In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that colleges can no longer consider race in admissions decisions.
This decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, has already led to significant changes in campus diversity and raised concerns about its impact on career opportunities for minority students. The ruling has also sparked debates about fairness, representation and equal access to education and professional growth.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that race-based admissions are unfair and called for “race-neutral” methods to achieve diversity.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor deemed the decision “a devastating blow for racial diversity,” while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that it would likely increase racial disparities.
Historically, affirmative action allowed colleges to consider race alongside other factors, creating a more level playing field for minority students. Critics now argue that the ruling has already limited opportunities for underrepresented groups, both in higher education and the workforce.
Examining the ruling’s impact
Over a year after the decision, Ethnic Media Services (EMS) and the Asian Americans Advancing Justice Center (AAJC) hosted a briefing on October 23, titled “Are We Moving Forward or Backward with Diversity?”, where legal experts, activists, and students discussed the changing landscape of college admissions and its broader implications.
Panelist Niyati Shah, litigation director at AAJC, criticized the ruling’s flawed logic.
“The Supreme Court’s decision rests on a zero-sum mindset,” Shah said. “It assumes that helping one group harms another, but that’s not true. We’re seeing how the lack of race data makes it harder for schools to evaluate their policies and understand if they’re advancing or reducing equity.”
Affirmative action began in the 1960s as part of efforts to address systemic racial inequalities that persisted throughout and after the civil rights movement. Rooted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the measure aimed to break down barriers in education, employment, and public services.
President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for affirmative action, asserting that “freedom is not enough” without proactive measures to correct historical injustices.
Over the years since then, major Supreme Court cases have shaped affirmative action in higher education with considerations on factors including race, academic performance, extracurricular activities, and socioeconomic background.
For instance, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) allowed race to be one factor in admissions but prohibited racial quotas.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed that using race in a narrowly tailored manner served a compelling interest in diversity.
More recently, Fisher v. University of Texas (2013, 2016) reaffirmed race as a permissible factor under strict scrutiny, emphasizing its role in promoting a diverse student body.
Since the most recent 2023 ruling, colleges have reported declines in minority enrollment, similar to outcomes seen in states that banned affirmative action years ago.
At institutions like Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC), officials have noted a decrease in Black and Latino students for the fall of 2024.
Harvard’s admissions office reported a drop in applications from minority groups, with early trends suggesting fewer acceptances among Black and Latino students.
Sarah Zhang, UNC senior and campus diversity activist, described the impact on her campus.
“The ban on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs is incredibly harmful,” Zhang said. “I came to UNC for its diverse environment, but now that’s rapidly changing. The Black student population has dropped by 25% since the ruling.”
Fran Fajana, director of racial justice strategy at Latino Justice, emphasized the ruling’s immediate legal and social effects.
“Over 50 cases have been filed challenging race-conscious programs since the decision,” Fajana said. “The anxiety and chilling effect in our communities are real.”
She shared an example of a lawsuit against the Latino Museum’s internship program, which misinterpreted Latino identity, adding that “Latinos are an ethnic group, not a single race, and this distinction matters more now than ever.”
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, eliminating affirmative action reduces diversity in leadership roles, widens the racial wealth gap, and lowers the likelihood of minorities entering prestigious career paths.
A 2023 Georgetown University study found fewer minority students entering fields like law, medicine, and STEM since the ruling. With fewer pathways to elite institutions, these students may face long-term disadvantages in high-paying sectors.
Broader implications and responses
Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, explained that “the decision is being used to challenge diversity programs not just in colleges, but in workplaces and government contracts as well. This is part of a coordinated effort to roll back racial equity across multiple sectors.”
Policymakers and civil rights advocates are now exploring alternative ways to maintain diversity.
Liz King, senior director of education equity at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, emphasized aa shift towards socioeconomic factors and holistic admissions.
“The ruling doesn’t prohibit considering how race has shaped a student’s personal experiences. Schools should still examine the ways adversity, leadership, and community involvement reflect an applicant’s background,” she explained.
“Scrubbing racial background from applications would be a loss. We want students to bring their whole selves to the admissions process, as understanding their lived experiences benefits the entire student body,” King added.
HBCU enrollment on the rise
This shift in admissions policies has led many students to reconsider their college choices.
As predominantly white institutions grapple with new challenges in fostering diversity, some students have turned to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) as a viable alternative.
Following the ruling, several HBCUs reported substantial growth in student interest:
At Howard University, applications increased from 20,283 in fall 2022 to 30,996 in fall 2023.
North Carolina A&T State University received over 42,000 applications, an increase of 12,000 from the previous year, leading to a record enrollment of 14,311 students.
At Bethune-Cookman University, first-year enrollment rose from 814 in fall 2023 to 1,150 in fall 2024.
Dr. Michael Adams, director of the Master of Public Affairs Graduate Program at TSU’s Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs, views the influx of students at HBCUs as a positive impact.
“As more students of color choose HBCUs, they are more likely to be surrounded by peers and faculty who share similar backgrounds and understand their lived experiences,” Adams said. “Such supportive environments foster both personal and academic growth.”
However, the increased enrollment also brings new challenges such as an urgent need for expanded resources, upgraded facilities and enhanced support services to sustain the growing student populations at historically underfunded institutions.
Adams believes this shift underscores a broader responsibility.
“The increase in HBCU enrollment after the affirmative action ruling reaffirms the vital role of these institutions in American higher education,” he explained. “It also calls for renewed commitment from all sectors to address systemic disparities and ensure equal access to opportunities for all students.”
With the nation’s educational landscape at a pivotal moment, the ongoing debate over affirmative action raises a critical question: Can institutions adapt swiftly enough to provide true equity and opportunity, or will the gaps continue to widen?
The answer lies not just in legal rulings but in the collective will of educational, corporate, and governmental sectors to create lasting change.
This story was originally published by Bayou Beat.
This coverage is made possible through the Ethnic Media Services / AAJC reporting project on diversity after affirmative action.
