Last fall, LDB put anti-Semitism on the Supreme Court’s docket in the cases of SFFA v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. The plaintiffs in these cases alleged that affirmative action programs operated by Harvard and by UNC had the effect of discriminating against Asian-American applicants on the basis of race. The Brandeis Center, together with the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, filed an amicus brief authored by Jonathan Vogel of the Vogel Law Firm. LDB’s brief significantly informed the Court’s and the litigants’ understanding of the historical background of discrimination and quotas in American university admissions, and particularly how they had previously been used to exclude Jewish applicants. We filed a similar amicus brief in Fisher v. University of Texas in 2012. . The Brandeis Center’s brief describes how Harvard systematically discriminated against Jewish applicants in the 1920s. President Lowell of Harvard changed the admissions process in 1920 to lower the number of Jewish students. To disguise this intention, Harvard limited total enrollment and began to admit only students of suitable “character and fitness.” This equipped Harvard with a subjective measure to use to eliminate otherwise-qualified applicants. Knowing that Lowell thought Jews lacked character, the admissions office subsequently lowered the percentage of Jewish students to 15 percent from its peak of 28 percent. . Today, Harvard uses a similar subjective metric—a “personal rating.” The Brandeis Center’s brief noted evidence that this unfairly impacts Asian-American applicants because they receive lower personal rating scores, on average, than applicants of other races. The lawsuit alleges that Harvard systematically gives Asian-Americans lower scores to ensure fewer Asian-American students are admitted. If true, this mimics the anti-Semitic discrimination of the 1920s – using a subjective factor to discriminate against a particular group of applicants. . The parties to the Harvard case referred to the Brandeis Center’s brief, and the history of anti-Semitic discrimination the brief addressed, throughout oral argument. In SFFA’s opening statement, they compared the alleged discrimination in the case to the discrimination against Jewish students in the 1920s. Justice Gorsuch highlighted Harvard’s dark history later in the case when questioning Harvard’s attorney about their current practices, asking what to do with the fact that history shows that Harvard’s original move to a holistic application process was motivated by the desire to impose a quota on Jewish applicants. In response, Harvard acknowledged its past anti-Semitic discrimination and said it was ashamed of that history. SFFA referred to this statement again in rebuttal, saying “Harvard thankfully does say it is ashamed of its history of Jewish discrimination. I hope someday it says the same about how it’s treating Asians.” . Justice Neil Gorsuch also brought up the history of anti-Semitic discrimination in Harvard’s admissions which was identified in the Brandeis Center’s brief in the UNC case, noting evidence from “some of the amici” that Harvard’s holistic admissions policy was used to discriminate against Jewish applicants. . Justice Samuel Alito also criticized Harvard for its history of anti-Semitic discrimination. In Bakke v. University of California, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., had held up Harvard’s admission program as an exemplar for the country. Harvard’s brief in that case talked about the prior thirty years of Harvard’s admissions program. Based on that history, Justice Alito asked Harvard if their omission of their history of anti-Semitic discrimination was selling “Justice Powell a bill of goods” and whether knowing the origins of the Harvard program would have impacted Justice Powell’s decision. Harvard responded that Justice Powell took Harvard’s brief as an accurate description of how its admissions process worked then, but did not take the “terrible stain on its history” of its past anti-Semitic discrimination into consideration. . National media covered our brief when it was filed and quoted LDB Chairman Kenneth Marcus. After the argument, local media in North Carolina again amplified our brief in its coverage of the litigation. . In these cases, the Court must determine if colleges are illegally imposing preferences and limitations on racial and ethnic groups. This decision will have major ramifications on the future of higher education. The Brandeis Center’s brief has ensured that Harvard’s history of discrimination against Jewish students is an important part of the Court’s deliberations.