Harvard Cleared of Discrimination

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.

“If you believe that people at Harvard have not told the truth in one of any of these positions, you can infer that there is a discriminatory reason for their decisions in that case,” Clarey told the jury.

Clarey invoked the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. in court yesterday, claiming his client was judged by the color of her skin rather than the content of her character.

Goodwin contends she was told by her employer Barbara Mitchell that she was “just a pretty face” and that a promotion at Harvard in library services for an African-American was nearly impossible. “She was told by several people that she should leave Harvard,” Clarey said. “[An employer] suggested that she move on, [saying] ‘Don’t get stuck here. This is a traditional place.’”

The defense attempted to debunk Goodwin’s testimony from the week before. Riley reminded jurors that Mitchell had vehemently denied on the stand that she had said anything negative about the plaintiff’s race. He said that, in fact, Mitchell had written letters of recommendation for Goodwin and pointed out several positions to her.

“[Mitchell said] ‘If you’re equally qualified, the fact that you’re black may help you get the job,’” Riley reminded the jury. “Does this suggest that the woman—who is married to an African-American man, by the way—is a racist?”

The Harvard lawyer also suggested to the jury that Goodwin’s contention that she was asked to leave Widener “through the back door” by an interviewer was a fabrication.

“What she realized was that she didn’t have any evidence that would legitimately convince you,” Riley said. “[So she thought], ‘I was sent through the back door, that’s what I’ll say.’”

Goodwin first mentioned this incident, which her attorneys called a “humiliating experience,” during cross-examination, claiming that she had just remembered it at that moment and recalled crying in the parking lot afterward.

“I was personally offended because I pride myself on my integrity,” Goodwin said in an interview yesterday.

Goodwin said she was surprised by the speed at which the jury returned a finding but was less so about the actual decision.

“It’s very hard to legally decide what motivates a person to act in a certain way,” Goodwin said. “Most people who discriminate do not think of themselves as discriminators.”

—Staff writer Robin M. Peguero can be reached at peguero@fas.harvard.edu.