The Future of College Campus Diversity and College Admissions Process; Affirmative Action (research)

In June 2023, in the landmark case, Students for Fair Admissions, INC. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the United States Supreme Court held that affirmative action programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. V. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. (2023), n.d.). This effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger which, in 2003, ruled that “the use of an applicant's race as one factor in an admissions policy of a public educational institution does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” as long as other factors are considered in a holistic admissions process (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), 2019).

Advocates for affirmative action believe that in denying a solution to discrimination in the admissions process, there is a denial of life experiences of racial prejudice and harmful systemic racism that is present in our American society. In addition to this, an inevitable consequence includes the significant loss of representation of disadvantaged minorities in selective schools, presenting a harsh challenge to equal schooling opportunities. While affirmative action policies were not perfect, they provided disadvantaged individuals with a fighting chance. With modeling from Harvard University's Class of 2019, if Harvard were to include race-neutral practices in admissions, the percentage of African American students would decrease from 14% to 6%, and the makeup of Latinx students in the class would lower from 14% to 9%; additionally, the Asian American makeup would increase from 24% to 27% because affirmative action identifies disadvantaged minorities as Black and Latinx (KEY FACTS, n.d.).

In California, race-based admissions have been banned in public universities since 1996. Despite millions of dollars spent on outreach programs and alternative admissions standards, school officials have not been able to meet diversity and equity goals (Bowman, 2023). In fact, in the University of California amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of Harvard, chancellors said that alternative race-neutral policies have consistently fallen short (Bowman, 2023). Further, the brief expounded that this shortfall is "especially apparent at UC’s most selective campuses, where African American, Native American, and Latinx students are underrepresented and widely report struggling with feelings of racial isolation” (Wolf, 2023). Students learn from the environment of their college campus, which should arguably act as a reflection of the world that includes diversity in perspective that race can influence.

Affirmative action programs shine a light on the reality of race relations in America while also acknowledging that racial discrimination is still very prevalent in our society. History of our nation has over and over again shown that minority groups often face discrimination whether it is in accessing healthcare and housing, gaining employment, or dealing with our criminal justice system. The affirmative action programs in college admissions allowed for race to be used as a factor rather than being the deciding factor. Proponents of these programs have argued that this not only allowed for a diverse and enriched learning environment, it also provided opportunities to those who would otherwise not even have a shot at gaining admission into an elite school. With the number of concerns surrounding the process of race neutrality in college admissions, there is a reasonable question about the achievability of racial diversity goals without affirmative action. Since the ruling, many have also voiced the importance of the historical context of the Equal Protection Clause; the minorities that are affected by affirmative action were not considered equal to white men at that time in history.

Another concern from advocates for affirmative action and diversity in elite schools includes the preference toward applicants with legacy status. For example, at Harvard University, the group of Athletes, Legacies, Donors, and Children of Faculty (ALDCs) make up around 5% of applicants but 30% of admitted students; additionally, over 43% of white students who were admitted are part of this group; however, around 75% of these white students would be rejected if they were treated as white non-ALDC applicants (Arcidiacono et al., 2021). Some believe this preference will ensure a higher population of white students in elite schools and further denies those opportunities to many disadvantaged minorities. The Supreme Court ruling of this case brings into question equal opportunity in pursuing higher education and possibly opening the door to dismantling of DEIB initiatives across the workforce, race based discrimination in accessing housing, etc.

Opposingly, the Students for Fair Admissions nonprofit expresses that racial preferences in admission are “unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional” (Students for Fair Admissions, 2019). Many against affirmative action view the policy as reinforcing racial stereotypes and promoting discrimination. An observation made by Thomas Sowell pointed out that “[racial] preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians” (Sacks & Thiel, 1996). Also, some students highlight that pushes for diversity can be harmful, which could lead different institutions such as Stanford to create “racially segregated spaces” (Sacks & Thiel, 1996). Instead, there is encouragement to explore the reasoning for this push for diversity, which some claim is due to the untrue and stereotypical belief that minorities can add new perspectives to college environments.

There is often use of Asian American population data in elite universities to emphasize the negative impacts of affirmative action. For example, a study in 2009 by Princeton University Professor Thomas Espenshade “found that Asian applicants had to score 140 points higher than white ones on the SAT to have the same chance of admission to elite colleges, 270 points higher than Hispanic applicants, and 450 points higher than black [applicants]” (Affirmative Action Hurts Asian-Americans—but the Left Just Shrugs |, n.d.). Those against affirmative action stress that there is unequal treatment of minorities, thus encouraging racial discrimination and contradicting the policy's purpose.

A commonality between the arguments is the focus on “equal education". Affirmative action supporters believe equal access to education includes equitable solutions for groups that may not have adequate resources to succeed so that all applicants have an equal chance despite their background. Those opposed stress that equal access to education involves setting a standard for admissions based strictly on merit that each applicant should be subject to regardless of their background.

Affirmative action supporters strongly agree that with the dismantling of affirmative action in college admissions, diversity goals of selective universities will be more difficult to achieve. Without a racially diverse student body, there will be less learning points from differing perspectives and experiences; students will also not be as prepared to represent and articulate inclusive needs in their future careers. Students belonging to minority groups may also experience feelings of isolation. Graduates of elite colleges that pursue governmental positions will be expected to represent the unique needs of the people. A lack of understanding and discussion with a unique school community could encourage a narrower view of societal needs. However, to those opposing affirmative action, the ruling of this case marks a positive change in higher education standards. A merit and achievement based approach to applicants will set the needed standard for future fair admissions. The new standard would ensure that the admitted students are truly capable and deserve their acceptance.

Both sides of this topic still acknowledge that there are students who are challenged by economic disadvantages. A possible compromise that elite private universities could agree on would include investment in low cost or free mentorship programs aimed toward middle school and high-school students in economically challenged communities; this mentorship could provide guidance in course selection and even advice in applying to selective secondary schools. In addition to this, universities can seek to provide college immersion programs to high-potential students in middle and high schools such that they receive hands on guidance on not only college application process, but also, something as simple as navigating the very complex process of writing college essays, taking the right courses, obtaining recommendations, involvement in extracurricular activities, etc. This may mitigate some of the negative impact that getting rid of affirmative action will have on college admissions; it may also pave the way for disadvantaged students to have some level of access to education which may not otherwise be possible.

Resources:

Affirmative action hurts Asian-Americans—but the left just shrugs |. (n.d.). Studentsforfairadmissions.org. https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/affirmative-action-hurts-asian-americans-but-the-left-just-shrugs/

Arcidiacono, P., Kinsler, J., & Ransom, T. (2021). Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard. Journal of Labor Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/713744

Bowman, E. (2023, June 30). Here’s what happened when affirmative action ended at California public colleges. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185226895/heres-what-happened-when-affirmative-action-ended-at-california-public-colleges

Columbia Issues Statement on Affirmative Action Cases. (2023, July 26). Columbia News. https://news.columbia.edu/news/columbia-issues-statement-affirmative-action-cases

Cornell Law School. (2018, March 2). Affirmative action. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action

Ellis, N. T. (2023, June 29). The gutting of affirmative action is a “clear and present danger” to equal education, critics say. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29/us/affirmative-action-impact-reaj/index.html

Erwin Chemerinsky, opinion contributor. (2023, July 21). California enhanced diversity without affirmative action. Here’s how. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4108619-california-enhanced-diversity-without-affirmative-action-heres-how/

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). (2019). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/

Harvard University. (n.d.). Key facts students for fair admissions, inc. v ... - harvard university. www.harvard.edu. https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/05/FINAL_Key-Facts_FINAL.pdf

Sneed, A. de V. C. (2023, June 29). Supreme Court guts affirmative action in college admissions | CNN Politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29/politics/affirmative-action-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

Sacks, D., & Thiel, P. (1996). The Case Against Affirmative Action [Review of The Case Against Affirmative Action]. Stanford Magazine . https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-case-against-affirmative-action#:~:text=The%20basic%20problem%20is%20that,and%20tension%20instead%20of%20healing.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (2023). (n.d.). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/20-1199/

Students for Fair Admissions. (2019). Students for Fair Admissions. Students for Fair Admissions. https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. (n.d.). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

Wolf, Z. B. (2023, July 1). “Race neutral” replaces affirmative action. What’s next? | CNN Politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/01/politics/affirmative-action-race-neutral-what-matters/index.html