And the alternative to the administration saying, just get rid of Dei is that every year or two, we're going to have new litigation where there'll be some whistleblower, and it'll come out that Harvard is still engaging in racial discrimination. And then Harvard will be found guilty like they were in that 2023 case. And they'll change their policy and they'll manipulate it, and they'll play some new game, and there'll be a new court case, and we'll keep going back and forth with them.View on YouTube
Sacks’ prediction is conditional and long‑term: if Harvard keeps DEI‑style, race‑conscious policies, then every 1–2 years there will be new whistleblower‑driven litigation revealing ongoing racial discrimination in admissions, with repeated legal findings against Harvard. The key testable elements are (a) a recurring pattern over multiple 1–2‑year cycles and (b) court or formal legal findings that Harvard is again liable for race‑based discrimination in admissions, post‑2023. The Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision did find Harvard’s prior race‑conscious admissions unlawful, but that is the baseline event Sacks is referring to, not a post‑prediction data point. (en.wikipedia.org) Since the podcast aired on April 19, 2025, only about seven months have elapsed (to November 30, 2025), which is less than the first 1–2‑year window he specified. In that interval, there has been a federal Office for Civil Rights compliance review and a denial‑of‑access letter over Harvard’s refusal to turn over admissions data, but that review has not yet produced a legal finding that Harvard is again violating Title VI in admissions. (ed.gov) There has also been a civil‑rights complaint by America First Legal alleging unlawful DEI programs and DEI‑linked use of federal funds, which calls for investigation and potential sanctions but is not itself a whistleblower admissions‑discrimination lawsuit with a liability finding. (nypost.com) Other prominent Harvard cases since 2024 concern hostile‑environment and antisemitism claims under Title VI and have led to settlements and policy changes, not new judicial findings that Harvard is again discriminating by race in its undergraduate admissions decisions. (en.wikipedia.org) Because (1) the first 1–2‑year period following the prediction has not yet elapsed, and (2) the pattern of repeated whistleblower‑driven admissions cases with fresh liability findings has not had time either to materialize or be ruled out, the available evidence neither clearly confirms nor clearly falsifies Sacks’ forecast. It is therefore too early to judge, so the prediction is best classified as inconclusive at this time.