Race-Conscious Admission: Getting The Educational House In Order

I am neither an engineer nor a contractor but I know that a house needs a solid foundation upon which to build. As a school counselor, I am aware that the same principles apply to our system of education. To start with the roof or attic and build down makes little sense for structural integrity. The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit race-conscious college admission makes this error in building an educational model that adequately serves individuals and the greater good. The ruling attempts to address an issue that is situated on top of a broken foundation.

Access to quality K-12 education is tragically inequitable in our country. This is acutely true in college and career planning, and support. At some high schools, each counselor works with less than 80 students, and at others, counselors have caseloads of over 800. While in some institutions, the school counselor is focused solely on advising students about postsecondary planning, at most schools the counselor is responsible for all aspects of student wellbeing and guidance. They are dealing with abuse, suicide, food insecurity, homelessness, discipline, learning support, scheduling and so much more. These more immediate health and safety issues take precedence over future planning. The result is that students are often left to navigate the increasingly complex college admission process without access to in-depth support. When one considers the disparity in K-12 education for students of color and their white peers, it becomes even clearer that the foundation is cracked.

The Supreme Court’s decision on the unconstitutionality of race-conscious admission denies colleges and universities the ability to directly ask about a student’s race. It does, however, leave open the door for students and their supporters to share information about their background, identity, and experiences that might provide schools with the important context with which they can build a more diverse learning community. Herein lies the inequity that has been baked into our educational system. Those who need guidance in communicating their identity and experiences are less likely to have access to support. We cannot in good faith restrict efforts to level the playing field at the top without addressing the foundational flaws.

Angel Pérez, the CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), has dedicated his professional career to leading admission offices and increasing opportunity. He says, “Access to higher education does not start with admissions officers. It starts with a strong K-12 system which gives students the strongest start possible. When states like Arizona assign over 900 students to 1 school counselor, it creates a system rife with disadvantage.” He adds, “If we want to create more access to higher education, we start by investing in more school counselors.” In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, Pérez called on corporations to invest in low-income communities “further upstream” than college when students are younger and need support. He writes, “small amounts of money can make a big difference and large amounts of money can be transformational.” He argues that “the companies themselves would be among the beneficiaries, helping to create a huge pool of diverse, talented graduates who already have experience collaborating with people from differing backgrounds. It’s not just a moral imperative; it’s an economic one.”

Jeff Selingo, the bestselling author of “Who Gets In & Why: A Year Inside College Admissions says, “For the most part, many highly selective colleges have outsourced recruitment of low-income, first-generation, and students of color to community-based organizations they have partnered with or national groups like Posse and Questbridge.” He adds, “You’re more likely to find a military recruiter in most high schools with large numbers of underrepresented students than a recruiter from a Yale or an Amherst.” Selingo argues, “What will need to change if selective colleges are serious about recruiting students of color is that they will need to invest time, money, and effort in K-12 schools.” He says, “The payoff won’t come immediately, but what if all of these top-ranked schools with tens of billions in endowment put some of that to work with college and career counseling starting in middle school?” Selingo shared more reflections on the Supreme Court ruling in a recent interview with PBS Newshour.

Community partnerships and other initiatives are already working to fill the gaps. The University of Pennsylvania and the non-profit Heights Philadelphia have together created a course to support students through the college admission experience. Whitney Soule, vice provost and dean of admission at The University of Pennsylvania explains, “​​We have always wanted students to use the pieces of the application to share what they want us to know about their aspirations, accomplishments, and the experiences that shape their questions and their ideas. That is still true. And it’s important because it’s the unique experience of each student that fuels the energy to question, to collaborate, and to create in our campus community.” She adds, “The ‘Applying to College 101’ course that we built collaboratively with Heights Philadelphia is a fun and interactive course to help students, especially those who may not have access to external guidance or support, find their way to higher ed. We hope that this tool prepares students to feel confident in approaching the application process as individuals.”

These efforts are necessary now more than ever because instead of allowing colleges and universities to systematically compensate for an uneven playing field, the Supreme Court ruling has thrust the onus on the students to remedy. Marcus Johnson, assistant director of international admissions at Michigan State University, best articulates the flaws in this approach. He says, “I am not sure a teenager should have to educate a college admissions officer on how their racial identity exposed them to harsher punishment in school, restrictive hair, and dress codes, erasure of their identity and history in their school curriculum, etc., just to get admission into a college or university.” Johnson adds, “I would argue that the bulk of the burden should rest on the professionals: the high school counselor who writes the school profile and, occasionally, the letter of recommendation; the admissions officer who renders the decision; the recruiters who visit the schools and might have a better understanding of the neighborhoods, etc. And yes, counselors are swamped and the readers have tons of applications to read and the recruiters cannot visit and research every single high school in their territory, but the solution should not involve asking teenagers to break down their ancestral trauma so that admissions officers can understand.” He speaks the truth and the Supreme Court ruling demands that we provide more equitable resources for school counseling to remove this burden from our young people at this critical time.

With hands tied in admission, the time has come to repair the foundation of our educational system so that student opportunity is truly equal. Unless we want our house to crumble, and our schools and places of work to grow even more divided, we must do better, now.