Published by the MIT News Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

MIT Seeks to Move Antitrust Suit to Mass.

No Decision Yet
MIT Seeks to Move Financial Aid 
Antitrust Suit to Massachusetts
By Kenneth D. Campbell
News Office
The unprecedented antitrust suit against the financial aid practices of 
leading private colleges had its first action in court last Wednesday 
morning (July 31) before US District Court Judge Louis C. Bechtle in 
Philadelphia.
The judge took under advisement the request by MIT to move the case to 
the US District Court in Massachusetts, where the annual financial aid 
"overlap" meeting of 23 private colleges, including MIT and the eight 
Ivy 
League colleges, has taken place for more than two decades. The 
financial aid officers attending the professional meetings discussed 
the 
financial need of undergraduate students who had been admitted to 
more 
than one of the colleges and had applied for aid.
Judge Bechtle asked the attorneys for MIT and the Antitrust Division of 
the US Justice Department to confer about how long the discovery 
process would take and to come back to the court in a couple of weeks. 
After receiving that plan, he said he would make a decision on whether 
the case should stay in Philadelphia or go to Boston.
MIT declined to sign a May 22 consent decree to which the Ivy League 
colleges reluctantly agreed. The colleges said they did not believe they 
had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act but that the cost of fighting the 
US Department of Justice was prohibitive. The consent decree is 
subject 
to approval by the judge.
MIT maintains that its "actions in awarding financial aid based upon 
the 
demonstrated need of each applicant are consistent with and required 
by 
federal law." The Sherman Antitrust Act's strictures against private 
business competition do not apply to the competition among nonprofit 
private educational institutions and their decision as to who shall 
receive their charitable funds in the form of scholarships, MIT 
attorneys 
say.
In its brief, MIT said the case should be moved to the Federal District 
Court in Massachusetts. "For reasons known only to the Government, 
this 
case was commenced in Philadelphia even though it was clear that only 
MIT would be actively defending the case on the merits and that the 
conduct challenged -the charitable activity of the "Overlap" group-has 
occurred within Massachusetts since 1969. 
"Because (1) MIT is located in Massachusetts, (2) the key witnesses and 
relevant documents most likely will be found in Massachusetts, (3) the 
lawsuit challenges conduct that has taken place openly in 
Massachusetts 
each year for more than two decades, and (4) there is no discernible 
reason for the Government to have elected to commence its lawsuit 
against MIT in this distant forum rather than in Massachusetts, this 
action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the 
District of Massachusetts. . . 
"Transfer to that district will serve the convenience of the parties and 
witnesses and the interest of justice, and will provide for the easiest, 
fastest and most economical resolution of this case," MIT's brief said.