Letter from MIT lawyer Thane D. Scott about Overlap settlement

In a Dec. 22 letter to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Litan, MIT's attorney, Thane D. Scott of the Boston firm, Palmer & Dodge, wrote the following:

"I am writing on behalf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT"), which has authorized me to make the following representations regarding United States v. Brown University, et al., No. 91-CV-3274 (E.D. Pa.). MIT acknowledges that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) precludes it from acting in concert with any of the Ivy League colleges in a manner that violates the Final Judgment entered on September 19, 1991 in United States v. Brown University, et al. ("Consent Decree"). If MIT does so, it may be subject to contempt sanctions unless the conduct falls within Section IX of the Consent Decree ("Limiting Conditions") or a subsequent modification of the Consent Decree.

"Schools participating with MIT in cooperative financial aid arrangements may rely upon the attached document, ("Standards of Conduct,") as setting forth standards agreeable to the United States. Upon reasonable request, MIT will provide the United States with non-privileged documents, including reports received from the independent third party referenced in the Standards of Conduct, and other information reasonably related to MIT's participation in the conduct described in the attached document. Upon annual written request, MIT shall inform the United States in writing (a) whether in the preceding year, MIT has participated in conduct of the type described in the attached document, and if so, (b.) whether such conduct was consistent with the Standards of Conduct.

"Upon the request of any Ivy League college, the United States and that college shall jointly move for and support modifications of the Consent Decree to incorporate the standards set forth in the attached document. As MIT has agreed to observe the terms of the Standards of Conduct in its interactions with other institutions, the parties will execute a stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41A and the United States will move to dismiss the pending case against MIT. MIT understands that the Justice Department is amenable to this resolution because of the special procedural posture of this case and the Third Circuit's holding that unique standards apply to the awarding of financial aid by colleges".

The attached document reads as follows:

"STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

"1. Non-profit institutions of higher education may participate in the cooperative financial aid arrangements set forth below ("Participating Schools"), provided that they:

a) practice need-blind admissions; that is, admit all United States citizens to its undergraduate programs without regard to family financial circumstances, other than admitted from a wait list; and

b) provide financial aid sufficient to meet the full need of all such students.

"2. Participating Schools may agree to provide only need-based financial aid and to prohibit merit scholarships.

"3. Participating Schools may jointly discuss and agree on principles of need analysis, but may not thereby eliminate all professional judgment on the part of individual financial aid officers.

"4. Before financial aid awards are made, Participating Schools may exchange, through a computer facility, data on family and student assets, income, allowances against assets and income, number of family members, and the number of siblings in college. Each Participating School may retrieve such data only once for each applicant.

"5. After financial aid award letters are sent to students, each participating school may submit financial aid data to an independent third party for analysis. The independent third party shall tabulate and disclose the following to all Participating Schools:

a) For each pair of schools:

(1) The total number of cross-admitted applicants who receive financial aid; and

(2) the number of such cross-admitted applicants for whom the family contributions of one school exceeds the family contributions of the other school by at least (a) 20%, and (b) 50%, of the average family contribution among all aided applicants across all Participating Schools;

b) For each Participating School, the number of students, if any, for whom the sum of family contribution plus financial aid from all sources (1) exceeded, and (2) fell short of, the school's student budget.

"6. Until the graduation of each admitted class, each Participating School shall maintain with respect to that class (a) all reports received from the independent third party, and (b) data consisting of the number of students offered financial aid and the number admitted from a wait list.

"7. Participating Schools may jointly develop uniform applications for collecting data from financial aid applicants, but each shall remain free to request and utilize additional or different data from its applicants.

"8. Participating Schools may not discuss or agree upon family contributions to be expected from individual aid applicants.

"9. Participating Schools may not discuss or agree upon the mix of grants and self-help to be awarded individual aid applicants.

"10. Participating Schools may not agree upon, or exchange prospective tuition or general faculty salary levels."