NYT reporter Stephanie Saul argues, “If Affirmative Action Ends, College Admissions May Be Changed Forever.”
In cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court is widely expected to overturn or roll back affirmative action in college admissions. Many education experts say that such a decision could not only lead to changes in who is admitted, but also jeopardize long-established strategies that colleges have used to build diverse classes, including programs that are intended to reach specific racial and ethnic groups for scholarships, honors programs and recruitment.
Those rollbacks could then help spur colleges to end other admissions practices that critics say have historically benefited the well-heeled. Some schools have already ended their standardized test requirements and preferences for children of alumni. There is also pressure to end early decision, which admits applicants before the general deadline.
This is wildly speculative, in that we don’t know how expansive the ruling will be, much less its argument. But I guess that’s the nature of a piece predicting fallout of an opinion that won’t be issued for months.
Offhand, I’d say eliminating legacy admissions would be a good thing and that I’d prefer class-based or geography-based rather than race-based admissions. I don’t have a strong opinion on early admissions.
College officials warn that there is no way of knowing how sweeping the court decision will be. But the ruling, expected by June, is likely to have a broad impact on a range of schools, according to Vern Granger, the director of admissions at the University of Connecticut.
“Most people are thinking about the admissions process at selective institutions,” he said, “but I would say that this decision is going to be far-ranging and it’s going to be expansive.”
At less selective institutions, my first thought was that the ruling would be largely immaterial in that pretty much anyone who applies and has a high school diploma is admitted. But it turns out to be more complicated than that.
The cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, first filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action group, argued that the universities discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preferences to Black, Hispanic and Native American students. The universities said they use race-conscious admissions because diversity is critical for learning, a claim that drew skepticism from the court’s conservative supermajority during the October hearing
While I’ve grown more supportive of affirmative action over the years, I find the idea that race, which is a self-selected category, is an exact proxy for diversity unpersuasive. There are more effective, if harder, ways of achieving that goal.
If the court rules as expected, the class admitted for the fall of 2024 will look quite different, education officials said.
“We will see a decline in students of color attending college before we see an increase again,” said Angel B. Pérez, the chief executive of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. “We will be missing an entire generation.”
Mr. Granger, who also serves as president of the association for college admission counseling, expects changes even at the community college level. Citing drops in applications following statewide bans on affirmative action in Michigan and California, he said that some students from underrepresented groups may simply not apply.
At first blush, that just doesn’t make sense. The cases before the Court are about preferential admission, not recruitment. But, as we’ll see, there are real fears of a sweeping opinion.
The institutions most likely to be dramatically affected are the 200 colleges and universities regarded as “selective” — meaning they admit 50 percent or fewer of their applicants. And for smaller, highly selective liberal arts colleges, like Wesleyan, the impact on college culture could be particularly noticeable, as professors on these tightly knit campuses say their small classes thrive on interactions by a diverse group of students.
A group of 33 of these schools submitted a brief in August to the Supreme Court. Some of them had graduated Black students even before the Civil War.
“The probability of Black applicants receiving offers of admission would drop to half that of white students, and the percentage of Black students matriculating would drop from roughly 7.1 percent of the student body to 2.1 percent,” the brief said, predicting a return to “1960s levels.”
So, again, there are plenty of ways to solve that problem. Aside from coming up with race-neutral measures of diversity, such as region or socioeconomic status, there’s always a lottery system. Simply come up with neutral minimum standards and then select the desired number of students at random for those who meet said standards.
Some schools, including Wesleyan, said they hope increased outreach to underserved communities would offset some of the impact of a Supreme Court ruling. But they may be limited in what they can do.
The court could prevent colleges from purchasing lists of potential applicants that focus on race and ethnicity, a common practice used in recruitment, Dr. Pérez said.
“Fly-ins,” in which certain students are provided expense-paid visits to campuses, could also be on the chopping block. So could scholarship programs designated for students of color, which many rely on to afford tuition.
“Fly-in programs, scholarship programs, partnerships with churches and community-based organizations, where does it end?” Dr. Pérez asked.
If the ruling were so sweeping as to end these programs, I would be shocked. Presumably, the ruling would be on the basis of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. I can’t imagine an interpretation that would simultaneously wipe out efforts to attract poor students that wouldn’t also wipe out everything from subsidized school lunches to Medicaid to the Earned Income Tax Credit.
At the University of Connecticut, Mr. Granger said that a diversity leadership program, UConn Summer Lead, which hosts mostly students from underserved groups, might have to be revised.
Kenneth L. Marcus, an education official in the Trump Administration, said that many admissions practices that benefit certain racial groups may already violate some provisions of the Civil Rights Act.
To avoid legal challenges, many of these programs broaden eligibility — to applicants, for example, who would be the first in their families to attend college.
But even under these criteria, he said, “Middle-class white students would, as a general rule, be excluded from such programs on racial grounds.”
We have been trending going back to the Bakke decision way back in 1978, in the direction of banning the use of race-based criteria by the state. It was able to hang on by a thread because centrist Republicans like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy went along with using race as one criteria among many to achieve equity goals—but with notice that the exception came with an expiration date. We’re closing in on six decades since the 1964 Civil Rights Act formally ended Jim Crow.
The Supreme Court’s decision could further clarify the legality of these programs, said Mr. Marcus, who is now chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.
Colleges are planning behind the scenes for the court ruling, though they are reluctant to release plans, worried about potentially opening themselves up to legal action.
“We don’t want to get ahead of the court, and we don’t want to give the court any ideas,” Dr. Pérez said.
That’s a weird position to be in, to be sure. But understandable.
But some have made pre-emptive moves. Standardized tests, for instance, have long been criticized for handicapping poor students and students of color, partly because they may not have access to expensive test preparation classes.
And Students for Fair Admissions relied on test scores to try to prove that Harvard and the University of North Carolina discriminated against white and Asian applicants.
Now “test optional” policies, which grew exponentially during the pandemic, are becoming the new normal. More than 1,800 four-year colleges say they do not require SAT or ACT scores. And the number of students taking the SAT dropped to 1.7 million in the high school class of 2022 from nearly 2.2 million in the class of 2020.
The irony is that the SAT was supposed to have the opposite effect: opening up opportunities to previously-discriminated-against groups (notably Jews) and those from lower socioeconomic status families with high intellectual aptitude. But, for a variety of reasons, the results have long skewed in favor of White (including Jewish) and Asian students.
Given longstanding evidence that the tests can be gamed and that they’re not terribly predictive of success, I won’t mind seeing them go. But they make it harder to identity talented kids who, for whatever reason, underperform in high school.
Anthony A. Jack, a professor at Harvard’s graduate school of education, predicted that the court decision will “remove the stranglehold of the SAT.”
Julie J. Park, an education professor at the University of Maryland, said that students from underserved backgrounds are less likely to submit their standardized test scores when they apply.
“It tells me something that half of Black and Latinx students are saying, ‘I don’t want to submit my test scores,’” Dr. Park said, adding that research shows that test-optional policies have a small but positive impact on enrollment of underserved minority students.
The College Board, which administers the SAT, said in a statement that, in the class of 2022, nearly 1.3 million U.S. students had scores that affirmed or exceeded the level of their high school grade-point average, suggesting that for some students, the test could open doors to college.
Smart kids in bad home environments will surely be further disadvantaged by this trend.
While the biggest impact of a ruling overturning race-conscious admissions will fall on students of color, many white and wealthy students may also feel repercussions.
At Scarsdale High School, in an affluent New York suburb, the director of counseling, Oren Iosepovici, recently warned parents in a meeting that the move to “test optional” has changed the competition and forced a rethinking.
Colleges may now emphasize different qualities in students, he said, questioning whether credentials long-considered critical, such as Advanced Placement tests, will remain important for some students.
“This isn’t just something that colleges are grappling with,” Dr. Pérez said. “I think it will change the way high schools advise students.”
Again, though, we’re really talking about a small sliver of the college-going population. Outside the most competitive national universities, and perhaps even state flagships, most universities—and pretty much all regional teaching colleges and community colleges—admit the vast number of applicants.
Some opponents of affirmative action have argued that preferences should be based on socioeconomic class rather than race, and they have also opposed special considerations that benefit the affluent.
I’ve been persuaded that structural barriers disadvantage Black and Hispanic students over and above the effects of economics and language barriers. They’re damned near impossible to quantify, though.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, an education consultant and writer who advised plaintiffs in the Fair Admissions case, said that early decision programs may be vulnerable. Early decision attracts wealthier applicants because students are asked to commit to attending that school, frequently before they can review financial aid packages.
“It’s one of the inequalities built into the system,” said Mr. Kahlenberg, who has argued for class-based affirmative action.
Ostensibly, the goal of these programs was to relieve pressure on those vying for highly selective institutions. But that it advantaged kids from wealthy families is not a shocking development.
Alumni children may also lose their boost. Tufts University in Medford, Mass., is considering eliminating that advantage, according to Patrick Collins, a spokesman. That would place Tufts in a small group of highly selective private schools banning legacy preferences, including Johns Hopkins, M.I.T. and Amherst College.
Matthew L. McGann, Amherst’s dean of admissions, said the school has been planning for the Supreme Court decision: “We’re not waiting for that moment.”
I’m honestly not sure on what basis the Supreme Court would ban legacy admissions under the cases before them. But I won’t be sad to see them go.
Even so, those measures will not stave off a decline in underrepresented students if the Supreme Court overturns affirmative action, Dr. McGann said. Last year, nearly 20 percent of Amherst’s first-year students were Black.
Considering that only 13.6% of the US population and 7.5% of the Massachusetts population is Black, that’s rather remarkable.
