It all began with U.S. Supreme Court justices hearing two cases: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. These lawsuits argued that affirmative action was actively discriminating against Asian American applicants and, in the case of UNC, white students as well.
For decades, colleges and universities have debated the consideration of race or ethnicity in the admission process for higher education. In June of this year, the Supreme Court officially decided the fate of affirmative action, ruling against the use of race in admissions. With this new ban on affirmative action, numerous heated debates continue regarding discrimination against people of color and certain socioeconomic statuses.
Within higher education, affirmative action is the practice of considering the background characteristics of student applicants, including race and ethnicity, in the university application process. This practice was first implemented in 1961 in response to the civil rights movement, with President John F. Kennedy creating a committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and using the term “affirmative action” to refer to efforts in achieving non-discrimination. Colleges historically used this approach to ensure fair treatment for students of color in the admission process, particularly in selective and competitive colleges that recognized unequal access to educational opportunities in the U.S.
Over the past 45 years, affirmative action played a significant role in college admissions in the U.S. This measure allowed race, among other factors such as academic records, extracurricular activities, and letters of recommendation, to be considered as a “compelling interest” in creating a diverse and vibrant educational environment on college campuses.
Sampan gathered reports and comments from major Boston colleges to understand their actions in the first four months following the Supreme Court ruling in June.
Natascha Warikoo, Lenore Stern Professor in the Department of Sociology at Tufts University, commented, “Particularly at highly selective colleges like Harvard, race can be a decisive factor among highly accomplished applicants.”
“As an institution, we want to create a diverse community with people who bring diverse perspectives and backgrounds, including those who have faced adversity and overcome it. That diversity comes in many forms, including socioeconomic diversity,” says Havard’s Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Hopi E. Hoekstra.
At Tufts University, the Dean of Admissions, Joseph Duck, explained, “We cannot predict the impact of the decision on the diversity of our first-year class. However, experiences at other universities that implemented bans on considering race in admissions saw meaningful declines in the enrollment of underrepresented students of color. If that happens here, which is possible, it would be of great concern to us given our mission to educate students in a diverse and inclusive environment.”
Boston University’s Director of Undergraduate Admissions, John McEachern, expressed disappointment with the ruling but does not anticipate changes in the way they recruit prospective students.
Following the Supreme Court decision, a joint statement from Catholic colleges and universities has been declared against the ban on affirmative action. Boston College, founded in 1863 by the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), believes that a diverse student body is crucial to fulfilling its mission. The amicus brief, supported by 56 other Catholic colleges and universities, expressed support for affirmative action on religious grounds. This brief presented the Court with their unique perspective on why their academic and religious missions require discretion in considering applicants’ racial identities in admissions decisions. However, it is still unclear if it has had any impact on the decisions already made.
In response to the court’s decision, some schools are reevaluating legacy admission policies, which give slight preference to children of alumni and donors. Some are also looking at their athletic recruiting policies, which tend to favor white applicants, especially at elite schools.
Following the Supreme Court decision, Harvard has revamped its application essays and instructed alumni interviewers not to consider applicants’ races during interviews. Still, it has not officially indicated whether the school is likely to abolish legacy admissions preferences. In an interview with The Harvard Crimson, University President Claudine Gay said, “Everything is on the table when it comes to potential changes to the admissions process,” although Gay did not explicitly comment on whether Harvard was considering ending legacy admissions preferences.
At Tufts University, Dean of Admissions Joseph Duck said, “Tufts is in the process of examining the role of family affiliation in the undergraduate admissions process, and no decisions have been made at this time. We know that about 6% of our students are the children of alums, which appears to be a lower percentage than many of our peers, and that our consideration extends to the siblings of Tufts students and graduates – so the demographics of our pool of candidates with family affiliation more closely align with the diversity of our student body than what is often reported in the media at other institutions.”
Regarding athletic recruiting, Harvard Athletics Director Erin McDermott said in an interview that there are no “specific” changes to recruitment practices under consideration by Harvard Athletics. “All of our coaches certainly want to recruit as inclusive of a class and cohort as possible, so I think it’s something that they are mindful of,” she says.
With the fate of affirmative action decided, some universities are using other methods to maintain diversity and a proportional number of students of color. For example, recruiting from specific ZIP codes with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds or considering certain extracurriculars that students of color commonly lead. Some schools are also placing more emphasis on a supplemental “diversity statement” in the Common Application, as the personal impact of race is still free to be discussed. However, many have pointed out that considering socioeconomic status, including class and wealth, fails to achieve its goal of capturing diversity. Critics argue that this “race-blind approach” potentially excludes deserving middle-class Black, Brown, and Native American students as they might not receive preferential treatment based on low socioeconomic status, despite facing systemic barriers that reduce their educational opportunities. Critics voice that this affirmative action overlooks the importance of race and the potential of this large ethnic population, ceasing to acknowledge the goal of providing fair and equal opportunity to marginalized students who might not fit into society’s socioeconomic-based system.
