The Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action could mean colleges struggling to meet goals of diversity and equal opportunity
Pretty self-exclamatory and not needing a comment by me.
The Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action means colleges will struggle to meet goals of diversity and equal opportunity, Economic Policy Institute, Adewale A. Maye
After extensive deliberation, the Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling that effectively prohibits the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Race-blind admissions processes will further exacerbate existing inequalities and undermine the recognition of the unique challenges that Black, Hispanic, and Native American students encounter throughout the admissions process. By disregarding the significance of race, these approaches risk creating a wider divide between equal opportunity and communities of color.
This decision marks a significant setback for colleges, which have relied on this tool for over 40 years to enhance racial diversity on their campuses and compensate for decades of both explicit and implicit race-based exclusion. Colleges must now explore options like targeted recruitment programs and using other metrics such as household income and wealth as substitutes for race-based admissions. However, flagship schools from states that previously banned affirmative action and used these alternative tactics have a poor track record of success in achieving meaningful diversity gains in their student body without using affirmative action.
Lessons from flagship state schools
Over the years, a total of nine states have implemented bans on affirmative action. This policy shift forced top educational institutions like the University of California and the University of Michigan to abandon race-based admissions and find new ways to admit diverse student bodies. As a result, these universities made significant efforts to foster racial diversity by investing hundreds of millions of dollars in outreach programs. However, according to two amicus briefs in support of affirmative action filed by these two universities last year to the Supreme Court, these endeavors have proven to be ineffective. Both university systems revealed perpetually low enrollment rates among students of color despite their significant investment in alternative ways to boost diversity among the applicant pool and student body.
Following California’s implementation of Proposition 209 in 1996, which banned the use of racial preferences in admissions, the state experienced a significant decline in enrollment rates across its educational institutions. Most notable was the decline in Black student enrollment at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In 2006, only 96 students (less than 2%) self-identified as Black out of a freshman class of nearly 5,000 students.
Although enrollment rates have shown some improvement since then, disparities in enrollment persist. For example, a mere 228 students (3%) at the University of California, Berkeley identified themselves as Black out of a nearly 7,000-strong freshman class in the fall of 2022. By comparison, the 2021–2022 high school graduating class in California had approximately 8,700 Black students that met the requirements for admission into the University of California system. These limited strides in fostering diversity have come at a substantial cost to the University of California system, exceeding half a billion dollars in investments since 2004.
Likewise, at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, enrollment rates for students of color experienced a decline following the state’s adoption of Proposal 2, commonly known as the Affirmative Action Initiative, in 2006. This voter referendum also led to a state constitutional ban on race-conscious admissions. By 2021, Black enrollment stood at a mere 4%–a three percentage point drop from 2006. This is despite the growth of college-age African Americans in Michigan from 16% to 19%. Clearly, the University of Michigan has encountered challenges in ensuring that their flagship school reflects the diverse demographics of the state.
The ban on affirmative action has made it more arduous for many universities to achieve proportional representation of underrepresented groups and imposes new constraints in racial equity and equal opportunity in higher education.
Class and wealth are not adequate measures in capturing diversity
As an alternative to race-based admissions, certain schools and advocates have suggested considering socioeconomic status—including wealth—as a criterion for preference in college admissions, irrespective of race. However, this race-blind alternative falls short in capturing the full scope of what race-based admissions could achieve. Focusing solely on socioeconomic status fails to address the specific obstacles that affirmative action was intended to combat.
One significant drawback of this race-blind approach is its potential exclusion of deserving middle-class Black, Brown, and Native American students. These students may not meet the criteria for preferential treatment based on low socioeconomic status, despite facing racial disparities and encountering systemic barriers that hinder their educational opportunities. By overlooking the importance of race, this alternative fails to acknowledge the need to uplift marginalized racial and ethnic groups who may not fit neatly into a socioeconomic-based framework.
Moreover, when considering wealth-based admissions, it is important to acknowledge the significantly larger population of white Americans compared with African Americans. While a higher proportion of the Black population falls into the low-wealth category, the potential pool of low-wealth applicants would still consist of a significantly larger number of white students. According to Federal Reserve data from 2019, 31% of youths from households in the bottom quarter of the national wealth distribution (with a net worth of $12,400 or less) are Black. Even if preference was given to students in the bottom half of the wealth distribution (with a net worth of $121,700 or less), a smaller proportion of the eligible low-wealth applicants—24%—would be Black. Despite the belief that Black people may be overrepresented in a wealth-based program, the alternative would still be flawed in capturing many Black students.
Class-based admissions based on household income have also been a popular alternative to race-based admissions, but similarly to wealth, this criteria would fall short of the diversity objectives set by admissions offices, and undermine efforts to address discrimination. According to a study by Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce, selective colleges that are prohibited from considering race and ethnicity in admissions decisions may regain some level of racial and ethnic diversity by adopting class-conscious admissions practices.
However, the study highlights the considerable difficulties these institutions would encounter in achieving student bodies that accurately reflect the demographic diversity of their state’s high school population, which typically exhibits higher rates of enrollment across different racial groups compared with universities. The findings suggest that maintaining or surpassing existing representation without race-conscious admissions would necessitate a complete overhaul of the admissions system, requiring changes in applicant evaluation and consideration criteria. While socioeconomic status can be a relevant factor in addressing certain forms of disadvantage—and college education should absolutely be more accessible to low- and middle-income students of all races—socioeconomic status alone cannot fully replace the multifaceted impact of race-based admissions.
The pending Supreme Court decision on student loan debt forgiveness adds an additional layer of complexity to using socioeconomic status as a proxy for race in achieving diversity. Student loan debt is yet another barrier hindering students of color from accessing higher education. Without student loan debt forgiveness, students of color hailing from low-income backgrounds encounter even greater disparities in economic outcomes. Irrespective of whether these students gain admission to universities based on their socioeconomic status, the intersection of student loan debt, structural racism, and poverty magnifies the existing gaps in their ability to afford and enroll in higher education institutions. This could impede efforts to achieve a more inclusive and diverse student body based on race and socioeconomic factors.
The complexities of racial discrimination and the need for targeted measures to address historical injustices cannot be adequately captured by a race-blind approach alone. It is crucial to recognize the unique and ongoing struggles faced by underrepresented racial and ethnic groups and continue to advocate for holistic solutions that address both socioeconomic disparities and the significance of race in admissions policies. Affirmative action programs in higher education came into existence specifically to rectify the history of race-based exclusion, legally enforced segregation, and quota systems that capped the number of nonwhite or other minority students permitted to enroll at colleges and universities across the country. This history of discrimination had everything to do with barring students based on race, regardless of their class, and led to many of the enrollment disparities we still see today at many institutions.
What can universities do?
The adoption of race-blind admissions would not provide greater benefits to students of color compared with the existing impact of race-based admissions. Instead, any alternative approach would likely harm the enrollment rates of these marginalized groups and prove financially burdensome to implement. It is imperative to recognize the significance of race in addressing systemic inequalities and to prioritize inclusive measures that safeguard access to higher education for underrepresented communities.
Universities should persist in advocating for affirmative action specifically for Black, Brown, and Native American applicants. University presidents defending affirmative action programs on the grounds of rectifying past injustices could sway lower-court judges and dissenting justices to support affirmative action as a valid remedy. This approach may also pave the way for future Supreme Court justices to reject race-blind ideologies that currently impede reform efforts. Ultimately, maintaining intersectional admissions processes that include race is essential to promoting equity and redressing systemic barriers to higher education.
Suspect we’ll see disparity being used as a most important consideration for admission. This gets to the root of inequality and takes the race issue off the table. Even this court would be hard put to rule in favor of privilege.
Ken:
That is a good point. Income is already used as a rule for grants and also no interest loans while in college.
So, several thoughts.
First, affirmative action was good in trying to get minorities in a position where they could help minorities. Medicine and Law are the two professions that come to mind and at least medicine continues to have way more applicants than spaces. I am white and happen to have a black doctor at the moment but feel guilty because there are so many black folks seeing white doctors and not feeling comfortable about it. Same with black lawyers and judges— have to believe that black peoples have more trust in black lawyers than white and same with judges.
Second, there is value in diversity apart from larger society. I did not know any black folks as a kid because there were not any in the town I grew up in. I met some in college, some in law school and more in working in a larger city. Can not say any were close friends but understood that we were all interested in the same things. As an old man it becomes a lot easier to ignore race altogether but I still value the exposure I had to African Americans, Hispanic and Asian students in college and law school.
Third, I assume the basis for SCOTUS telling Harvard what it can and can not do is that Harvard receives federal money. Harvard can afford not to take federal money although I doubt that the Feds want Harvard to cut them out.
What happens if Harvard says fuck you to the government? Can they do what they want in admissions? Take funding from the Chinese and send them the fruits of their research? Finally, if we are truly on the slippery slope toward Russian style oligopoly, what is up with legacy admissions? Isn’t that ver botten under the SCOTUS decision because it discriminates against non whites?
Terry:
The same that happens when religious entities say no, I am not going to do such. If there is no public aid, what crudgel does the government have to force them to comply? Harvard and other entities have their funds and the backing of many of their quite rich supporters. If they wish to have public funding they comply. If not, they say no thanks.
From the time, I left 8th grade, I was with boys and men. People of different backgrounds, descents, color, origins, income, etc.The high school, I went to was all boys. Almost five thousand of us on a 30 acre campus. A magnet school that offer every shop to learn a trade one could imagine besides college prep. Working with my dad, I learned a trade and how to get along with those who worked with him I learned to keep my mouth shut. At 19, I enlisted and the corps taught me other things. My scout master taught me how to shoot and I was prized for my ability. Instead they made me a crypto tech and high on the MOS structure.
At 22, I found myself married and working for a pittance. Back to school to get a BA majoring in business with a minor in math. My wife’s boss a VP at USG convinced me to stay in business rather than be an engineer. I am a numbers guy, easily. At 31, finished my MA in Economics going to Loyola of Chicago. Again, the student body was mixed. I disappointed my Econ. Prof by not going further.
It is impossible for one to live in Chicago-proper without intermingling. There will be less qualified people who come from different backgrounds at Harvard. They will attend due to other backing. Those complaining may still not get into “it.” That education is only good for a little while unless you keep up with it or grow you knowledge which I did in supply chain and purchasing.
By the way, I edited your post to give importance to each point you made. I am city folk and am happy for it,
Terry
asi understand it, Harvard is subject to the Civil Rights Act whether or not it receives Federal money. Just like a roadside restaurant or motel in Alabama. Robert’s argument is that affirmative action is a violation of the Civil Rights Act as it discriminates against white people. Now, if only Harvard had a religious objection to admitting white people…
I think the word you’re looking for is “self-explanatory.”
I kind of liked self-exclamatory.
How Colleges Admissions Might Diversify without Affirmative Action
NY Times – Juky 1
With End of Affirmative Action, a Push for a New Tool: Adversity Scores
To build a diverse class of students, the medical school at U.C. Davis ranks applicants by the disadvantages they have faced. Can it work nationally?
For the head of admissions at a medical school, Dr. Mark Henderson is pretty blunt when sizing up the profession.
“Mostly rich kids get to go to medical school,” he said.
In his role at the medical school at the University of California, Davis, Dr. Henderson has tried to change that, developing an unorthodox tool to evaluate applicants: the socioeconomic disadvantage scale, or S.E.D.
The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99, taking into account their life circumstances, such as family income and parental education. Admissions decisions are based on that score, combined with the usual portfolio of grades, test scores, recommendations, essays and interviews.
The disadvantage scale has helped turn U.C. Davis into one of the most diverse medical schools in the country — notable in a state that voted in 1996 to ban affirmative action. …
,,, Word has gotten out about the U.C. Davis scale. Dr. Henderson said that about 20 schools had recently requested more information. And there are other socioeconomic measurements, including Landscape, released in 2019 from the College Board, the nonprofit that administers the SATs. That tool allows undergraduate admissions offices to assess the socioeconomic backgrounds of individual students.
But skeptics question whether such rankings — or any kind of socioeconomic affirmative action — will be enough to replace race-conscious affirmative action. And schools that use adversity scales may also find themselves wandering into legal quagmires, with conservative groups promising to fight programs that are simply stand-ins for race.
Over the years, medical schools have made some progress in diversifying their student bodies, with numbers ticking up. But just like undergraduate admissions, wealth and connections continue to play a determining role in who is accepted. More than half of medical students come from families in the top 20 percent of income, while only 4 percent come from those in the bottom 20 percent, according to data from the American Association of Medical Colleges. …
Guessing there will be a lot of new approaches to admissions. Some places will develop massive sets of policies to attempt to replicate classic affirmative action without using race. Others will let go of the idea of group identification diversity pretty conclusively. And points in between. With expected declines in “enrollable” populations, not thinking this is going to prove to be the top challenge for education over the next couple of decades. If you are a remotely plausible future college student and want to attend, you’ll get acceptances. In any case I find it revealing that Maye seems to argue that it is unjust to create admissions policies that use observable characteristics supposedly the result of prior discrimination instead of race itself. Equally obvious is the concern is with only one side of the implicit equation here. The court has just ruled that in fact it is an unconstitutional and impermissible injustice for students to be penalized for their immutable racial category, yet I see zero interest in Maye’s part to deal with that which strikes me as unserious.
After high court’s ruling on affirmative action, colleges confront daunting next steps on admissions
Boston Globe – July 1
The Supreme Court handed the nation’s most selective colleges an arduous challenge with its ruling this past week striking down the use of affirmative action to recruit a diverse student population.
Schools will have to, on the one hand, reconfigure admission practices to comply with the ruling, while launching more extensive outreach and recruitment efforts to communities of color and low-income applicants. They will have to be more creative — and careful — in how race is considered in the application process.
Maintaining a more diverse campus will be expensive, not just in additional recruitment efforts but in more generous aid packages to needy students. And all this extra work will likely unfold under the ever-present threat of another legal challenge as critics will be scrutinizing their every move.
“The onus is on us to cast a wide net,” said Sian Leah Beilock, the incoming president of Dartmouth College. “My goal as a leader is to create a big tent with different points of view and different ideas on campus because that’s where we get to the best outcomes.”
The court’s ruling comes at a poignant moment for some New England colleges, including Dartmouth, where they are welcoming a diverse class of new school presidents just as the long-used admissions practice was eliminated. Beilock is Dartmouth’s first female president, and Harvard University, one of two colleges named in the Supreme Court ruling, welcomed its first Black president on Saturday, just two days after the court rebuked its admissions methods. …
They will be charged with restructuring their respective colleges’ admissions strategies within the bounds of the law and ensuring their campuses are building and portraying inclusive environments that appeal to diverse students.
College and university leaders, many of whom said that they were not surprised by the ruling from the conservative-leaning court, have been strategizing for months about maintaining diversity. In the hours after the ruling, many publicly promised to comply with the law while trying to preserve commitments to diversity and inclusion.
But, some worry the ruling could deter students of color from even bothering to apply to selective colleges.
“It’s a substantively regressive decision, but it’s also a decision that sends a signal to students that maybe they’re not actually wanted in higher education,” said Clayton Spencer, outgoing president of Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, which was founded by abolitionists.
Research lends credence to such concerns. Zachary Bleemer, who teaches economics at Yale University, found that applications to top public universities in California from Black and Hispanic high school graduates fell following the state’s ban on affirmative action in 1996.
Spreading the word about generous institutional financial aid policies for low-income students will be critical for well-resourced colleges seeking diverse candidates, said Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University. Research shows that high sticker prices can deter students from applying to private colleges before knowing what kind of financial aid they would receive.
“Many students think, ‘Oh, I can’t go to Amherst [College] or Wesleyan because it’s just too expensive,’” Roth said. He added that many low-income students are able to graduate with little or no debt.
“Getting the word out to students where they are is going to be even more important, given the court’s ruling,” Roth said. “We just have to work really hard to not fall into a homogeneous campus or a homogeneous applicant pool.” …
New England is home to Ivy League universities, all wealthy and all ‘woke’.
They are uniformly irked by the latest SC decision on Affirmative Action.
I am somewhat surprised to see that Stanford, the CA equivalent of an Ivy feels just the same way. They may be arch conservative when it comes to economics, but they also prize diversity & are committed to keeping it going, it seems.
Hoover’s Double-Bind: Woke For Me, But Not For Thee
Stanford Review – Julia Steinberg – June 5
For an institution claiming to be a bastion of freedom rather than activism, Hoover doth protest too much.
Last week, I published an article in the Review detailing Hoover’s woke-ward shift, entitled “Hoover Goes Woke”; Dr. Niall Ferguson wrote a response characterizing my argument as misguided. He urged me “to take a closer look at all the Hoover Institution has to offer.” Okay. …
(With its eminent scholars and world-renowned Library and Archives, the Hoover Institution – at Stanford Uni – is a public policy think tank that seeks to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity, while securing and safeguarding peace for America and all mankind. …)
Last week, I published an article in the Review …
For decades, the Hoover Institution has been recognized as an oasis of conservatism on the increasingly liberal Stanford campus. As a result of its conservative bent, Hoover has been the perfect target for frequent criticism by Stanford’s faculty and has had a tenuous relationship with Stanford. However, Stanford may be winning the battle. In recent years, led under Director Condoleezza Rice, the Hoover Institution has ceded ground to Stanford’s ideological totalitarianism rather than firmly standing up for conservative values. Hoover has gone woke. …
the time will come with the new minority majority that Republicans will need the black vote. they will know how to get it without breaking stride. and the new boss will be the same as the old boss.
Lots to think through if you are leading a college or university. One of the first things is thinking through admissions staffing. The decision isn’t too hard to grasp – many places have been relying on illegal racial discrimination in admissions. The reactions so far make this sound like a really big change, not just a small detail to correct. Life sometimes isn’t totally fair, but if my highly paid executive is telling me huge changes are needed, maybe I find someone new to take over. Might even go for the board thinking about the highest level, too.
given that Harvard prioritizes “tests” and grinding ambition…which do not measure integrity or depth of scholarship, I am not surprised by the lack of those last in the publications of at least some prominent Harvard graduates.
admission to Harvard may be a ticket to the elite class, but non-admission will not ruin your life or prevent whatever future acomplishments you are capable of making.
Justice Jackson tells me (in her essay) that affirmative action is still important..for recruiting blacks into the ranks of the elite’s high level foot soldiers…and I think that might be a good reason to keep affirmative action. But I find it hard to believe that in a country of 300 million people Harvard can’t find ten black people who score higher than the last person on the “white applicant” list.
This is more about the triumph of bureaucracy over treating people like people.
When I was eighteen I was terrorized by the need to get into a “good” school…and helped by some very decent people who believed in that need, to whom I am eternally grateful for their kindness.
As it turned out in spite of very high “scores” I never made it….probably because of my “attitude” which I thought was strongly pro honesty and decency but probably identified me as “not a team player.” and now that I have seen it all, I am quite sure they were right. Or as Bernard Shaw said in a play..”Hell is the place for the wicked and they are happy there.” I would not have been happy at Harvard.
Well, not everyone can go to Harvard, or any of the elite Ivy League schools.
Even if you’re emminently qualified. There just isn’t room enough.
My point is only that if you are sufficiently qualified, but can’t afford to attend such schools, if they want you (for whatever reason) they will help you pay.
Afterall, it is to their benefit to have successful graduates.
It seems like, these days few(er) young people are not willing to make the effort.
If the US is indeed the land of opportunity, why not (given caveats above), maybe you would be well served by joining the elite class of graduates of such elite institutions if only to secure a six figure income. That’s one way to address America’s income inequality problem.
However, this will not get you into the elitest classes reserved for pop music stars, elite professional athletes and movie stars, alas.
Fred:
I always told my three, go where they want you. If they offer you grants and scholarships, they want you. If they offer you a loan, look elsewhere. Dad was right.
Fred
i think i tried to point out somewhere that i would be very surprised if in a population of 300 million people Harvard could not find ten black students who were more qualified [whatever that means] than the two-hundredth best qualified white applicant.
Bernard Shaw said in a play..”Hell is the place for the wicked and they are happy there.”
[ There is no record of such GBS quote. Please clarify, if possible. ]
ltr:
I don’t know, it does sound pretty good.
On many occasions, you have proven your worth by the knowledge you display to keep many of us honest.
It is good to have you around AB.
ltr
line delivered by character “Don Juan” in third act of “Man and Superman.” The third act is often presented as stand alone play called “Don Juan in Hell.”
funny thing about “record.”
“Wicked people means people who have no love: therefore, they have no shame. They have the power to ask love because they don’t need it: they have the power to offer it because they have none to give.”
― George Bernard Shaw, Candida
[I was happier in Vietnam than I would have been at any university and I also learned much more by the experience. Apparently my career and retirement prospects did not suffer by exchange either. It was all a matter of timing. In 1967 university IT curriculum were not even close to being up to the challenge of the emerging technology when compared to hands on experience. Learning to program SAAL while operating a Univac 1005 in an air conditioned van in Phu Bai landed me a COBOL programming job in the Army back at Fort Benning when I got home.
Chance provides opportunities, but harvesting good fortune from opportunity requires focus.]
Talk about diversity! The Army back in the day of the draft in particular was it. Loss of that widespread experience is my one regret for the loss of the draft.
@Jackd,
Non-volunteer citizen soldiers not only provided a diversity cauldron, but also avoided the problems of an entirely volunteer military that we now see reflected in the recruitment of former military into right wing extremist paramilitary organizations and the loss of dissent over matters of war-ish foreign policy.
I demonstrated against the war in Vietnam (1st moratorium in November 1969) wearing my dress greens with my orders tucked in my inside jacket pocket in case there was any legal objection to my wearing my class-A uniform with a black arm band. However, I never demonstrated against the draft.