What The End Of Affirmative Action Means For Colleges And Universities

Race can no longer be used in college admissions. Earlier this morning, the Supreme Court announced a pair of rulings reversing the longstanding higher education practices of affirmative action and the consideration of race in October. The decisions will trigger the biggest change to the college admissions and enrollment process

The Supreme Court just banned affirmative action

In October 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in lawsuits filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). SFFA’s suit challenged the practice of affirmative action and the use of race in college admissions on behalf of a group of Asian-American students who allege that they were unfairly discriminated against in the college admissions process. In its lawsuits, SFFA sought to “prevent colleges and universities from ever considering race or ethnicity in admissions in any way and for any reason.”

In a 6-3 decision, with a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action and found that the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The decision will prevent colleges from considering a student’s race when reading applications. It will also complicate the ability of colleges to use race during the recruitment process (before a student applies) or in financial aid and scholarships (after they are accepted).

How colleges and universities will be impacted

We expect the decision to have a major impact on colleges and universities, including:

1. A drop in Black, Hispanic, and Native enrollment
2. Fewer students of color in their lead funnels
3. Increased operational complexity

Most US colleges and universities are deeply committed to building a diverse incoming class of enrolled students, so the decision represents a major threat to a core institutional goal for these institutions.

Why will Black, Hispanic, and Native enrollment drop?

Black, Hispanic, and Native enrollment will drop without consideration of race. On average, these students have lower test scores, lower GPAs, and fewer high-tier extracurricular accomplishments than White or Asian students. The SAT and ACT show the largest score differences among these metrics, particularly at higher percentiles, while GPA and extracurricular resumes have smaller but still significant differences*.* The net result is that for selective schools like Harvard, Amherst, or Northwestern, there are very few Black, Hispanic, or Native students with the kind of academic profile that their institution targets. To achieve diversity on campus, these institutions end up accepting Black and Hispanic students with lower grades and (especially) test scores – if the typical enrolled Asian or White student has an SAT score of 1530 or higher, enrolled Black and Hispanic students will be closer to a 1400 or 1450.

This shift in academic profile has a cascading effect across the rest of the colleges and universities in the US. A Black or Hispanic student with a 1450 SAT score is right in line with Asian and White students at the next tier of institutions (like Case Western, Brandeis, or Bowdoin). But because that student with a 1450 score has enrolled at a higher ranked institution, Case Western or Bowdoin ends up accepting students of color in the 1300-1350 range. That in turn displaces a student who is in the sweet spot for Syracuse, TCU, or Gonzaga who then has to dip down into the 1200-1250 range. This cascades down to affect every college and university in the US – Black and Hispanic students on campus have lower standardized test scores and grades than their White and Asian counterparts.

After the decision, however, students of color will need to have grades and test scores that are in line with those of White and Asian students. The exact impact will vary by institution, but a general guideline is that 40-60% of enrolled Black students and 25-45% of enrolled Hispanic students would no longer be admissible, with corresponding drops in enrollment. That calculation is based on the current applicant pool and admissions standards – the same set of applicants of color will result in a much smaller pool of enrolled students in Fall 2024 versus Fall 2023.

That projection is also matched by historical data from state-level affirmative action bans. For example, after California and Michigan banned affirmative action in 1996 and 2006, flagship public campuses like UC Berkeley and Michigan-Ann Arbor saw 50%+ declines in Black enrollment.

The decision will impact all colleges, not just highly-ranked schools

The biggest impact will be felt by selective schools – there just aren’t enough Black and Hispanic students who are admissible without the consideration of race at institutions like Harvard, UChicago, Vanderbilt, or Swarthmore. Less selective colleges have a different problem. There are Black, Hispanic, and Native students that meet their target academic profile – but they do not currently receive applications from those students. Ultimately less selective institutions have the same problem – a substantial portion of their current Black and Hispanic **applicants are not admissible without the consideration of race.

Even at a college with high (70%+) acceptance rates, any analysis of admissions data that shows a difference in admissions metrics between demographics creates legal risk for the institution. So if a Black or Latino applicant to that college has admissions metrics that are lower than that of the overall pool of admitted students, their admission will be at risk. It’s not just the 100 or so selective schools that will be impacted, it’s any school that doesn’t have a policy of open enrollment (1,000+). The end of affirmative action will have an impact on every institution.

The impact doesn’t necessarily have to be negative – as the removal of the cascade outlined above does mean that Black and Hispanic applicants who do fit the academic profile will no longer just automatically enroll at more selective institutions. The decision threatens these institutions’ existing enrollment funnel, but it creates opportunities as well.

Institutions will have fewer students of color in their funnel

Institutional funnels will also be impacted. Many lead sources will preemptively remove race and ethnicity data from lead generation, but even when they don’t many colleges will opt to pull this data out themselves due to the legal risk created by continuing to gather that data during recruitment efforts (see below). Other mechanisms of identifying students of color (zip codes, or contextual neighborhood and district data) are less precise – this type of targeting can identify populations that are 60-80% Black or Hispanic, but not the 100% possible in the current system. This applies to marketing sources like Search, Niche, and CollegeVine as well as the school’s own lead channels like website inquiries and college visits.

There are also structural factors pulling students of color out of institutional funnels, most notably the Search Cliff. Students of color are overrepresented among school-day test takers. While overall name volume will drop by 40% (and 50-80% for younger grades), Black and Hispanic name volume will drop by more than 50% (60-90% in younger grades). Many colleges rely on Search to build the top of their funnel, so when combined with the drop off from imprecise targeting, many institutions could see 60% or even 70% fewer Black students in their funnels.

Ethnicity data in the recruitment process creates legal risks for institutions

As a sidebar, its worth analyzing why collecting ethnicity data during the recruitment process creates legal risks. In response to the decision, we expect many colleges to make adjustments to their admissions policies and place an increased emphasis on ostensibly race-neutral tools like targeting zip codes and incorporating environmental data in the admissions process. So long as these tools are incorporated without race data in the system, the legal risk can be managed – many public institutions have adopted similar practices after state-level bans.

But if ethnicity data is pulled in during recruitment and the tools above have their intended effect, then a data analysis will indicate an admissions preference based on ethnicity. Hence the collection of ethnicity data during recruitment will create legal risks for institutions.

The end of affirmative action means increased operational complexity for admissions offices

The final impact on colleges is increased operational complexity. Existing recruitment and application systems will need to be overhauled to remove ethnicity, and communication practices and standards will need to evolve. Admissions officers will also likely face increased demands on their time – they will need to build new or expanded relationships with high schools and CBOs that serve students of color. These relationships are already important in admissions, after the decision they will become essential.

These operational challenges will hit institutions while staffing challenges continue to mount. Burnout and attrition are high in admissions offices, and many institutions are struggling to fill open roles while budgets remain pressed. That is not an optimal position for dealing with a slew of operational changes and increased demands on already stretched-thin admissions staff. Something will have to give.