Harvard's brief was written by Archibald Cox '34. Daniel Steiner '54, general counsel to the University, said last week that the decision to prepare an opinion was made as a result of simultaneous but separate discussions in Mass Hall and among a group of Law School professors. He said that Harvard's interests in the case are severalfold:

* Harvard has a strong interest in anything which might affect the over-all status of higher education in the United States;

* The case could alter the admissions policies of all or some of the schools at Harvard, depending upon what grounds it is decided, and;

* Harvard has developed a commitment to minority education and employment and the decision could seriously cripple affirmative action programs, not only for minorities, but for women as well.

Harvard's brief argues that giving favorable weight to minority origin in selecting qualified students for admission is "an important method in reducing the disadvantages suffered by minorities in educational opportunity and professional services," and that it improves the educational opportunities of all students.

"Harvard's long experience in this area highlights the dangers of substituting an iron rule of law for the discretion of academic authorities to make a conscious selection of qualified students from the greatest variety of cultural, social and economic backgrounds in order to improve the educational experience of the whole student body," the brief states.

The basic argument is that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment does not imply an iron rule of "color-blindness." Although a policy which purposefully excluded minority groups constitutes "hostile" or "invidious" and unconstitutional discrimination by limiting and asserting the inferiority of minority groups, a policy that includes such groups in order to improve the education offered to all carries no such implications.

Harvard contends that the expansion of recent years in the meaning of diversity among students to include students from disadvantaged economic, racial and ethnic groups has meant that race must be a factor in some admissions decisions.

"In Harvard College admissions the committee has not set target quotas for the number of blacks, or of musicians, football players, physicists or Californians to be admitted in a given year. At the same time the committee is aware that if Harvard College is to provide a truly heterogeneous environment that reflects the rich diversity of the United States, it cannot be provided without some attention to numbers," Harvard argues in its brief.

The DeFunis v. Odegaard case will be watched with a great deal of interest by state and private institutions this month, because it is one of vital importance for all colleges and universities. If the Court sustains the Washington Supreme Court decision, institutions will be able to continue their efforts, at least for the time being, in improving minority access to higher education unimpeded by the cries of reverse discrimination.

But if that decision is overturned, a variety of different consequences could result. The Court might rule that the particular admissions procedure of the University of Washington Law School is illegal but giving favorable consideration to minorities in the general applicant pool is not. But it might also issue an historic sweeping decision that race cannot be a factor in any aspect of admissions or hiring practices and that they be strictly on an "as qualified" basis.