Harvard Keeps Restrictions on Race in Alumni Interview Reports Despite Pushback

Harvard is keeping restrictions on what alumni interviewers can include about applicants’ race, ethnicity, religion, and national origin in their reports for a second admissions cycle, despite months of criticism from alumni over the policy.

In a September training video obtained by The Crimson, the admissions office reaffirmed rules introduced last year that prohibit alumni interviewers from referencing applicants’ race, ethnicity, or national origin in their written reports.

Interviewers are also prohibited from asking applicants about their race, ethnicity, or national origin or considering that information in the interview process, according to the training. They may not ask about GPA or standardized test scores, though they can ask about academic interests and extracurricular commitments.

“You may consider questions that get at if the student seems broadly curious across academic disciplines or particularly focused on one field,” the training said, including whether applicants “display intellectual curiosity, openness to new perspectives, and the ability to reflect.”

Several Schools and Scholarships chairs — alumni volunteers who oversee interviewing in their regions — said the restrictions make it more difficult to fully capture applicants’ backgrounds in their reports.

Unity Dienes ’94, Schools and Scholarships chair for the Harvard Club of New Hampshire, said the guidelines have been “frustrating” for many interviewers. Dienes is taking a year off from the role.

Dienes recalled interviewing the daughter of a refugee and being unable to reference what country her parents were from or explain the political context surrounding the applicant’s experiences.

“That felt like I was really concealing a part of what made her special, truthfully,” Dienes said. “So it definitely didn’t feel in her best interest to have to conceal that information.”

Stanley H. “Stan” Eleff ’69, who chairs the Schools and Scholarships committee for the Harvard Club of Tampa, described complying with the restrictions as walking “a very thin line” that he said interviewers will “struggle” to navigate.

“That’s lead to classes that are less diverse, to graduates who are less interesting, to people who are less able to, if they even want to, reintegrate into communities and have those communities be enriched by the experience of members of those communities having gone to Harvard College,” he said of the policy.

Clinton Marrs ’79, a recipient of a Miller-Hunn Award and former Schools and Scholarships committee chair for the Harvard Club of New Mexico, also criticized the ban on what he called “taboo” words in interview reports.

“You have the prerogative, if not the unavoidable necessity of drawing influences, because you know you’re just reacting to the person right there in front of you, and you take that person into account — the whole person into account — and that includes that person’s ethnicity,” he said.

The unchanged guidance comes just over a month after 1,600 alumni signed a petition urging Harvard to reconsider changes to the alumni interview handbook. The petition was addressed to Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67, Director of Admissions Joy St. John, and University President Alan M. Garber ’76.

The policies have also drawn criticism from the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, an alumni group that has advocated for race-conscious admissions since 2016, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which called the guidance “unlawful and discriminatory” in a December 2025 letter to Garber.

Opposition became public in June at the Miller-Hunn Awards, which honor alumni volunteers who recruit and interview applicants to the College. Two of the nine recipients, both Coalition members, used their acceptance speeches to protest the handbook changes, wearing shirts that read “our unity is our strength, diversity is our power” and “ethnic studies now.”

In a Tuesday statement to The Crimson, the Coalition expressed disappointment that Harvard had kept the interview restrictions in place.

“We don’t understand why interviewers can’t quote a student when they describe anything connected to race, ethnicity, gender or religion. In this way, it is the student’s own words,” they wrote.

A Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesperson declined to comment on the decision.

But not all alumni interviewers said the restrictions hindered their assessments of applicants.

Tia Raskin ’03, who interviews applicants in the Chicago area, wrote that the restrictions had not changed how she evaluates candidates and could instead push interviewers to write more precise reports.

“Simple identifiers like nationality or language can end up as a kind of shortcut that undersells a candidate anyway, and having to find sharper, more specific language to describe what actually makes someone stand out pushed me to write a stronger, more precise account of the candidate than I might have otherwise,” she wrote.

—Staff writer Celine Muir can be reached at [email protected] or Signal at celinem.33. Follow her on X @celinemuir1.

—Staff writer Alexa M. Schmitt can be reached at [email protected] or Signal at alexaschmitt.15. Follow her on X ​​@alexa_m15_s.