Following the Supreme Court's decision to end race-based affirmative action in college admissions, Representative Michelle Steel (R-CA) has introduced the Helping Applicants Receive Valid and Reasonable Decisions (HARVARD) Act. This bill aims to bring transparency to the use of personality tests in college admissions by requiring institutions receiving federal financial aid to publicly disclose these tests and their evaluation criteria.

The bill defines "personality traits" as patterns of behavior, thoughts, and emotions, encompassing qualities like humor, sensitivity, grit, leadership, and integrity. Rep. Steel expressed concern that while the Supreme Court's ruling eliminates racial quotas, universities might still employ subjective personality assessments that could disadvantage Asian American applicants. The HARVARD Act seeks to shed light on these practices, empowering students and families with the information necessary to understand the admissions process.

This isn't the first time Rep. Steel has introduced this legislation. It was initially proposed in 2022 after the Supreme Court agreed to hear cases against Harvard and UNC regarding alleged discrimination against Asian American applicants. Now, with the Court's ruling against race-based admissions, the HARVARD Act takes on renewed significance.

The bill mandates that universities provide applicants with a clear explanation of how personality traits are used in admissions, including the rationale behind their use, the evaluation process, and the specific criteria employed to assess these traits.

Rep. Steel, who immigrated to the U.S. from South Korea, has been a strong proponent of eliminating racial preferences in education. She previously supported California's Proposition 209, which banned such preferences in state hiring, education, and contracting. She praised the Supreme Court's decision as a significant step towards equality in education, echoing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of judging individuals by their character rather than their skin color.

The Students for Fair Admissions, the group that brought the cases against Harvard and UNC, argued that Harvard's admissions practices violated the Civil Rights Act by discriminating based on race. The case against UNC questioned the university's reliance on race-based admissions. Both universities have stated they will comply with the Supreme Court's decision.

Harvard emphasized its commitment to diversity and academic excellence, hinting at exploring alternative approaches to maintain a diverse student body. UNC also confirmed its compliance, while expressing disappointment with the outcome. The Board of Trustees Chair affirmed the university's dedication to upholding its leadership position while adhering to the ruling.