The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (Executive Calendar)” mentioning Jon Tester was published in the Senate section on pages S1700-S1701 on March 23.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am sure you have been to Paris. The architect, as you undoubtedly know, who designed the Louvre's iconic glass pyramid was actually an American. He was an Asian American. His name was I.M. Pei. Mr. Pei emigrated from China to the United States in the 1930s.
By the time he passed at the age of 102, he had designed a number of famous buildings. He had done that all across the world, including on U.S. soil, including the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.
America is proud of Mr. Pei. He is just one of millions of Asian Americans whose talents have helped America continue to be an exceptional nation, a nation made up of exceptional people who take advantage of all of the opportunities that these United States have to offer.
The contributions of individual Asian Americans have helped our country pioneer--and the Presiding Officer knows this--advances in architecture, in medicine, in art, and in technology. But, more than that, Asian Americans are our friends, and they are our neighbors.
The recent murder of Asian-American women in an evil assault in Atlanta was an assault not just on the Atlanta community but on the United States of America. President Biden has correctly denounced these attacks, and he is not alone.
I know the Presiding Officer can join me in this. I condemn these evil murders in the strongest possible terms. No one can justify--no one--the brutal theft of eight lives. Every community--every single one--across our country is grieving for the victims and is grieving for the families.
These victims were all made, they were each made, in God's image, and Americans know that. I also feel the same way about the shooting in Boulder. We all do.
America pioneered government that is based on inalienable rights that God gives each person. God has imbued every man and woman with dignity, and Americans answer that dignity with respect, respect for each individual and their right to make the most of the manifold opportunities our country offers.
Unfortunately, President Biden's rhetoric in defense of the Asian-
American community is not altogether matched by respect for the right of Asian Americans to reap the reward of their talent and grit.
The Biden administration, thus far--it has time to correct its course--has shown and did show right out of the gate a determination to stick its head in the sand while some of America's top universities are actively discriminating against Asian Americans.
Last year, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Justice Department sued Yale University. The Justice Department contended that Yale rejected many qualified Asian-American applicants on the basis of race--not on the basis of qualification, on the basis of race.
The decision by the Justice Department came 2 years after several Asian-American organizations filed a complaint with the Department of Justice and the Department of Education that accused Yale of what I just described: racial discrimination.
Yet only a few weeks--only a few weeks after President Biden set up shop in the Oval Office, the Department of Justice withdrew its own lawsuit based on racial discrimination against Yale University, and that is an actual fact. Watch what we say, not what we do.
Unfortunately, Harvard University also seems determined to discriminate against Asian-American applicants. In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions sued Harvard, claiming that the school was using an application system that intentionally reduces the number of Asian Americans through evaluations that are subjective and potentially racially biased.
You see, Harvard apparently believes it knows how to discriminate in the right way. It believed the same thing a number of years ago when it limited the number of Jewish people who could attend Harvard.
When Harvard considers an applicant, the school doesn't just look at their grades or their test scores or their academic awards. In fact, the admissions team at Harvard often looks past these objective indicators to a student's--this is what Harvard calls it--personal ratings, which is an unfair, ridiculous, and a subjective standard.
These personal ratings, as Harvard calls them, supposedly take into account character traits like humor, sensitivity, helpfulness, and courage. For years, Harvard has consistently granted lower personal ratings scores to Asian Americans than it has to other applicants, and that, too, is a fact.
The judge in the Students for Fair Admissions' lawsuit wrote the following:
The data demonstrates--
These are the judge's words, not mine.
The data demonstrates a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers, holding constant any reasonable set of observable characteristics.
I didn't say that; the judge in the case did.
Now, I want to be fair. It may look smart or wise for Harvard to look for well-rounded applicants--I get that--until you realize and think about that these personal ratings are not just subjective; they are subversive. If you think about it, the scores, these scores--they are not objective like test scores or grades or extracurricular activities; these personal ratings are value judgments that can easily be tainted by racial bias. It is clear that the personal ratings minimize the accomplishments of Asian Americans in particular.
Just look at the numbers. Harvard's admission scores work like this: They use a scale of 1 to 6. One is the strongest possible rating. When it comes to personal ratings--remember, this is the subjective analysis of the personhood of the applicant by Harvard, not the test scores, not the grades, not the extracurricular activities. When it comes to personal ratings, only 17.6 percent of Asian-American applicants receive a score of 1 or 2--17.6 for Asian Americans. For African Americans, that number is 19.01 percent. For Hispanic Americans, it is 18.7 percent. In fact--and these are the numbers--Harvard gives Asian Americans the weakest personal ratings of any ethnic group, bar none.
Harvard admissions officials have reportedly handed out these scores without even interviewing all of the candidates in question--personal ratings without interviewing the applicants. This happens now despite the fact that Asian Americans have the highest grades and test scores. So on the objective criteria--test scores, grades--Asian Americans have the highest scores. What pulls them down? The personal ratings.
Harvard officials admitted in 2013 that if Harvard considered only academic achievement, then proportional Asian-American representation that year would have doubled. Think about that. If Harvard went on the objective criteria--extracurricular activities, grades, test scores--
twice as many Asian Americans would have been admitted to the university. Why weren't they? Because of the personal ratings. They call it ``personal'' even though many of the applicants are never even interviewed.
The Department of Justice has historically supported the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit. In 2018, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in the case. Last year, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief in the case. A Federal judge ruled against the plaintiffs in 2019 in the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld that decision last November--this despite the fact that the Federal district court judge in the case openly acknowledged that Harvard grants lower personal ratings scores to Asian-American applicants.
The fruits of Harvard's policy are pretty clear. You don't have to be Mensa material to figure this out. The Ivy League school has repeatedly rejected highly qualified Asian-American candidates because of their race.
But there is still hope for justice for our Asian-American students. The Supreme Court may well take up this case, and the White House could defend the cause of merit against Harvard's alleged racial discrimination.
So let me say this as clearly as I can. If President Biden--if the Biden team is committed to fighting racial discrimination against Asian Americans, if President Biden and his team want to lift up Asian Americans, as they say they do, it is not hard to see how countering racist policies within the privileged halls of Harvard--a school that receives Federal dollars--it is not hard to see how supporting that litigation must be part of President Biden's commitment. So today, with all the respect I can muster, I am calling on President Biden and his Justice Department to support the Asian-American students who have brought their case against Harvard.
Harvard is an extraordinary school. Nothing I say is meant to denigrate the quality of that great university. But being a pillar of higher education doesn't mean that Harvard is above the law. I.M. Pei attended Harvard in the 1940s. Who knows if they would accept him today because of his personal rating. You know, that is a shame, and it shouldn't stand.
President Biden should stand up for the rights of Asian Americans to be treated fairly by America's schools. His Justice Department should support this lawsuit.
To be is to act. All we are is the sum of our actions. Everything else is just conversation. Don't just talk about supporting Asian Americans; do it. Do it. Please don't be selective in the reality you choose to accept.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining cloture motions filed during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 18, ripen at 11:30 a.m., tomorrow, Wednesday, March 24.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Alerts Sign-up