Listen to the article
The US government’s attempt to revive a False Claims Act lawsuit against Harvard College has been denied by a federal judge, dealing a blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to shift its approach on diversity, equity, and inclusion matters.
Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Wednesday that federal prosecutors failed to demonstrate that the court improperly dismissed whistleblower Patrick Low’s lawsuit earlier this year. The case centered on allegations that Harvard made false statements to the Department of Education regarding its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act when applying for government grants.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between the Biden administration’s stance on diversity initiatives in higher education and the previous Trump administration’s approach. It comes amid a broader national debate about affirmative action and race-conscious policies at universities following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
Low, the whistleblower, had alleged that Harvard falsely certified compliance with civil rights laws while discriminating against Asian American applicants in its admissions process. His lawsuit claimed the prestigious Ivy League institution had violated the False Claims Act by receiving federal funding while engaging in discriminatory practices.
The Biden administration had previously opposed the lawsuit, arguing that it lacked merit and that Harvard was in compliance with federal civil rights laws. This position represented a departure from the Trump administration, which had supported similar challenges to university diversity initiatives.
Harvard University, one of the world’s most prestigious educational institutions with an endowment of over $50 billion, has consistently denied any wrongdoing in its admissions practices. The university has maintained that its holistic review process complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
The case is part of a broader scrutiny of elite universities’ admissions practices, particularly regarding how they evaluate and select applicants from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Universities across the country have been forced to reconsider their admissions policies following recent Supreme Court decisions limiting race-conscious admissions programs.
Legal experts note that False Claims Act cases involving allegations of civil rights violations present complex legal questions about how federal funding requirements intersect with anti-discrimination laws. Such cases typically require plaintiffs to demonstrate that an institution knowingly made false statements to obtain government funding.
The Justice Department’s unusual attempt to reinstate a previously dismissed case reflects the shifting priorities between administrations on issues related to diversity and inclusion in higher education. These changes have created uncertainty for universities about how to navigate federal compliance requirements while developing admissions policies that promote diverse student bodies within legal constraints.
For Harvard and other selective institutions, the ruling provides temporary relief from one legal challenge, but the broader debate about diversity initiatives in higher education continues. Universities are developing new approaches to promote diverse student populations while complying with recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the explicit consideration of race in admissions.
The case also underscores the significant financial implications of False Claims Act litigation for universities that receive federal funding. Such lawsuits can potentially result in substantial financial penalties, as violators may be liable for three times the amount of damages sustained by the government plus civil penalties for each false claim.
Judge AliKhan’s decision emphasizes the high legal standard required to overturn previously dismissed False Claims Act cases and suggests that allegations of discrimination may need to be more directly tied to specific false statements in funding applications to proceed under this particular legal theory.
Neither Harvard University nor the Justice Department has publicly commented on whether they plan to appeal the ruling or pursue other legal avenues related to the allegations.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
It’s worth noting that this ruling is specific to the False Claims Act allegations, and doesn’t necessarily settle the broader legal and policy debates around DEI initiatives. There may be other avenues for challenging these programs, as we’ve seen with the Supreme Court case.
Good point. This decision doesn’t preclude other legal challenges to Harvard’s DEI policies or similar programs at other universities. The battle over affirmative action is far from over.
This case highlights the complex interplay between the government’s role in enforcing civil rights laws and the autonomy of universities to set their own policies around diversity and inclusion. It will be an area to watch closely going forward.
This is an interesting development in the ongoing debate around diversity and inclusion in higher education. It will be important to follow how the Biden administration responds and whether this opens the door for further legal challenges on these issues.
The judge’s decision to reject the government’s attempt to revive this case seems to indicate that the courts are cautious about expanding the scope of False Claims Act lawsuits in this area. It will be interesting to see if other whistleblowers try similar legal strategies.
You raise a good point. The courts appear to be setting a high bar for these types of claims, which could make it difficult for the government to pursue similar cases in the future.
This case highlights the complex and contentious landscape around diversity, equity, and inclusion policies at universities. While the legal arguments may be technical, the underlying issues have major implications for access to higher education.
Absolutely. These policies touch on fundamental questions of fairness, representation, and the role of race in admissions decisions. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling has only added to the uncertainty and debate.