A jury of five white men and one white woman deliberated for less than four hours yesterday before deciding against a female employee who attempted to charge Harvard with racial and gender discrimination.

A federal jury found Desiree A. Goodwin, a librarian assistant at the Graduate School of Design’s Loeb Library, was not denied seven positions of promotion at various Harvard libraries because she is an African-American woman.

“I’ve prepared myself for it to go either way and I have a very good support system,” Goodwin told the Crimson. “Standing up for yourself is a victory in itself. I stood up for myself even if I didn’t win the case.”

Goodwin’s lawyers argued that the university had denied Goodwin interviews and positions on the basis of unlawful discrimination. They asked the jury to award her back pay for the salary she would have earned had she been promoted, punitive damages, and compensation for emotional distress.

“We are pleased with today’s ruling,” University Spokesman Joseph Wrinn said in a press release. “It supports what we have said from the beginning, that racial and gender discrimination were not a factor. Employment at Harvard is based on the specific work skills and work history applicants bring to specific jobs. We have always believed that to be the case and today the jury has agreed.”

Goodwin, who still works at Harvard, said she plans on remaining at the institution that she just finished suing.

“I’m still at Harvard,” she said yesterday. “I’m in a union position. I will continue my job search for a professional position and I’m also looking for top positions at Harvard, as well as outside of Harvard.”

Goodwin said she is uncertain about whether she will be limited from further advancement at Harvard because of the lawsuit.

“Let’s see if they can live up to the decision,” she said. “The jury has decided that they don’t discriminate and let’s see them prove that.”

The jury of six pondered two weeks’ worth of testimony and about 100 items of evidence for four hours after lawyers for the plaintiff and the defense presented closing arguments in United States District Court yesterday.

Jurors sided with Harvard’s attorney, Richard J. Riley, who argued yesterday that Goodwin’s race was unknown to those doing the hiring and that gender was not even an issue.

“I think you can take gender aside rather quickly,” Riley told the jury. “There are six positions in this case. Five positions were [eventually] filled by women, all were decided by a woman.”

Riley argued that the jury should find Harvard liable only if it intentionally and maliciously allowed race to play a determinant role in its hiring practices.

“They can be as foolish or stupid in [their] hiring,” Riley said of Harvard. “The debate over qualifications should not be our focus. Your focus should always be on race and gender. Where is the evidence that race or gender had anything to do with this?”

But Goodwin’s attorney, Richard Clarey, urged the jury that although the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, they can return a finding of liability even if they decide that the evidence does not directly implicate the University.