Last year, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in admissions at elite colleges and universities by deciding the cases Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Proponents of affirmative action argue that it ensured the representation of minorities in higher education and served as an effort to remedy past discrimination. Those in opposition of affirmative action believe it creates more disadvantages than opportunities for all students, including those of color. The question that loomed over the first admissions cycle following the consequential court decision was how student enrollment would be affected.
Select schools are beginning to release early data on enrollment, and the answer seems to be; it’s complicated. There isn’t evidence of a clear trend line pointing in a particular direction – racial minority admissions fell to varying degrees at some schools while at others saw little or no change. In a few cases, student enrollment actually rose among students who did not identify as Asian.
By The Numbers
A spotlight has been on Harvard University, one of the two schools named as defendants in the case by Students for Fair Admissions. Data released by Harvard recently on incoming students showed that “14% of incoming students identified as Black, a drop of 4% from the class before it. Latino students made up 16% of the freshman class, an increase of 2% while Asian-American numbers remained the same at 37%.”
Down the road at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), non Asian racial minority students in this year’s incoming freshman class dropped to 16% from 31% in previous years. Specifically, the class’s racial makeup is 47% Asian American, 37% White, 5% Black, 11% Hispanic, 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The previous four classes were 41% Asian American, 38% white, 13% Black, 15% Hispanic, 2% American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
At two elite Massachusetts colleges, Amherst College and Tufts University, my alma mater, Black student enrollment dropped to 3% from 11% last year, and to 4.7% from 7.3%, respectively. Enrollment of white students rose at both schools, but among Asian students, it rose two percentage points at Amherst while slipping slightly to 19.7% percent from 20.3% at Tufts.
At the University of North Carolina, one defendant in the SCOTUS cases, some categories of non Asian racial minority enrollment fell from the previous year. American Indian or Alaska Native students fell to 1.1% from 1.6%, Blacks fell to 7.8% from 10.5%, and Hispanic students fell to 10.1% from 10.8%. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students rose marginally to 0.3% from 0.2%, while white student enrollment rose marginally to 63.8% from 63.7%. Asian student enrollment rose by a percentage point to 25.8%.
Not all Ivy League universities experienced enrollment turbulence. At Yale, enrollment of racial minorities was more stable. According to Yale Daily News analysis, for the class of 2028, Black and Latino enrollment “remained similar to previous years, while the share of Asian American students fell and white students’ enrollment rose from the year prior.”
Similarly, Princeton experienced little change in non Asian racial minority enrollment. Hispanic/Latin enrollment dropped from 10% to 9% and Black enrollment fell by less than one percent. However, this newest class has no Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, a departure from previous years when the number hovered at less than 1%. Asian American enrollment fell 2.2 percentage points from 26% to 23.8%.
Changing Admissions Processes
While affirmative action helped boost Black and Hispanic students’ enrollment, Asian students tended to be disadvantaged. The Court determined that it was time for higher education to level the admissions playing field by directing schools to abandon the use of race as a factor in admissions. Affirmative action advocates have called on higher education institutions to defy the Supreme Court and find other means to achieve racially diverse student bodies.
Some schools reformed their application process to exploit a loophole articulated by Chief Justice John Roberts. In the majority opinion that he penned, he gave colleges a pass to still consider discussions of how race has affected applicants’ lives, “so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” Schools changed application essay prompts to ask students to reflect on their “lived experience” to emphasize their backgrounds. The Bronx, New York liberal arts college, Sarah Lawrence, took a more direct approach in its essay prompt by referencing the Supreme Court decision asking applicants to “describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced, or affected by the Court’s decision.”
Some colleges increased the number of transfer students admitted and others focused on increasing students with low-income backgrounds by promoting their “affordability.”
Wesleyan University joined several prestigious schools—including MIT, Amherst, and Carnegie Mellon—in taking a different approach. They eliminated legacy admissions in the wake of the ruling to focus on admitting students on merit rather than family connections. Interestingly, for the Class of 2028, enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Native American, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and multiracial students all rose by either 1 or 2 percentage points from the previous class. Asian student enrollment fell by 2 percentage points.
Moving Forward
Time will tell whether the enrollment declines of non Asian racial minorities at some schools will hold. We do know that the worst outcomes some feared of Black and Hispanic students disappearing from the Ivy Leagues did not materialize. It’s become apparent that some elite schools relied on race as a factor more heavily than others in admitting students, which resulted in more stark outcomes for racial minorities after the elimination of racial preferencing.
Seeking greater diversity of socio-economic background and economic class is a better approach to crafting student bodies that reflect diversity of experiences rather than race. A white student from an impoverished community in Appalachia likely has less in common with a white student from the Upper East Side of Manhattan than she does a black student from the struggling Ward 8 of Washington, D.C. Does admitting two white students from vastly different backgrounds make the student body less diverse? One might argue that a broader understanding of diversity embraces different lived experiences more than just skin color.
Colleges and universities are now forced to jettison superficial diversity. They should also be challenged to pursue viewpoint diversity that brings together conservative, libertarian, and liberal students. That is the way to truly achieve true diversity, which enriches the academic experience and prepares students to engage in a world of differences.
