Is an Extroverted Applicant Better Suited for Harvard Than a Shy One?

BOSTON — Days before the opening of a trial accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants, the college issued new guidance to its admissions officers earlier this month on what personalities it is seeking in its incoming freshmen, a question at the heart of the case.

The new guidelines for the Class of 2023 caution officers that character traits “not always synonymous with extroversion” should be valued, and that applicants who seem to be “particularly reflective, insightful and/or dedicated” should receive high personal ratings as well.

The disclosure of the new guidelines on Thursday, the ninth day of the trial in U.S. District Court here, address central concerns in the case. The group challenging Harvard’s affirmative action efforts, Students for Fair Admissions, says that the university limits the admission of Asian-American students by giving them lower personal ratings and stereotyping them as quiet and studious. Harvard has denied stereotyping or discriminating against any racial or ethnic group.

The advice on personal ratings does not mention Asian-American bias. But the case has raised the question of whether elite colleges’ preference for certain character traits in applicants — such as extroversion — are culturally biased.

One of the odder quirks of the trial testimony has been how often the word “effervescence” has come up. It has been hammered home that Harvard values applicants who are bubbly, not “flat,” to use another word in the Harvard admissions lexicon.

Admissions documents filed in court awarded advantages to applicants for “unusually appealing personal qualities,” which could include “effervescence, charity, maturity and strength of character.”

Now “reflective” could be a plus as well.

The release of the new guidelines came as a surprise. A parade of admissions officers have taken the stand to say that they do not discriminate. But they have also said, in answer to a repeated line of questioning from the plaintiffs, that there are no written guidelines on how to use race in the admissions process.

The new guidelines explicitly prohibit admissions reviewers from considering race or ethnicity when evaluating applicants on personal qualities — a directive that does not appear in the old guidelines. (The use of race is also forbidden when evaluating academics, extracurricular activities or athletics.) Race many only be considered, the 2023 rules say, in the “overall” rating, which is a summation and an impressionistic view of the whole applicant.

But even in the overall rating, the new guidelines say, race and ethnicity may be considered only for how they contribute to the educational benefits of diversity at the college, and only as one of many factors.

The existence of the new guidelines was first hinted at on Wednesday, during testimony from Tia Ray, a 2012 Harvard graduate who now works as a senior admissions officer and minority recruiter for the college.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Kat Hacker, asked what had by then become a boilerplate question.

“You don’t know of any written document at Harvard that describes how race should play into the admissions process,” Hacker said. “Is that right?”

“That is incorrect,” Ray replied, startling the lawyers for the plaintiffs and sending one bolting out of the courtroom.

Ray had said differently in her deposition. Hacker quickly asked for a conference with the judge.

Later, Ray explained that the new guidelines had been adopted very recently, after her deposition. The guidelines were filed in court on Thursday.

Harvard officials said Ray had brought up the document because she was in the middle of training admissions officers, and the guidelines were on her mind.

But the officials also acknowledged that the guidelines had been revised because they had been thinking about the looming trial. They added that the new policy was not meant to fix any lapse on Harvard’s part. Rather, they said it simply puts long-standing practices into writing.

Anna Cowenhoven, a Harvard spokeswoman, said, “Harvard College’s admissions policies remain the same, the reading procedures are reissued annually, and 2023 procedures are this year’s version.”

There has been much discussion of unconscious bias during the trial, including questions from the judge about whether “tips,” or admissions advantages, can work against some applicants even as they work in favor of others.

The guidelines on assessing personal qualities also say that a top-rated student might have “enormous courage in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles in life,” or perhaps “a singular ability to lead or inspire those around them,” or even “extraordinary concern or compassion for others.”

One thing has not changed. The lowest rating, once defined as “questionable or worrisome personal qualities,” is still the same.