In 2023, Supreme Court made a pivotal decision to overturn the 45 years of precedent on Affirmative Action. Colleges and universities are now tasked with navigating a complex new landscape.

The decision, which bars both public and private institutions from considering race in admissions, significantly alters the higher education scene. Schools have reported an increase in applications from nonwhite students, but delays in federal student aid are anticipated to lead to decreased enrollments, particularly among minority students.

At a media briefing on June 28, hosted by Ethnic Media Services, a panel of experts discussed how schools are adapting to this change and the emerging trends in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.

Speakers

  • John C. Yang, President and Executive Director, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, AAJC
  • Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, MALDEF
  • Jin Hee Lee, Director for Strategic Initiatives, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, LDF 
  • Dr. Vikash Reddy, Vice President or Research, The Campaign for College Opportunity

Delays in federal aid and enrollment decisions are clouding the outlook for students of color. In the aftermath of the June 2023 decision, many institutions have cut Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and ceased tracking admissions data by race, even though neither DEI nor data tracking were explicitly prohibited by the court ruling.

The future of equal opportunity for students of color may depend on whether institutions continue to expand the court decision’s scope beyond admissions and whether alternative methods such as essays and scholarships can be used to consider race and background.

FAFSA and DEI Challenges

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) has faced significant delays and issues due to a new application form with errors in the aid determination formulas. The application deadline was moved from October 1 to December 31, 2023, exacerbating the problem. This disruption has hindered schools’ ability to forecast college enrollment for the upcoming year.

Due to ongoing FAFSA rollout disruptions, many schools have postponed enrollment commitment deadlines, making it difficult to assess how these issues are affecting admissions for minority applicants. Institutions such as Yale have even separated race and ethnicity data from admissions data, further complicating the situation.

“Officials in Missouri, Kentucky, and Wisconsin in particular are interpreting the Supreme Court ruling to mean that race-conscious scholarships should also be discontinued,” Dr. Vikash Reddy said. Just in 2023, 45+ bills introduced targeted DEI funding.

The University of Missouri has attempted to reclassify donor-created scholarships intended for minority students, while the University of Utah has closed centers for Black, LGBTQ, and female students in accordance with HB 261, a new Utah law prohibiting student services based on “personal identity characteristics.”

Nevertheless, some institutions are striving to find equitable paths forward through measures like holistic review. California outlawed consideration of race in public education under Proposition 209 back in 1996, “but under the leadership of UCLA and UC Berkeley, we’ve seen some of the most diverse classes in 25 years come in recent years,” explains Reddy.

“It’s emblematic of the purpose of the attack on Affirmative Action,” said Jin Hee Lee. “The falsehood that we already live in a world of equal opportunity … We’re now at a time when a university administrator is accused of discrimination because they want to address long-standing barriers for marginalized people.”

“These attacks on DEI programs follow attacks on so-called ‘Critical Race Theory’ in K-12 and higher education classrooms a few years ago, just after the summer of 2020,” she continued, “with the largest civil rights demonstration in our nation’s history, when people from all backgrounds came together to demonstrate their opposition to racial inequality.”

“At the very core of these issues is whether we live in a country that is going to address our inequalities,” she added, “or believe in this false notion that we live in a race-blind society.”

Impact on Asian American Students

John C. Yang discussed the consequences of the Affirmative Action decision for Asian American students. “By using terms such as ‘zero-sum,’” the decision “divided the Asian American community from other communities of color … and divided all of us,” Yang said.

“In the trial itself, the district court judge found that after extensive evidence was presented, there was no data to support the notion that Asian Americans are being discriminated against,” he explained. “Prior to the decisions, the incoming class of Harvard University, for example, was approximately 26% to 28% Asian American.”

“But Asian Americans are harmed by these decisions … and benefit from diversity initiatives,” he continued. “The Asian American community suffers from a ‘model minority’ myth suggesting that we are doing better than society as a whole, and so that efforts like Affirmative Action and DEI do not benefit them. That belies current demographics.”

Asian Americans represent 3% of executives in corporate America, but about 7% of the U.S. population. Now there’s a 80% dip for Asian Americans when moving from entry-level positions to C-suite levels.

Asian Americans are half as likely to get promoted when compared to white people, making them the least likely to get promoted. “Equal access to education has never been zero-sum. We have heard many stories from Asian American students deciding that they don’t want to apply to a particular college at all … because they’re not sure whether and how their application will be treated,” Yang concluded.

Legally… What’s Next?

Thomas A. Saenz highlighted the broader implications of the Supreme Court decision. “Efforts of the Supreme Court decision’s proponents to extend this ruling beyond higher education, to challenge DEI initiatives across the board … diverts us from efforts to ensure that not considering race in admissions would still ensure equal opportunity for applicants of color,” Saenz said.

When admissions data finally emerges after the rather rough FAFSA rollout, it’s likely that the data won’t reflect the full impact of the decision all that well. After California’s Proposition 209, “many said the drop in Latino students was overstated. That was false, and will be false nationwide,” Saenz explained, noting that the Latino community is young and growing. Therefore, the number of college-eligible Latino students will significantly increase in the coming years, cushioning the data against a drop in admissions. “It does not, however, mean that the impact is any less severe,” he added.

“Institutions receiving federal funding, like Harvard, and virtually every other private university in the country … that fail to collect data on race to ensure their admissions criteria don’t have an unjustified discriminatory effect, violate the very same law used in the decision,” Saenz continued, referring to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination for recipients of federal funding.

To ensure equal opportunity in light of the Affirmative Action decision, Saenz suggested considering “alternative criteria for admissions that would eliminate or minimize the discriminatory effects of many current criteria,” such as standardized tests, counselor recommendations, teacher recommendations, and assignments to high-level AP and IB courses. “This is the legal situation right now,” he said. “We don’t know yet where the new reality will end up.”