faculty who filled seats and lined the walls in University Hall.

“The FAS faculty has never as a group discussed the nature of this crisis and how we might address it,” he said. “It is imperative that we do so.”

Hall and six other professors have previously asked Bacow to hold a forum on fossil fuel divestment. Bacow agreed in

April to discuss the issue with faculty and will do so at the November faculty meeting.

University spokesperson Jonathan L. Swain declined to comment on the faculty’s remarks. Bacow has previously stated that while the University must play a role in addressing climate change, he does not believe divestment is the correct mechanism to do so. He has instead said that Harvard must engage with fossil fuel companies and invest in climate research.

Delivering a statement on behalf of History of Science professor Naomi Oreskes, History professor Joyce E. Chaplin argued that fossil fuel companies engage in “systemic doubt-mongering,” and that furthering climate research cannot sufficiently combat such misinformation.

“When the fossil fuel industry undermines public confidence in scientific evidence, then it no longer matters how much evidence we produce, or how persuasive we, as scholars, find that evidence to be,” Chaplin said.

English professor James

Engell called for an even more comprehensive approach to confronting climate change, suggesting that in addition to divestment, the University might consider limiting travel to academic conferences. In addition, Engell asked Harvard leaders to press for improved Boston metropolitan area public transit so that fewer faculty have to drive to work; create a mandatory educational module similar to the College’s online Title IX training; and consider every possible avenue to reduce the University’s carbon footprint.

“These seem to be incandescent bulbs,” Engell added, glancing up at the crystal chandelier above him. “Let us look everywhere. All hands on deck.”

Classics professor Richard F. Thomas urged faculty members to return for November’s meeting, when they will be able to confront Bacow directly on the issue of divestment.

“This is the year in which we hope to get real results,” Thomas said. jonah.berger@thecrimson.com molly.mccafferty@thecrimson.com

APPEAL FROM PAGE 1

Lawsuit Appeal Will Be Lengthy Appeals and, if necessary, to the U.S Supreme Court,” Blum said in the press release.

Tuesday’s ruling found that Harvard does not illegally discriminate against applicants on the basis of race. That finding rejects anti-affirmative action group SFFA’s allegations that Harvard systematically discriminates against Asian Americans in its admissions process.

SFFA first filed suit against the University in November 2014, and the case went to trial in October 2018. It featured three weeks of testimony from students, administrators, expert witnesses, and others. Burroughs took almost a year before issuing her ruling, which was expected earlier this summer.

Lawyer and legal analyst Jeffrey R. Toobin ’82 said a panel of First Circuit Court judges would hear the appeal. Whichever side the panel rules against would then have the option to pursue a further appeal. That appellate process may include a hearing before the entire First Circuit bench or move directly to the Supreme Court.

“It’ll take months for the First Circuit to get and resolve this case, so there’s nothing imminent, but this decision is really the overture, not the finale,” Toobin said.

The appellate judges will be largely limited to contesting Burroughs’s legal reasoning rather than her findings of fact, according to Peter McDonough, the general counsel of the American Council on Education. The facts of the case are typically frozen at the trial phase.

Some experts said Burroughs’s opinion in the case — a 130-page ruling — is particularly comprehensive, making the decision less likely to be overturned by the circuit court.

Oren M. Sellstrom, a member of Lawyers for Civil Rights, a group that backed Harvard in the case, said he believes the appeals court is likely to defer to Burroughs.

“It’s a very meticulous opinion that combs through the factual record in great detail,” Sellstrom said. “The appeals courts give deference to factual findings made by district court judges, so the fact that Judge Burroughs held a full trial and produced an opinion that meticulously goes through the record will make that very difficult to overturn on appeal.”

Richard D. Kahlenberg ’81, an expert witness for SFFA on race-neutral alternatives to

achieve diversity, however, said that the appeals court may interpret the facts differently.

Kahlenberg argued during the case that there are race-neutral means of achieving diversity in admissions, including socioeconomic affirmative action.

“Judge Burroughs did include some of the information about the socioeconomic affirmative action simulations, that I think an appeal will be quite interesting to higher court judges,” Khalenberg said in a Tuesday interview. “There are findings of fact in the case that I think will be — that could be — viewed differently by different judges.”

SFFA’s promise to appeal also ensures the case will carry on for several more years.

The appellate process for the nearly five-year-old lawsuit may last years as both sides file additional materials and arguments.

Mishell B. Kneeland — a lawyer on behalf of defendant University of Texas at Austin in the landmark Fisher II case, on which Burroughs staked her decision — said the case could spend as much time in the First Circuit Court as it did in district court.

“I would say at least five years — four to five years,” Kneeland said. “By the time it gets out of the First Circuit, that’s four years before it’s being briefed to the Supreme Court, which is long. The wheels of justice do not turn quickly, unfortunately.”

Peter F. Lake ’81, a professor of higher education law at Stetson University, had a somewhat shorter estimate for the duration of the appeal length in the First Circuit Court — 18 months to two years — to make it through briefings, arguments, and a ruling.

Whichever side loses the appeal in the First Circuit Court can petition the case to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, though, the justices have discretion over whether or not they will hear the case.

Toobin said taking the case to the Supreme Court would fulfill what he believes is SFFA’s ultimate goal.

“The agenda here always has been to get this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where five conservatives can outlaw the use of race under any circumstances in university admissions,” Toobin said. camille.caldera@thecrimson.com delano.franklin@thecrimson.com samuel.zwickel@thecrimson.com

ROADMAP FROM PAGE 1

Harvard Ruling May Guide Other Cases seal some documents.

Kimberly West-Faulcon, a professor at Loyola Law School, said in an interview that though the Harvard lawsuit might provide a framework for other plaintiffs, defendants, and judges, idiosyncrasies of individual institutions’ race-conscious admissions policies make it difficult to predict whether other academic institutions will succeed in defending their procedures against allegations of discrimination.

“In some ways, it probably gives the court and the litigants in the UNC case a bit of a roadmap because there are similarities in their policies,” West-Faulcon said. “But, there will also be some variation in how they approach it because of the demographics that are ­

going to differ between those two universities, and how much SFFA is making the UNC case a case about the negative implication that considering race has on white applicants.”

In May, SFFA also re-filed a complaint against the University of Texas, Austin that contained essentially the same arguments as a lawsuit dismissed in 2017. There, SFFA alleges the school’s admissions process violates the Texas Constitution.

The group also created a website to recruit student members who believe they were rejected by the University of Wisconsin, Madison as a result of their race.

SFFA is not alone in fighting against race-conscious admissions in higher education.

Richard H. Sander — a law pro-

fessor at the University of California, Los Angeles who argues affirmative action negatively impacts minority students’ academic outcomes — is suing the University of California system for admissions data about race.

Sander said in a statement when he filed the suit that though the system appeared to adhere to the state’s race-neutral admissions requirement for several years, he was concerned that this was not the case after 2007.

Peter J. McDonough, general counsel at the American Council on Education, said in an interview that the Harvard decision may assuage other colleges’ and universities’ fears about using race-conscious admissions.

“The intensity of the win for Harvard should give comfort to

institutions that truly believe that it’s appropriate for them to consider race and ethnicity in their admissions processes,” McDonough said.

McDonough said in an interview that the specificity of the Harvard ruling also sets a standard for the quality of judgments in future affirmative action cases.

“The rigor of Judge Burroughs’s decision and the obvious intensity of analysis will tell a judge anywhere in the country that’s considering a case like this that you better be bringing your A-game to writing the decision after you’ve presided over the trial,” he said.

The latest on student life.

camille.caldera@thecrimson.com delano.franklin@thecrimson.com samuel.zwickel@thecrimson.com

The sights and sounds of Harvard.

The Crimson @crimson_photo

The Crimson @crimsonflyby

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | OCTOBER 2, 2019

PAGE 6

EDITORIAL THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

COLUMN

Unplug the Robots, UC

Sleep 1001 — Folks, Go to Sleep

L

ast week, the Undergraduate Council announced its attempt to bring autonomous food-delivery robots to Harvard’s campus, in collaboration with the robotics company Starship Technologies.

The proposal is currently awaiting Cambridge City Council approval to hit the streets.

We believe that this proposal — though whimsical in the best of the ways — is yet another example of the UC’s shortsightedness.

Whether these robots can operate successfully on Cambridge’s narrow sidewalks around hordes of tourists is already a dubious question.

But perhaps more than that question or even the one of aesthetics — both of which we leave to the capable Cambridge City Council — we here hope to look at the broader issues that the UC’s “automation revolution,” however trivial, may overlook.

In the future, we hope that the UC will put more consideration into how its proposals may affect the Cambridge community at large.

We have often reflected on the changing face of Harvard Square, lamenting the loss of affordable food and other shopping options.

Alongside the arrival of Spyce — a restaurant with robotic chefs which is coming to Harvard Square next year — these food delivery robots add to the so-

cioeconomic degeneration of the neighborhood by taking jobs from Cambridge-Boston-area workers.

On its website, Spyce notes that its organizational motivation was “being priced out of wholesome and delicious food.”

In that sense, robots here are meant to replace workers.

The delivery robots no doubt also will affect the number of delivery persons employed in the Harvard Square area.

These workers may no longer be able to eat in the area themselves, but they certainly benefit from the service jobs it sustains.

The UC should not contribute to the lessening of their employment.

On another note, these robots represent a culture on the UC of fantastical start-up-style projects that rarely come to fruition. We believe that such self-congratulatory initiatives are a waste of the UC’s time and money — money taken from the student body, their constituents, through a yearly fee.

With this in mind, we believe that the UC should not concern itself with minor issues when there are bigger issues on campus that remain unaddressed.

Not least among these pressing issues is Harvard students’ struggles with mental health and the sense of isolation that both produces it and is produced by it. With 13 dining halls on campus Harvard students do not lack convenient access to food.

What many students do lack, however, is immediate interactions with real people.

As students pass from their bedroom, to lecture hall, to the library, back to their bedroom, what they really need

is more interpersonal connection, not less. Physically going to the dining hall or to a restaurant is a great way to form connections; ordering a meal from a robot is not, no matter how cute that robot may be.

We believe that this proposal — though whimsical in the best of the ways — is yet another example of the UC’s shortsightedness.

On a related note, we would urge the UC to be cognizant of how this initiative might be disrespectful to the hard work that Harvard University Dining Services puts into creating a positive dining hall experience for all students.

In the future, we hope that the UC will put more consideration into how its proposals may affect the Cambridge community at large.

And, while we hope that the UC will continue to be an organization in which anyone can feel comfortable bringing forward unique and creative ideas, we maintain that the UC’s focus must be on the pressing issues which matter the most to Harvard’s student body.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Submit an Op-Ed Today!

The Crimson @thecrimson OP-ED

Harvard is Built on Slavery

By JULIE NGAUV

L

ast fall, I took a history seminar entitled Harvard and Slavery. My classmates and I became intimately familiar with the moments in which Harvard could have acknowledged its ties to slavery, but instead remained silent. I was reminded of these moments in light of University President Lawrence S. Bacow’s comments last week, which are part of Harvard’s legacy of racism.

For much of its history, Harvard and its peer institutions have perpetuated the idea of black people being lesser, allowing platforms for such ideas to grow.

In his book, “Ebony and Ivy,” Craig Steven Wilder describes how Harvard anatomist John Collins Warren, Class of 1797, actively taught his students that black people were inferior and used his academic position to encourage the study of scientific racism.

Despite this, history remembers Warren as a founder of Massachusetts General Hospital and the first dean of Harvard Medical School.

In his biographical portraits, Harvard librarian John Langdon Sibley explained “the frequency of slaveholding officers and alumni” by “reminding readers that owning black people was a habit of ‘most prosperous men.’”

University President Increase Mather owned an enslaved individual, and often made him run errands for the college. University President Benjamin Wadsworth “owned an enslaved black man named Titus.”

The Harvard community has grappled with our connections to slavery in the past. More recently, this has taken the form of the lawsuit filed by Tamara K. Lanier. The lawsuit concerns daguerreotypes commissioned by Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz that were used to scientifically support polygenism — a theory that races have distinct origins, used as a scientific basis for ideas of white superiority.

Lanier also requested in her suit that the University acknowledge its role in “perpetuating and justifying the institution of slavery.”

Recent responses to Lanier’s lawsuit have asked, “Should we rename this or that building?”— doing just enough to preserve Harvard’s innocence. Delineating between whether the Museum of Comparative Zoology is known as the “Agassiz Museum” in honor of Louis Agassiz or his son Alexander Agassiz, Class of 1855, is a futile exercise which neglects generational privilege and legacy.

Insisting that a building is acceptable because it is named after Louis’s wife Elizabeth Cabot Agassiz is equally problematic.

Elizabeth Cabot Agassiz’s story is incomplete without considering how her grandfather, Thomas Handasyd Perkins, was a middleman for slave traders and was involved in at least three slave trading voyages (Belle Arsène, Katy, and Willing Quaker).

Perkins became incredibly wealthy from this work. His wealth and legacy allowed Elizabeth to found Radcliffe College.

Individuals can’t be faulted for ancestry that they didn’t choose, but Elizabeth Cabot Agassiz herself popularized her husband Louis’s staunch belief in polygenism — most notably through their joint publication of “A Journey in Brazil,” which argued that being mixed-race was equivalent to being subhuman. This type of ideology elevated whiteness above all else. It helped to sustain the slave trade and justified the perpetuation of racism even after slavery was technically outlawed.

This is all to say: Many individuals affiliated with Harvard have connections to slavery and were complicit in its perpetuation.

The initial conversation that needs to happen is not about names, but instead one that allows us to look inwards, as a

community, at Harvard’s history.

How can we make decisions about the future without first understanding the past?

Even when enslaved individuals are no longer present on campus, their presence still lingers in more permanent ways.

The work they did when they were alive is permanent. The years of their lives that were spent serving Harvard presidents like Wadsworth and Mather will never be returned to them. Titus, Venus, Bilhah, and Juba will forever be known by the names given to them by an enslaver — they are remembered only by a plaque that remains unnoticed and neglected by Harvard students: a small plaque on the side of Wadsworth House.

Do Harvard students even know which building that is?

Harvard has yet to apologize for or even address its perpetuation of slavery and scientific racism, and the fact that through these actions it has perpetuated the idea that black people should be seen as objects. Harvard, the name which grants credibility to all things upon which it is embossed, endorsed the erasure and destruction of black lives.

The plaque is a mere reminder of the lack of consideration Harvard devotes to such issues.

To make amends for the past, Harvard needs to consider how it can use the future to do good. The University can start by committing more resources to the research currently being undertaken by the Harvard and Slavery project, as well as by making a substantial and public apology that does not attempt to make excuses for its past. More importantly, we need to talk about what this legacy means and the privilege of our positions as members of the Harvard community.

Only then can we start to take meaningful action.

—Julie Ngauv ’20, is a History concentrator in Dunster House.

By BEN A. ROY

H

i again. Late last night after a fun time with the boys I decided to go to the dining hall and grab some grub before bed.

When I got there, I saw you at one of the tables, your soulless, half-shut eyes illuminated by the white glow of your laptop.

It seemed your fingers had a life of their own, furiously hammering out line after line of code, answer after answer for your p-set. I figured I’d see you again in the morning, same table, same ghoulish look on your face, once I returned from my Wednesday morning workout.

Really, I thought very little of you. I live that fitness life, so I always get my eight hours of rest to maximize my gains. You probably sleep eight hours a week if you’re lucky.

So, before we get you counting sheep (if you can even understand me through all your sleep-deprived delirium), I’m going to wake you up to some cold hard facts. First, go to sleep.

But, since my heart is just as swole as every other part of my body, I’ll cut you some slack this one time.

So, before we get you counting sheep (if you can even understand me through all your sleep-deprived delirium), I’m going to wake you up to some cold hard facts.

First, go to sleep. If you spammed through the Sleep 101 module like I did, you’re probably not up on the latest sleep tips, but forget that — I’ll tell you how it is.

You’re sabotaging your body big time, even if you somehow also hit the gym 12 times a week like I do.

If you don’t sleep, your brain doesn’t rest. It’s like a big muscle — if you don’t allow it proper recovery time, you’re never going to be smashing your PRs like you’ve always wanted to.

When you don’t sleep, your brain gets messed up. Maybe you’ve been coding for hours, and it feels like you’re running a mental marathon, but trust me, if you actually rest up before you check over your work, you’ll realize it’s probably terrible.

You don’t run your best steps at mile 20. Your form is gone by rep 15. You’re fatigued. You’re killing your gains.

So what should you do about it? You’re probably thinking: “Oh, well, how am I supposed to finish this marathon if you’re telling me to stop all the time?”

Here’s the thing — screw the marathon. It may feel great when you finish, but when you’re 30 and you’ve got robo-hips and an iron knee and every staircase feels like death, maybe then you’ll wish you had just stuck to 5Ks. It’s simple: If you just break it all down into easier parts, you won’t have to go balls to the wall every time you need to finish.

They’re called p-“sets” for a reason, chief.And hey, maybe you don’t always do your work this way. But it’s not always a bad thing to call it quits — not all your work has to be perfect.

If handing in something incomplete sounds terrible to you, think about how low the stakes are right now.

You go to an amazing school, and as long as you don’t flunk out of it (or even if you do!), you will never have to struggle for a decent job. So, really, just chill out.

Most importantly, you are not the reason that you are not getting enough sleep. We all like sleep, and unless you have insomnia you would be doing that all the time.

But why does everyone have so much work to do? Why does everyone feel like they have to be a football-playing king in space just to fit in around here? Four classes feels like I’m already working 70 hours a week at a hedge fund. There’s no time for life, let alone sleep.

But why does everyone have so much work to do? Why does everyone feel like they have to be a football-playing king in space just to fit in around here? Four classes feels like I’m already working 70 hours a week at a hedge fund.

So, here’s what you’re not seeing when your eyes are glazed over and your mind is turned to mush — they got you on that treadmill, bro.

They’re doing you dirty. We all know that the treadmill is cardio, and cardio steals your gains.

And that’s not just “bro science” — if you’re trying to make your brain as swole as possible, you have to get off that infernal “work” treadmill and start lifting heavy.

Don’t do your p-sets because you have to, do them because you want your mind to get swole — and while you’re at it, use your breaks to drink some water, eat them greens, and, most importantly of all, catch some “zzz’s.”

You have to do it for yourself, because if you don’t, they’ll have you working non-stop for the rest of your life.

So chill, bro, and question the system, not yourself — if you don’t, instead of “rest up” I’ll be saying “rest in peace.”

—Ben A. Roy ’20, a Contributing Opinion Writer, is a Classics concentrator in Kirkland House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.

PAGE 7

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | OCTOBER 2, 2019

RULING FROM PAGE 1

Admissions Lawsuit Judge Rules in Harvard’s Favor engaging in racial balancing, using race as a determinative factor in admissions decisions, and inadequately exploring race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity.

The decision came roughly a year after the start of a three-week trial at the U.S. District Courthouse in Boston that drew national media attention.

The trial saw testimony from top administrators, current students, and expert witnesses.

SFFA President Edward J. Blum said in a press release Tuesday that his organization plans to appeal the ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Students for Fair Admissions is disappointed that the court has upheld Harvard’s discriminatory admissions policies,” Blum said in the press release. “We believe that the documents, emails, data analysis and depositions SFFA presented at trial compellingly revealed Harvard’s systematic discrimination against Asian-American applicants.”

In her legal opinion, Burroughs disagreed with the allegations of discrimination, finding “no evidence of any discriminatory animus or conscious prejudice” on the part of Harvard’s admissions officers.

In particular, Burroughs wrote that admissions officers’ testimonies were “consistent, unambiguous, and convincing.”

“Those are pretty powerful words, and pretty tough to get over on appeal,” said Peter McDonough, the general counsel and vice president of the American Council on Education.

University President Lawrence S. Bacow wrote in an email to Harvard affiliates Tuesday that the College’s consideration of race in admissions ­

allows the school to create a diverse student body that in turn “enriches the education of every student.”

“Everyone admitted to Harvard College has something unique to offer our community, and today we reaffirm the importance of diversity—and everything it represents to the world,” he wrote.

Much of Burroughs’s judgment lauded the benefits of diversity in higher education. She agreed with Harvard’s claims that only race-conscious admissions policies could achieve a favorable level of diversity at the College.

“Harvard has demonstrated that no workable and available race-neutral alternatives would allow it to achieve a diverse student body while still maintaining its standards for academic excellence,” she wrote.

Despite siding with Harvard, Burroughs wrote that Harvard’s policies could be improved. She suggested providing admissions officers implicit bias training, maintaining clear guidelines on the use of race in the admissions process, and monitoring any race-related statistical disparities.

In her ruling, Burroughs wrote that Harvard’s policies, though not perfect, meet “constitutional muster” for acceptable affirmative action policies as determined by the Supreme Court in landmark rulings.

The Court has ruled that race-conscious admissions policies must pass the “strict scrutiny” test, which includes the requirements that the use of race serve a “compelling governmental interest” — like the educational benefits that stem from diversity — and be “narrowly tailored” to satisfy that

interest.

Burroughs wrote that she believes the College employs a strong example of a race-conscious admissions policy.

“The Court will not dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better,” she wrote. “There is always the specter of perfection, but strict scrutiny does not require it and a few identified imperfections, after years of litigating and sifting through applications and metrics, do not alone require a finding that Harvard’s admissions program is not narrowly tailored.”

Burroughs’s opinion — which some experts called particularly thorough — will likely be closely examined in an appeals process that could extend for years. Harvard’s victory in this stage of the case, however, was definitive.

“My first read of the decision is that it’s a slam dunk for Harvard,” McDonough said. “Harvard won and Harvard won going away.”

Though Harvard prevailed in the district court case, the College’s admissions process is still subject to a separate investigation by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. The DOJ opened its investigation at least as early as 2017 and filed a statement of interest in the SFFA lawsuit in August 2018 alleging that Harvard practices “unlawful racial discrimination” against Asian American applicants.

In the months leading up to the October 2018 trial, thousands of pages of the Harvard admissions office’s internal communications, administrators’ depositions, experts’ statistical analyses, and even a

few students’ application scorecards became public. These filings shed new light on how the College’s admissions process works behind the scenes.

Among the findings was the revelation that Harvard’s own internal research office concluded in 2013 that the College’s race-conscious policy yields “negative effects” for Asian Americans. The University’s Office for Institutional Research found that Asian American applicants consistently receive lower personal ratings — numerical scores based on abstract qualities like “humor” and “grit” — from admissions officers.

Burroughs found that the personal ratings for Asian American applicants are “on average, slightly weaker” than the ratings assigned to other applicants. She concluded the disparity had not been completely explained in the trial.

But she found that part of the discrepancy appeared to come from teacher and guidance counselor recommendations.

She also speculated that some admissions officers may subconsciously assign higher personal ratings to African American and Hispanic applicants in order to increase their overall ratings.

“Even if there is an unwarranted disparity in the personal ratings, the Court is unable to identify any individual applicant whose admissions decision was affected and finds that the disparity in the personal ratings did not burden Asian American applicants significantly more than Harvard’s race-conscious policies burdened white applicants,” the judgment reads.

“Race conscious admissions will always penalize to some

extent the groups that are not being advantaged by the process, but this is justified by the compelling interest in diversity and all the benefits that flow from a diverse college population,” she wrote.

The trial brought a number of other previously secret admissions practices to light, including the apparent preference Harvard gives to applicants related to major donors.

Evidence in the case also noted a statistical advantage for applicants who are recruited athletes, children of alumni, members of the specially selected “Dean’s List” and “Director’s List,” and children of Harvard employees — a group of applicants collectively referred to as “ALDCs.” Burroughs upheld the legality of providing a preference — or a “tip” — for these students in the admissions process.

“Eliminating tips for legacies, applicants on the dean’s and director’s interest lists, and children of faculty or staff would also come at considerable costs, and would adversely affect Harvard’s ability to attract top quality faculty and staff and to achieve desired benefits from relationships with its alumni and other individuals who have made significant contributions to Harvard,” Burroughs wrote.

Beyond the inner workings of the College’s admissions process, much of the evidence in the case rested on the use of statistical models to assess the outcome of the admissions policies.

Harvard and SFFA each hired economics professors — David E. Card of the University of California, Berkeley and Peter S. Arcidiacono of Duke University, respectively — as expert witnesses to analyze the six

years of admissions data that Harvard made available as part of the trial.

They came to opposite conclusions on the question of whether there is statistical evidence that Harvard discriminates on the basis of race.

Though they were working with the same data set, the experts’ models featured key differences; while Card included all applicants in his analysis, Arcidiacono removed ALDCs. Arcidiacono also removed the personal rating from his model since he interpreted it as biased against Asian American students. Card did a year-by-year analysis, while Arcidiacono pooled the data over all six years.

Burroughs wrote that she found both models “econometrically defensible” and preferred different aspects of each model. In formulating her opinion, she said she primarily relied on Card’s model and considered results both with and without the personal rating.

Still, Burroughs noted that an “overly data driven” admissions process was not the solution to the legal questions at issue in the case. She concluded her opinion by arguing that greater diversity on college campuses will create a more equitable society.

“The rich diversity at Harvard and other colleges and universities and the benefits that flow from that diversity will foster the tolerance, acceptance and understanding that will ultimately make race conscious admissions obsolete,” she wrote. camille.caldera@thecrimson.com delano.franklin@thecrimson.com samuel.zwickel@thecrimson.com

SULLIVAN FROM PAGE 1

TAX FROM PAGE 1

Sen. Grassley Asks Bacow About Sullivan Removal

Harvard Submits Comments on Endownment Tax Rules

Weinstein, who currently faces criminal charges including rape and sexual assault. Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane wrote in an email that the University has received Grassley’s letter. She reiterated previous statements noting that the decision not to renew Sullivan and co-Faculty Dean Stephanie R. Robinson was not directly related to the Weinstein case.

“The concerns expressed to the College regarding [Sullivan and Robinson] were serious and numerous. The actions that have been taken to improve the climate and the noticeable absence of Faculty Dean leadership during critical moments deteriorated the climate in the house,” Dane wrote. “The College deemed this situation in the House to be untenable.”

Grassley pointed to his position as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, writing that the committee has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the tax-exempt status granted to institutions like Harvard. He added that universities’ commitment to “excellence and truth” provides the basis for their exempt status, and that threats to academic freedom imperil those values. Grassley sent similar letters to the presidents of Duke University, Sarah Lawrence University, and Villanova University — schools where he identified the “potential suppression of academic freedom,” accord­

ing to a Thursday press release.

Grassley’s letter to Bacow quoted from Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana’s letter announcing Sullivan’s removal and a June opinion article Sullivan wrote in the New York Times. Sullivan wrote that the administration “capitulated to protesters” and failed to protect his family from critical graffiti spraypainted on Winthrop’s walls in February. Grassley questioned the University’s investigation into the vandalism and its evaluation of students’ claims of feeling “unsafe” in the House. He also asked Bacow whether the College’s orientation programming includes mentions of academic freedom.

The months that followed Sullivan’s announcement that he would represent Weinstein saw protests in Harvard Yard, sit-ins in the Winthrop dining hall, and petitions calling on administrators to remove him as resident dean. In response to the outcry from undergraduates, the College announced a climate review of Winthrop and eventually decided not to renew Sullivan and Robinson’s contract after finding they had fostered an “untenable” climate. A day before the College’s announcement, The Crimson reported allegations from a dozen current and former Winthrop affiliates that Sullivan and Robinson created a toxic environment in the House during their decade as

faculty deans. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed announcing the inquiry, Grassley added that he is troubled by national trends in educational institutions’ handling of academic freedom, citing the cases at Harvard and other universities.

“Universities have long been centers of political correctness.

But campus administrations increasingly seem to be indulging students who, when faced with uncomfortable ideas, complain of feeling ‘harmed’ or ‘unsafe,’” Grassley wrote. “This is reaching its breaking point and making it hard for professors to teach.”

Grassley’s concerns also reflect a national conversation about how to protect academic freedom on college campuses across the country. Robert L. Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, wrote in an emailed statement that his organization supports Grassley’s inquiry.

“Protecting free speech and academic freedom on campus is a major public concern, and these core democratic commitments are threatened on too many campuses,” Shibley wrote.

“Congress must always consider the implications of its oversight activities on academic freedom.” shera.avi-yonah@thecrimson.com delano.franklin@thecrimson.com

subject to the excise tax on their investment returns.

The endowment tax has already begun to have an effect on Harvard’s finances.

In a Tuesday Faculty of Arts and Sciences meeting, Dean for Administration and Finances Leslie A. Kirwan ’79 said the University had to withdraw roughly $10 million from the FAS endowment to make their first payment. Harvard’s endowment, which totals $40.9 billion, clocks in as the largest university endowment in the world.

The endowment tax has long been a lobbying point for Harvard’s leaders. Even before the Republican-led tax law was passed in 2017, University administrators challenged the provision.

We remain opposed to this damaging and unprecedented tax.

Letter Signed by Harvard and More than 30 Colleges and Universities

In the months after its passage, former University President Drew G. Faust and current President Lawrence S. Bacow stressed the negative impacts the endowment tax would have on the University; they argued it would limit research funding, financial aid, and public pro-

The sights and sounds of Harvard.

The Crimson @crimson_photo

grams.

Harvard’s comments Tuesday attempt to distinguish colleges and universities from private foundations, who were already subject to a similar excise tax before the 2017 law passed.

They argue that Congress must make revisions to better reflect the differences between such institutions.

The changes proposed in the comments include an amendment to the definition of a student, which currently stipulates that students must be “enrolled and attending” and may exclude non-credential-seeking students.

The change would increase the effective number of students at Harvard and other universities, decreasing the value of assets per student and potentially reducing the number of endowments subject to the tax.

The comments also suggest excluding certain categories of income from the Internal Revenue Service’s definition of net investment income, the portion of the endowment subject to the 1.4 percent excise tax.

The comments argue that “student loan interest, rental income from certain student, faculty, and staff housing, and royalties derived from an educational institution’s educational or research function” should be exempt from the tax.

The signatories also note in the comments that the new rules could force universities

to unnecessarily pay taxes on money earned or received prior to the date of the enactment of the tax, on certain new donations, and on money made from “core educational and research functions.”

While not every issue is a priority for each of us, we strongly believe these comments provide thoughtful, constructive feedback.

Letter Signed by Harvard and More than 30 Colleges and Universities

The signatories closed their letter by calling their comments “thoughtful, constructive” feedback.

“While not every issue is a priority for each of us, we strongly believe these comments provide thoughtful, constructive feedback to the proposed rules in a way that will reduce unnecessary administrative burden and respond to the unique characteristics of colleges and universities,” they wrote. alexandra.chaidez@thecrimson.com cindy.zhang@thecrimson.com

Sports

Weekly Recap

SCORES

Field Hockey vs. New HAMPSHIRE W, 5-0 ___________________________________________________________

men’s golf macdonald cup 7th ___________________________________________________________

women’s soccer Vs. PENN W, 1-0 ___________________________________________________________

sailing lark invitational 7th ___________________________________________________________

women’s volleyball vs. dartmouth L, 3-2 ___________________________________________________________

sailing danmark trophy 1st ___________________________________________________________

women’s golf princeton invitational 10th ___________________________________________________________

Men’s Soccer

Around the Ivies: The Start of Ivy League Play

HEADING TOWARDS CONFERENCE PLAY Nico Garcilla-Morillo dribbling down the field in a 3-3 draw against Merrimack Timothy r. O’MEARA—Crimson photographer

By Eamon J. Mcloughlin Crimson Staff Writer

October means one thing, and one thing only for every true soccer fan: Ivy League play, baby.

Come along with me as I journey down the Eastern seaboard to preview the opening matchups for the nation’s hottest soccer conference, kicking off this Friday in New Haven, Conn.

If last year was any indication, we’re in for a real tight title race this year.

While I can’t guarantee one hundred percent accuracy, I can tell you that Harvard is taking down Yale on Friday, and that we’ll have some fun along

the way.

HARVARD AT YALE

If you happened to be born on the exact day that Yale last beat Harvard in men’s soccer, you’d probably be sitting in a firstgrade classroom somewhere right now.

Or sitting on a rocking horse or something. Or doing whatever else six year-olds do. As crazy as it sounds, 2013 was quite a long time ago.

With that being said, Yale looks sort of nice this season.

The team is yet to lose, and Paolo Carroll is a real threat up top.

With that being said, Taner Dogan’s last second goal to bring last Tuesday’s game ver-

sus Merrimack to extra time was super clutch.Harvard is well-rested, and tends to show up versus Yale.

Pick: Harvard

CORNELL AT PENN

In an opening matchup which annually pits the Ancient Eight’s worst mascots against one another (sorry Dartmouth), we have the Big Red trekking down into civilization to play the Quakers in Philly.

While Cornell is the obvious favorite on paper, it is without its greatest advantage in this matchup: making the other team play in Ithaca.

Tough one to call here. If the Quakers live up to their name, their courtesy will be their un-

PUSHING THROUGH TRAFFIC Duncan Sutherland handling a pass while surrounded by Merrimack defenders Timothy r. O’MEARA—Crimson photographer

doing. If Cornell lives up to its namesake, it’s going to put up a big performance, and get red cards maybe? Again, really tough one to call.

Pick: Cornell

BROWN AT COLUMBIA

With both teams playing pretty poorly this season, it’s hard to pick a favorite in this matchup.

If you changed one “u” to an “o” in “Columbia” it would be a totally different story. Alas, we won’t be treated to dipping longshots from James Rodriguez, as he plays for Colombia, not Columbia. But, this one might still be sort of cool anyways.

This matchup also brings to light an eternal question, which

The inside scoop on Harvard, straight to your inbox.

Never be out of the loop.

The Crimson

thecrimson.com/subscribe

has tickled the minds of many an Ivy League student over the past 30 plus years: who would win in a fight, a bear or a lion?

Again, location might be a big factor here, as the outcome would one hundred percent depend on whether the bear and lion were fighting in New York, or in Providence.

Pick: Columbia

PRINCETON AT DARTMOUTH

In a battle for the title of most obnoxious Ivy League program, both Princeton and Dartmouth make a strong case. Following the “worst mascot” snub of Dartmouth earlier, I might have to hand this one to the Big Green. Actually, I’m not going

to go into any more detail on this.

While Princeton has won its last four, Dartmouth scored a goal against #1 Wake Forest. That has to be worth something. Except it was off of a long throw-in, Stoke City style, and therefore, it’s really not as cool.

One potentially key factor is that Princeton has to find its way into Hanover, and we all know that tigers don’t do particularly well in wooded landscapes. If the whole Princeton team makes it up there, it should be a pretty straightforward game. If not, I don’t know what to tell you.

Pick: Princeton eamon.mcloughlin@thecrimson.com