Several things seemed odd.
Much of the talk was about "Asians", when they really meant Oriental Americans. No one was willing to discuss the interests of White Americans.
Harvard rated Asian applicants as high in intelligence and academic accomplishments, and low in personality and other subjective factors. The high ratings were taken as factual, while the low ratings were inexplicable, except by personal prejudice.
Why? Isn't it possible that Asians really are high in intelligence and low in personality? We could get into a nature-nurture debate on why Asians rate high academically, but that is beside the point. If they can rate high in some areas, they can rate low in others, without any prejudice.
It appeared that everyone wanted to find a way for Harvard to reach its diversity goals, without racial quotas. Diversity good, explicit racial preferences bad.
But why? They obviously don't believe in diversity for its own sake, as they do not hire any Trump supporters on its faculty. They do not make any effort to admit evangelical Christians or various other underrepresented groups. Diversity is just a code word for anti-White.
I am not sure it is bad to have racial quotas. Most people seem to think that Black colleges are okay. But Harvard takes federal money and is transparently unfair and dishonest with its racial preferences, and most people seem to think Harvard will lose. Harvard acts as if it can lose, and go about doing the same thing anyway, but justifying it differently.
If racial preferences are justified as a remedy for past injustices, when do they end? That is the question no one could answer. Most of Harvard's Black admissions are to those whose families never suffered any injustices. If it were a remedy, it would have ended decades ago.