The SFFA asserted in its appeal, “Harvard’s mistreatment of Asian-American applicants is appalling”. Harvard denied in its submission to the court that it discriminated against Asians and said that it “considers race only in a flexible and non-mechanical way” and that it “benefits only highly qualified candidates”.

Harvard College, which is the university’s institution for undergraduates and is directly involved in the case, is headed by an Indian-American, Rakesh Khurana who is its dean. Although these programmes were ostensibly meant to provide greater access to higher education for non-Asian minorities, Whites also benefit because of the higher requirements set for Asians.

A study by a Princeton University academic found that to gain admission to elite universities, Asian students had to score 140 points more than Whites in the SAT, a common entrance test. Harvard announced last year that it will not require scores from SAT or another common entrance test, ACT, for admission for the next four years.

One of the methods Harvard had allegedly used to keep down Asians who are otherwise qualified was to give them lower scores on personality traits used to assess applicants. An academic expert who analyzed Harvard’s admissions records on behalf of SFFA found that it consistently rated Asians lower on “positive personality,” and as less “widely respected”.

Edward Blum, the founder of SFA, asserted that Harvard and UNC have manipulated the admissions process “to achieve prescribed racial quotas”. Harvard University President Larry Bacow said that the Supreme Court decision to “review the unanimous decisions of the lower federal courts puts at risk 40 years of legal precedent granting colleges and universities the freedom and flexibility to create diverse campus communities”.