The brief cites several Harvard-linked studies, including one conducted by Professor of Education and Social Policy Gary A. Orfield, in which a majority of Harvard and Michigan law students said that “students of different races” provided a “clearly positive element of their educational experience.”

It also cites a study released by Harvard’s Civil Rights Project, which Orfield heads, that argues against percentage plans, which some state universities use to automatically admit high-ranking high school students and have been put forward by some as an effective method of increasing diversity.

And the work of a former Harvard president, mentioned in the brief, supports the University’s argument.

The authors of the brief cite a 1998 book defending affirmative action in college admissions—The Shape of the River, authored by former Harvard President Derek C. Bok and former Princeton President William G. Bowen—to prove what they consider the success of the Bakke decision.

Another section of the brief presents what one University official called a “relatively new argument”—that American professions and businesses need leaders with experience in diversity.

“Leading corporations, business groups, professional organizations and executives have repeatedly called for consideration of race and ethnicity in university admissions,” the brief states.

Ultimately though, the brief is an updated defense of the “Harvard plan,” arguing that “an individualized admissions process” does not “become a ‘quota’ simply because the number of admitted minority students may not vary radically from year to year.”

Inside the Courtroom

When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for both the undergraduate case, Gratz v. Bollinger, and the law school case, Grutter v. Bollinger, Harvard’s admissions policy and research studies surfaced numerous times during the debate.

Maureen E. Mahoney, the attorney for University of Michigan Law School, explicitly referred to Harvard’s plan as a model plan without a quota, and then compared it to Michigan’s law school policy of considering race as one factor in admissions.

Mahoney said that to achieve diversity, “a plan like the Harvard plan...can be used as an effective means.”

But when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg later referred to Harvard’s admissions policy, Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea of Harvard’s policy as a model.

“Did the Court know that when the Harvard plan was originally adopted, its purpose was to achieve diversity by reducing the number of Jewish students from New York that were getting into Harvard on the basis of merit alone?” Scalia asked.

Scalia was referring to evidence that in the early 20th century, Harvard used a quota system to restrict the admission of Jewish students, according to Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree, who attended the oral arguments. But Ogletree said in April that Scalia’s comment had little relevance to arguments today.

“The plan Harvard has talked about is quite the contrary,” he said. “It is a plan designed to promote diversity of all points of view and to create a strong class of students.”