The decision of the Supreme Court in 2023, which closes the possibility of using race preferences to expand equality at U.S. universities, is viewed as a decades-turn for admissions structure. Affirmative action has been used as a way of attaining racial diversity on campuses and eliminating the injustices that minorities encounter. However, with the Court's decision, schools across the country are now faced with the reality of how to admit non-minority students and still keep their student population diverse without considering race. The admission data from many universities has been recently released, reporting that it has a great impact on the student demographics as well as the methodologies colleges use when it comes to enrollment, financing, and student services.
One cannot discuss the complexities of affirmative action in college admissions without looking at the civil rights movement rooted in the 1960s as a time when affirmative action was started to ensure equal chances in the education system for minorities, most of whom were blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans who had been locked out of education opportunities. The supporters postured that a racially integrated student body benefited all students because of its encouragement for cooperation that is not based on color or origin.
Nevertheless, the benefits of the policy of affirmative action have always been a matter of concern and controversy, evolving as a legal issue. Concerned parties consider it as reverse discrimination because it is seen to put the interests of whites and Asians in a disadvantaged position. Many cases have been filed in the past based on violation of the law on the ban of consideration of race in admission processes, and, finally, the Supreme Court in the year 2023 made it unlawful to consider race in admission processes.
The Supreme Court decided that using the criterion of race in college admission regulations violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In this vein and a proper motion of an opinion held by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority used the argument that the consideration of race in admissions, even with the primary purpose of increasing diversity, was unconstitutional and in direct contradiction with the constitutional provision that seeks to ensure equality to all. The Court broke it down, saying that though it is good to have diversity, one has to seek it in other ways that are not based on color.
It has made universities across the country start reconsidering how they accept their students. Highly selective schools have been utilizing race as one of the considerations among many factors that define the student, in ways that would factor in the racism or other economic barriers a student may have faced in their lifetime. As schools are clashing with the notion of race-sensitive policies that help address the integration issue proactively, they are searching for a way to influence the diversity of their incoming students.
Some of the early data from institutions that received the ruling show that the ban on the use of race-conscious admissions does result in reductions in Black, Hispanic, and Native American students’ enrollment. This was made evident by the University of California and the University of Michigan, which banned affirmative action years before the national ruling. Post the ban, both of these schools witnessed a drastic decline in the representation of minorities, which to this date have been unable to recover and reach the previous enrollment status.
However, it is pertinent to mention that the construction of generalizations from these preliminary trends is further influenced by other factors. Policies related to standardized testing, problems with the FAFSA application system, and economic realities occasioned by the coronavirus pandemic are other factors currently impacting college admission trends and may also be the reason for the decreasing minority enrollment. Another possible explanation is that some schools returned to the use of SAT and ACT scores as admission criteria this year after they had been eliminated due to the coronavirus outbreak; the standardized exams could have a negative impact on minorities, as they have fewer opportunities to prepare for such tests. Another way for looking at standarized are them making it easier to detect quiet discrimination against members of unfavoured groups who shine in them.
Geographic diversity is also another area that schools are considering to gain a more diverse representation of students from minority areas or schools that have been receiving fewer resources. For instance, in Texas and Florida, the universities have adopted “top percent” plans, whereby all students who graduate in the top percent of their high classes will have the opportunity to join the state university of their choice. These programs have ensured that there is still some dilution by identifying that many underrepresented minority students attend institutions in low-income areas, and therefore they account for a substantial proportion of high achievers.
Financial aid is arguably the most effective one of the weapons used in the fight for diversity even during the affirmative-action. Universities are using scholarships and grants to first-generation college students and those with other forms of disadvantage such as low income, learning disabilities, and personal adversities, among others. Some schools are also reconsidering the need-blind admissions that might help them provide more financial aid to underrepresented students. An Economics article states one trial found which simply offered application-fee waivers to promising students from poor backgrounds, "dramatically increased the chance of them ending up in highly selective universities".
Altogether, the decision made by the Supreme Court can be considered a milestone in the struggle for the diversity of university enrollment, but it is not the final step in this process that observes drastic changes every year. Today’s colleges and universities are searching for approaches that will override racism in admissions processes, while the constant legal struggle over other aspects of diversity in higher education, including the use of legacy admissions or the consideration of gender or sexual orientation, indicates that the debate over how to make a “real” change for equity in higher education is far from over.