A persuasive and inspiring essay for successful admission to Harvard - Ievgen Sykalo 2026
The Concept of Justice: You questioned a particular manifestation or definition of justice in a real-world scenario
Entry — Reframing Justice
Justice as Process, Not Ideal
- Personal Disillusionment: The author's mother's trial, described as a "performative system," shatters a naive understanding of justice as inherently impartial, revealing it instead as a process whose fairness is determined by its transparency and respect for individuals. This initial rupture creates the foundational tension that drives the author's subsequent inquiry.
- Intellectual Framing: The discovery of "procedural justice" provides a conceptual framework for understanding observed systemic failures, transforming raw anger into analytical engagement by offering a language to articulate the gap between ideal and reality.
- Active Engagement: The shift from passive observation of injustice to active advocacy in school discipline, specifically through "peer mediation circles," demonstrates the author's commitment to enacting change at a local, tangible level, proving that theoretical understanding can lead to practical, impactful intervention.
How does the essay's opening anecdote about the courtroom immediately challenge conventional notions of justice as blind and impartial, setting up the central argument that fairness is a matter of process?
By juxtaposing the personal experience of a flawed legal system with the intellectual discovery of "procedural justice," the author argues that true fairness emerges from transparent, respectful processes rather than inherent impartiality.
Psyche — The Advocate's Interiority
From Witness to Architect of Fairness
- Cognitive Dissonance: The author's initial belief (paraphrased: "justice was a scale—steady, gold, blindfolded") clashes with the reality of their mother's trial, creating a foundational rupture that fuels later inquiry. This dissonance forces a re-evaluation of deeply held societal assumptions about fairness.
- Intellectualization of Trauma: The discovery of "procedural justice" provides a conceptual language for a previously inchoate sense of betrayal, allowing the author to move from raw emotion to analytical engagement. This transforms personal pain into a framework for systemic critique.
- Empathic Projection: The author's reaction to Malachi's suspension (paraphrased: "I still hear that sound sometimes") demonstrates a transfer of their own past feelings of helplessness onto others, motivating intervention. This reinforces the personal stake in broader systemic issues of equity.
How does the author's admission of sometimes "push[ing] too hard, too fast" (paraphrased) complicate their self-portrayal as a justice advocate, and what does this reveal about their understanding of ethical engagement in systemic change?
The essay traces the author's psychological evolution from a disillusioned observer of injustice to a proactive advocate, demonstrating how personal trauma can be transmuted into a driving force for systemic change through intellectual framing and sustained action.
Ideas — Concepts of Fairness
Procedural Justice in Practice
- Idealized Justice vs. Procedural Justice: The essay contrasts the "statue kind" of justice with the messy reality of courtrooms and school policies, highlighting the gap between aspiration and implementation. It argues that the process itself determines the perceived fairness of the outcome.
- Disparate Impact vs. Intent: The author's observation of Malachi's suspension and the school's "zero tolerance" policy implicitly critiques policies that, regardless of intent, disproportionately harm certain groups. This shifts the focus from individual malice to systemic inequity.
- Punitive vs. Restorative Practices: The essay's advocacy for "peer mediation circles" and "anonymous teacher feedback" implicitly champions restorative approaches over purely punitive ones. It seeks to repair harm and build community rather than simply enforce rules.
If "fairness is the air we breathe in a courtroom," as the author initially believed (paraphrased), what specific textual details, such as the "cold plastic chair" or the public defender's mispronunciation of a name, demonstrate how that air becomes toxic or absent, thereby necessitating a focus on procedural mechanisms?
By dissecting the practical failures of justice in both legal and educational settings, the author argues for a redefinition of fairness rooted in transparent "procedural justice" and "restorative practices" rather than abstract ideals.
World — Systems of Inequity
Institutional Logics of Disadvantage
- The "Script" of Injustice: The observation that the courtroom outcome felt (paraphrased) "workshopped a hundred times" reflects a historical pattern where marginalized individuals often face predetermined outcomes within systems designed to maintain existing hierarchies. This highlights the systemic, rather than individual, nature of the problem.
- Zero-Tolerance Policies: The school's "zero tolerance, no questions asked" discipline policy mirrors broader trends in criminal justice that prioritize strict enforcement over contextual understanding, often leading to "disparate impact" on minority students. This demonstrates how seemingly neutral policies can perpetuate inequity.
- The Power of Policy Language: The author's desire to (paraphrased) "write language that doesn’t betray the people it’s supposed to protect" acknowledges the historical role of legal and institutional language in either upholding or undermining justice. This recognizes that policy is not neutral but an active agent in shaping outcomes.
How do the "cold plastic chair" and the public defender's mispronunciation of a name function as micro-aggressions that reveal the systemic dehumanization embedded within the justice system, rather than mere individual oversights?
The essay demonstrates how seemingly disparate institutional settings—a courtroom and a high school—operate under similar structural logics that prioritize procedural efficiency over genuine fairness, perpetuating cycles of marginalization.
Essay — Persuasive Structure
Crafting a Narrative of Purpose
- Descriptive (weak): The author saw injustice in a courtroom and then at school, which made them want to help.
- Analytical (stronger): The author uses personal anecdotes to illustrate the systemic failures of procedural justice, arguing for active engagement in policy reform as a response to disillusionment.
- Counterintuitive (strongest): By presenting their own journey from disillusionment to advocacy as a series of intellectual discoveries and practical interventions, the essay argues that true justice is not a static ideal but a continuous, often messy, process of systemic recalibration.
- The fatal mistake: Simply summarizing the author's experiences without connecting them to a larger argument about the nature of justice or the author's evolving understanding of systemic change.
How does the essay's repeated phrase (paraphrased) "I understand how this sounds. But stay with me" or "But that’s the point: it should sound outrageous" function to anticipate and disarm reader skepticism, thereby strengthening its persuasive appeal?
Through a carefully structured narrative that interweaves personal disillusionment with intellectual awakening and concrete advocacy, the author persuasively argues that a commitment to procedural justice requires not just critique, but active, iterative engagement with systemic policy.
Now — 2025 Structural Parallels
Algorithmic Justice and Accountability
- Eternal Pattern: The essay's core insight—that fairness is often undermined by the process itself, regardless of explicit intent—is an eternal pattern visible in any system where power is unevenly distributed and procedures lack transparency. Human systems tend to optimize for efficiency or control over equity.
- Technology as New Scenery: The "gavel in the wrong hands" can now be an AI-powered hiring algorithm that, despite being designed for efficiency, perpetuates historical biases by disproportionately screening out candidates from certain backgrounds because the underlying data reflects past inequities.
- Where the Past Sees More Clearly: The author's early recognition that (paraphrased) "no one seemed surprised" by an unjust outcome highlights a societal desensitization to systemic failure, a phenomenon that can be obscured in 2025 by the complexity and perceived neutrality of large-scale data analytics, which often mask human-made biases.
- The Forecast That Came True: The author's desire to (paraphrased) "build new frameworks" and "write language that doesn’t betray" anticipates the urgent need in 2025 for ethical AI governance frameworks and transparent data privacy policies that actively work to prevent systemic harms rather than merely reacting to them.
If the author's mother's trial felt like a "theater production where the ending had been workshopped a hundred times" (paraphrased), how might a defendant in 2025 experience a similar sense of predetermined outcome when facing a justice system heavily influenced by opaque predictive policing algorithms?
The essay's exploration of procedural injustice, from courtroom to classroom, structurally parallels the challenges of ensuring fairness in 2025's algorithmic decision-making systems, where biases embedded in code can predetermine outcomes with similar opacity and disparate impact.
Literature educator and essay writing specialist. Over 20 years of experience creating educational content for students and teachers.