Evidence after the podcast shows that Harvard’s presidential selection process was publicly challenged on the grounds that diversity/identity considerations improperly influenced the choice of Claudine Gay.

• Prominent donor and alumnus Bill Ackman repeatedly alleged that Harvard’s presidential search was constrained by DEI requirements. He claimed the search committee "would not consider a candidate who did not meet the DEI office’s criteria" and criticized Gay as a "diversity hire," explicitly framing the process as driven by DEI rather than merit.(dailycampus.com)
• Ackman further argued that Harvard’s board had run a presidential search with “a predetermined objective of only hiring a DEI‑approved candidate,” directly attacking the legitimacy of the selection process rather than just Gay’s performance in office.(harvardindependent.com)
• Conservative activists and commentators mounted a broader campaign describing Gay as an “unqualified diversity hire” and tying her appointment to DEI ideology, which major outlets covered as a central part of the controversy surrounding her resignation and the wider political attack on higher education.(theguardian.com)

There does not appear to be a specific lawsuit solely challenging Harvard’s presidential selection process, but Jason’s prediction allowed for legal or public challenges. The intense, sustained public scrutiny and criticism focused directly on whether DEI/identity considerations distorted Harvard’s presidential search matches the scenario he described, in a way analogous to DEI‑related legal battles in other domains. Hence the prediction is best categorized as right.