Letter sent by US officials to Harvard University: https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf

Letter sent by US officials to Columbia University: https://president.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/ltr.gsa_.hhs_.doe_.3-13-25.pdf

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

From: Ashish Sirohi

April 30, 2025

Via Email

To:

Josh Gruenbaum
Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service
General Services Administration

Sean R. Keveney
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Thomas E. Wheeler
 Acting General Counsel
 U.S. Department of Education

 CC:

Acting President Claire Shipman
Columbia University

President Alan M. Garber
Harvard University

 BCC:

Some people with possible interest

Subject: Harvard-Columbia Admissions Give Preference to Family Breakdown (Single-Parent, Drugs), Apply Disciplinary Rules Inconsistently and Their Ideological Departmental Research Evades Certain Truths

Dear Messrs. Gruenbaum, Keveney, and Wheeler:

I attended Columbia University. I hope you will find the information below relevant to your ongoing review of Harvard University and Columbia University.

Selective enforcement of disciplinary rules, with militant activists propagating certain ideologies being exempt from them, has been a continuous and decades-long practice at Columbia

Eric Holder, who was US attorney general from 2009 to 2015 and was an undergraduate at Columbia from 1969 to 1973, brags about the exemption from rules he enjoyed as a militant black leader at Columbia: “During my senior year, several of us took one of our concerns – that black students needed a designated space to gather on campus – to the Dean’s office. This being Columbia, we proceeded to occupy that office. The target of that sit-in was Dean Henry Coleman. He heard us out, led us toward common ground and, eventually, to a compromise. But I’m not sure he was very happy about, shall we say, his forced captivity. In the ultimate display of chutzpah, however, I still asked Dean Coleman to recommend me for admission into this law school. And, lo and behold, he agreed. Only at Columbia, my friends. That’s one of many reasons why I love this university” (italics mine). https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-speaks-columbia-university-school-law-commencement (Retrieved April 30, 2025)

The black militants’ occupation of a space in Columbia’s Hartley Hall was declared “illegal” and as it went on there were continued warnings that charges would be brought against students if it did not end. It ended with a blacks-only lounge in Hartley Hall being granted to the militant activists by the Columbia administration, along with the decision not to pursue the violation of rules that had occurred. The “creation of the Malcolm X Lounge was followed by the authorization of a lounge for Asian students and a lounge for Latinx students,” but these, of course, were just typical empty Columbia talk of affirming that all groups would be treated equally, and never materialized. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/the-eye/2022/02/16/hartley-hospitality (Retrieved April 30, 2025)

Holder also brags about the race-based academic leverage he and other black militants enjoyed at Columbia, along with the disciplinary exemptions: “I did not take a final exam until my junior year at Columbia – we were on strike every time finals seemed to roll around – but we ran out of issues by that third year … This College allowed an impetuous, testosterone laced youngster to express himself in ways that other institutions would have considered unacceptable. Not Columbia. This is why I love this place …” (italics mine). https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-delivers-remarks-columbia-college-commencement (Retrieved April 30, 2025)

In 1987, the Columbia campus was consumed by a black-white incident. Black militant students at Columbia alleged that a black student, Michael Jones, had been attacked by a white lynch mob. What had actually occurred was a fight between black and white students. Working under the leadership of Jones, black militants issued many demands and organized many demonstrations.

The left-wing campus daily paper was ideologically aligned with the demand of black militants that involved whites should be disciplined. However, Columbia at the time had the Federalist Paper (“Fed”), with one of its three founders being Neil Gorsuch, now a justice of the US Supreme Court. The Fed locked in on witness testimony to place doubts on the black militants’ claims regarding the incident. A Fed editorial passed by Gorsuch and two others questioned the lynch mob claim: “Thirty whites and a few blacks; or five to seven whites and ten to fifteen blacks. Sodl started it. Or Jones did. A racist lynch mob or a personal fight. … The facts must come out ….” https://issuu.com/thefederalistpaper/docs/volume_1_no._5-3 (p.4) (Retrieved April 30, 2025)

Blockading Hamilton Hall was part of the actions taken by the black militants. A white student was suspended for his part in the black-white fight. The student took Columbia to court, noting selective application of disciplinary rules, whereby he, as a white student, was suspended but black students involved with the controversy, and with continued month-long demonstrations and harassment under the leadership of Michael Jones, faced no disciplinary charges whatsoever. The jury agreed with him and reinstated him, Krause v. Trustees of Columbia University, S.D.N.Y., 87 CIV 6342 (1988).

I was targeted by Jones and his fellow black militant leaders for openly mocking the lynch mob claim, and I eventually sued Columbia for not taking action against these militants despite their repeated violations of Columbia rules.

From my court complaint: “The continual knowledge by these students that, unlike other students, they were free from the fear of punishment was a major factor in their continued trip of power and harassment of students including the plaintiff ….”

The Judge granted Columbia’s motion to dismiss: “The gist of the case is that while a student at Columbia … plaintiff was the victim of a scheme by the individual defendants and others to humiliate him and cause him personal and other difficulties. Plaintiff claims that Columbia promised him a healthy and pleasant living and working atmosphere founded upon ‘strict rules and a strict disciplinary process that would require removal or other punishment of students whose behavior towards other students does not meet [Columbia’s] … standards of behavior.’ Plaintiff alleges that the moving defendants breached their promises by failing to provide the promised atmosphere and disciplinary process … Although a university may be obliged to apply to a student-plaintiff rules of procedure contained in university publications during the course of a disciplinary proceeding against the student-plaintiff, that does not render actionable plaintiff’s claim here, which obviously concerns quite different circumstances. … Countenancing judicial review of claims of this sort would cause the courts to interfere with the day-to-day administration of university policies, and would produce untold practical problems …”, Sirohi v. Lee, Sup. Court, New York County, Case 105280/94 (Walter Schackman, Judge), entered June 1994

The appeals court affirmed the decision, stating:

“[C]omplaint alleging, in essence, that the Columbia trustees and individual defendants had failed to provide the quality of educational environment promised and made false representations concerning the atmosphere and disciplinary process at Columbia. … [T]here is no cognizable tort claim in New York for educational malpractice. Courts have refused to substitute their judgment for that of university officials …” Sirohi v. Lee, 222 A.D.2d 222, 634 N.Y.S.2d 119. (1st Dept., Dec. 1995).

Harvard is guiding admissions officials at 100+ colleges away from merit-based admissions and towards giving preference to single-parent families and families with drug problems

Claiming that “Current assessment systems also often increase inequities,” Harvard’s Making Caring Common suggests “powerful ways for colleges to integrate and assess student character and other non-cognitive skills and capacities as part of the admission process,” though they admit that “Non-cognitive/character skills are notoriously difficult to measure.” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b7c56e255b02c683659fe43/t/5f33036cb2a65b1bc1ce9082/1723734772299/MCC_Character+Assessment+in+College+Admission+v20200811.pdf

Making Caring Common and its Turning the Tide report came under attack by Asian Americans. Asian American Coalition for Education protested in a release titled Harvard’s Wrong Solution to America’s Educational Problems – Asian Americans’ Response to Harvard’s Proposed Changes in College Admissions: “The proposed changes will further reduce the objectivity and fairness of the college admission process and create more opportunities for discrimination: … Harvard’s proposed changes will add more subjectivity and opacity to the college admissions process. This will further undermine the meritocracy ….” https://asianamericanforeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AACE-Response-to-Harvard-Proposal-on-college-admissions-1.pdf (Retrieved April 30, 2025).

Turning the Tide II is fighting for the single-parent family underperformer and working against two-parent drug-free family top performers in asking college admissions officials to “pledge” to implement changes to give increased weightage to family problems, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b7c56e255b02c683659fe43/t/5d0ce3d3b35b4b0001d0e443/1723734772299/TTT2+FINAL+2019.pdf (Retrieved April 30, 2025):

“[S]upervising a younger sibling … yet still manage to stay afloat in school …”

“… or a drug-addicted sibling, that significantly interfere with their learning and that provide important context for assessing their academic performance.” (Harvard’s experts have not specified how much admissions preference should be given to which drug addiction: fentanyl, cocaine, marijuana …)

The above document brags:

“Since the launch of our first Turning the Tide report, many colleges have stepped up to make substantial changes to their admissions processes in line with the report’s recommendations. We also release here the Deans Commitment Letter, a pioneering statement endorsed by almost 140 college admissions deans …”

That Letter reads: “We pledge that family commitments  … such as taking care of a younger sibling … are highly valued by our admission staff … admissions decisions.”

Making Caring Common proudly lists those who support its ideologies:  https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/resources-for-colleges/endorse-the-turning-the-tide-goals and https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/resources-for-colleges/sign-the-deans-commitment-letter (Retrieved April 30, 2025)

Very Few children from single-parent families turn out to be top performers who will be able to get into top universities on merit; that should be reason for such family and lifestyle choices to not be encouraged. The sibling responsibility would only be credible in a college applicant’s personal essay if the student is from a single-parent family. Should having drugs in the family or coming from a single-parent family get a student admissions preference? Why are students from the traditional drug-free two-parent family being effectively penalized as part of some Harvard-based equity revision of traditional college admissions? To move America away from the growing single-parent family and drugs lifestyle, common sense suggests that no college admission preference points, employment preference points or any other benefits or “pros” be put in for such lifestyles.

Common App, based on ideological research, has taken actions that have made 1000+ colleges unsafe

The Common App is used by over one million students each year to apply to more than 1,000 member colleges. It states its mission to be “the pursuit of access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process.” https://www.commonapp.org/about (Retrieved April 30, 2025).

For 14 years Common App had a question that made students disclose whether they had been found responsible for a “disciplinary violation.” In 2020 it removed the question noting, “Black applicants reported disciplinary records at more than twice the rate of their white peers.” https://www.commonapp.org/blog/common-app-removes-school-discipline-question-college-application (Retrieved April 30, 2025).

The worldwide reality is that single-parent family children have higher rates of school misbehavior. This would explain why black Americans are disciplined more than white Americans and white Americans more than Asian Americans. In explaining its decision, Common App cites articles that do not address this single-parent reality effect and entirely skip mentioning Asian Americans in their data. The Common App ideology that systemic racism is the cause of disparate rates of discipline has now put students at 1000+ colleges at risk. There can be no doubt that many of the disciplinary actions that are now being hidden would have included harassment of fellow students or other substantial misbehavior.

“This announcement comes one year after the Common App removed a question about applicants’ criminal history from its standard application.” In removing that criminal history question Common App had cited that the disciplinary violation question is more used by colleges: “The Common Application consulted with its membership many times on this topic over the past several years.  … There is greater commonality in the practices and use of school disciplinary history by Common App members.” https://www.commonapp.org/blog/change-criminal-history-question-2019-2020-application-year (Retrieved April 30, 2025)

Common App seems to share the ideologies of its partners, which include Harvard’s Making Caring Common. Such Common App ideology is openly declared, with the president and CEO of stating “I’m very disheartened to see the Supreme Court end a practice that has helped diversify college campuses across the country … Common App remains committed to doing our part to help close equity gaps …”, https://www.commonapp.org/blog/what-expect-common-app-after-supreme-court-decision-race-conscious-admissions (Retrieved April 30, 2025).

Making Caring Common and Common App have long been partners:

“These changes include adding an essay question …  guiding students in reporting family responsibilities. We are now collaborating with the Common Application on short- and long-term changes that advance Turning the Tide’s goals, including adding optional short essay questions; revising recommendation forms to support ethical character as well as equity and access …” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b7c56e255b02c683659fe43/t/5d0ce3d3b35b4b0001d0e443/1723734772299/TTT2+FINAL+2019.pdf

The article titled Taking Care of Siblings? Put it on the Common App – Making Caring Common pilots new checklist for the online application form describes “a new tool they are piloting with the Common App” “with an eye on equity … supervising a younger sibling … that’s really impressive ….” https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/23/05/taking-care-siblings-put-it-common-app

Harvard, Columbia and other universities with similar research ideologies have been suppressing truth regarding the harmful effects of single-parent family, including hiding the easily verifiable effect that top performers go missing

The 1965 Moynihan report attempted to alert the American people and leadership to the youth decline associated with single-parent family. However, left-wing scholars successfully attacked and dismissed the report and, instead, declared systemic racism to be the major cause of black student underperformance. With white American single-parent family percentage reaching, in 2005, the level that black Americans had in 1965, measurable decline has since hit white students, [note: may need to copy-paste link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parents_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Nonmarital_Birth_Rates_in_the_United_States,_1940-2014.png. This alarming decline in the counts of white American top scorers can be easily verified by looking at year-over-year percentages of white students scoring at “Advanced Level” in NAEP Reading and Math. Since 2005 this white American students’ percentage has declined relative to these percentages of both black Americans and Asian Americans. White-American single-parent family percentage began growing in the mid-1990s relative to both these groups, and it takes time for counts of children to become large enough and to reach the testing age. (Percentage of blacks scoring at Advanced Level was low while that of Asians was high; whites have been moving from being close to Asian percentages to heading south in the direction of black percentages.) Top scorers in both verbal and math going missing would also mean an IQ fall, since these abilities are the major part of IQ tests.

Harvard and Columbia may call their departments and research to be truth-seeking but that is often far from being the case. Departments at Harvard, Columbia and other universities that study family and education like to evade the reality of the negative effects of single-parent family by not hiring anyone who would pursue such truth. The outcome of such departments at such major universities steadfastly pursuing ideology over truth has been that the American public and leadership have continued to not be alert to vital single-parent effect information; the final unfortunate consequence is that the American single-parent family percentage has substantially gone up since 1965. As a result, America needs to import more and more top scorers from countries that have remained overwhelmingly two-parent family; these countries are not seeing the American trend of decline in top scorers.

I have put a copy of this letter on my https://churchofphysics.org website.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi

Related Developments and Links

Homepage