{shortcode-c7faeee925a1bd40923708670de7f3ee48bf21c5}

Harvard’s new admissions interview policy isn’t about fairness — it’s about fear.

Last month, The Crimson reported that Harvard has banned alumni interviewers from mentioning an applicant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in their written evaluations.

This is a disastrous decision. The exclusion of demographic information clearly disadvantages applicants whose stories and strengths are deeply intertwined with their identities — namely, racial and ethnic minorities. And amidst the widespread elimination of race-conscious programming at Harvard, this change seems motivated more by pressure from the Trump administration than by the best interests of the College.

Take one glaring example: Under the new guidelines, an interviewer may write that a student immigrated from another country, but not name which one. This rule completely discounts the differences between foreign countries. An applicant who immigrated to the United States from Syria to flee political violence probably will have had a very different experience from one who, say, immigrated from England for personal reasons.

Similarly, interviewers may not explicitly reference the languages an applicant speaks at home or the religion they practice. And if an applicant was active in or led an affinity group at their high school, the interviewer may not specify which one. This effectively lumps all minority applicants into one “other” pool, stripping them of individuality.

As the College seeks to evaluate applicants' merit and potential, details about race and national origin provide essential context. By erasing them, this new policy flattens minority applicants' stories, disadvantaging them in the application process.

For many applicants it is impossible to accurately capture the story of your life and journey towards Harvard without including national origin.

I myself interviewed during November of 2023 in Amman, Jordan — neighboring the countries of Palestine and Israel — just one month after the events of October 7th.

During my interview, I spoke about Palestine and the current conflict in Gaza, which had direct relevance to me, a Palestinian who grew up in Jerusalem. I discussed how I thought my Palestinian identity would affect my conversations and relationships at Harvard. If my interviewer had only been able to write vaguely that my nationality would affect my College experience, admissions officers wouldn’t be able to understand the full meaning of my answers.

Alumni interviews are the College’s only means of getting to know and evaluate an applicant in a live environment. Enforcing these new restrictions on interviewers practically renders these interviews useless for the many applicants whose race and ethnicity are key parts of their life story.

Given that applicants can still discuss their race and other elements of their identity in their essays, excluding this information in alumni interviews is a strange move. Further, the fact that the College is only introducing the change now, rather than in the first admissions cycle after the fall of affirmative action, suggests that the move was not necessary to remain in compliance with the court ruling. (Indeed, that decision still allowed colleges to consider how applicants' race or ethnicity affected their life.)

The timing of this change is, of course, incredibly relevant. It comes amid heightened pressure from the Trump administration to eliminate race-conscious programming and a slew of other changes from the College that seem to represent an acquiescence to this pressure. Earlier this year, Harvard ended the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program and shut down the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, along with several other diversity offices.

This new admissions policy is just another disappointing example of Harvard deprioritizing minority students and bending to Trump, even when not required by law.

Now especially is not the time to push minority applicants to the side, considering the significant drop in Black and Hispanic enrollment in the Class of 2029. Without affirmative action, allowing minority students to share their stories with relevant racial or ethnic details is one of the only ways to learn how their identity has impacted their lives and application.

This policy may satisfy Trump, but it betrays Harvard’s own principles. The College cannot claim to value diversity while systematically erasing the identities that make its community diverse in the first place.

Salma Abu-Elnaj ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Psychology concentrator in Mather House.