Samuel Tesfai and his high school friends in Baltimore have been shifting tactics in their applications to elite US colleges after the Supreme Court this June ruled against affirmative action in student admissions.
“Honestly, I was a bit shocked [by the ruling]. It will definitely reduce the chances of African-Americans getting in,” said Tesfai, an African-American student with high test scores planning to apply to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and MIT this autumn.
“Before, I wasn’t thinking of using my race as a big factor, but now I’m being forced into a box of having to use my race,” he added.
As colleges, applicants and advisers digest the Supreme Court decision, which states that “the applicant’s race in and of itself” should not be a factor in admissions, as well as guidance issued in response last week by the Biden administration, they are being forced to adapt to maintain a diverse intake of students.
New proxies for race proposed for universities include waiving standardised tests, which favour more privileged applicants, and using outreach programmes targeting high schools and community colleges with high concentrations of under-represented groups and low-income students.
The majority-conservative court upheld a complaint that Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) were, in effect, discriminating against Asians, who make up a high and rising proportion of students, in their efforts to increase the presence of less represented groups such as African-Americans.
The ruling’s impact will be felt most keenly by the relatively small number of minorities admitted to elite institutions with highly selective entry criteria, estimated at 10,000-15,000 students a year.
Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said: “Race won’t have a substantial impact on many institutions which already have diverse populations, but [increasing diversity in elite colleges] sends a strong signal on the public purpose of education. Diversity is essential to success, not an encumbrance to it.”
Those colleges seeking to maintain diversity have drawn hope from a single phrase in Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority judgment: “Nothing . . . should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life”.
Adam Nguyen, head of Ivy Link, a college applications advisory service, said: “This will open up a floodgate of new essay prompts for students to write about their life experiences. If you are black or latino and want to mention race, why not? It provides a signalling effect.”
Guidance last week from the Department of Justice and the Department of Education seized on the nuance, stressing: “Schools can consider the ways that a student’s background, including experiences linked to their race, have shaped their lives and the unique contributions they can make to campus. Students should feel comfortable presenting their whole selves when applying to college.”
Some universities have already modified their application essays, including Sarah Lawrence College, which asks explicitly: “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”
Jeffrey Weimer, a partner with law firm Reed Smith, cautioned that, in contrast to the court, the government’s latest advice was “non-binding” and could be rescinded by a future administration.
He added attorneys-general in some US states had issued their own differing interpretations, including conservative ones such as Missouri.
But while he said some schools including UNC appeared to be interpreting the rules very tightly, “most that I work with seem very focused on finding ways to continue diversity”.
Allen Koh, head of the advisory service Cardinal Education, argued that the absence of affirmative action meant black students now had an additional incentive to emphasise their minority background, whereas the opposite was true for Asian students, whom colleges were concerned about admitting in disproportionately high numbers.
“Affirmative action meant helping groups who had suffered discrimination . . . The advice for African-Americans now is lean into and talk about adversity. For Asians, don’t talk about your culture,” he said.
Jamie Beaton, head of consultancy Crimson Education, said he was counselling his clients to have lower expectations on which schools might accept them following the ruling. “We may see a declining value in Harvard and Stanford’s summer programmes, which are an implicit signal that someone is Asian,” he said.
On the other hand, he anticipated rising interest by colleges in students who had attended programmes largely attracting minorities, including those offered by the grouping known as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and specialist training networks.
Phelton Moss, a senior lecturer at American University’s School of Education, who called the decision “a tragedy”, said the fact that the Biden administration’s guidance was jointly written by the Department of Justice sent a reassuring signal to colleges that are keen to maintain diversity that “we’ve got your back”.
He said the commitment by many colleges to diversity since the judgment could mean the ruling paradoxically helps catalyse greater efforts to encourage minority students.
However, Weimer at Reed Smith cautioned that colleges will now need to spend more time in outreach and selection, and be careful in what they document in the reasons for making admission offers.
While the judgment applies specifically to admissions, he also warned that in the future, litigants might start to focus on perceived affirmative action in related areas so far not touched but which differentially help minorities, including scholarships and financial aid.