Affirmative action and the future of college admissions

hello and welcome to today's Brookins panel on affirmative action and the future of college admissions I'm Catherine Meyer I'm a fellow in The Brown Center and education policy here at the Brookings institution and I'll be today's moderator joined by three distinguished panelists and together we'll be discussing two cases around affirmative action that the Supreme Court heard this term as well as how we should think about the implications of their decision forthcoming this June in light of other Trends and college admissions as a run of the show we'll start with some broad questions and then move into an audience q a section toward the end we have some questions that were submitted by you all during event registration so thank you for that if other questions come up as you're watching the panel please email those into events at brookings.edu or you can use the hashtag future of admissions on Twitter and we'll be pulling those in as well so set the stage for today's discussion the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases this October students prefer admissions versus the University of North Carolina and students preferred missions versus the president and fellows of Harvard College at the core of both of these cases is whether institutions of higher education can use right race as a factor in college admissions decisions which had previously been ruled permissible in the 2003 case Greta V Bollinger in the majority opinion of Greta former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that the court expected that racial preferences will no longer be necessary within 25 years of the decision and that race conscious admissions must be limited in time Justice Clarence Thomas went further in his partial concurrence arguing that his interpretation of the opinion was that racial discrimination and higher education admissions will be illegal in 25 years however defendants in the two recent cases argued that the nation had not yet reached to the point where the level of diversity desired by institutions or by Society at large on campuses would be attainable without direct consideration of race in the admissions process we expect the Supreme Court to issue their decision uh any day now probably once we get into June and that decision will come at a time when a number of other admissions practices have kind of under close scrutiny as well the ongoing operation Varsity Blues cases has highlighted the lengths that certain advantaged families will go to to ensure admissions for their children's highly selective institutions the Coba 19 pandemic and social distancing rapidly accelerated the trend of colleges going test blind or text optional um and the discussions around affirmative action have raised questions about other policies such as Legacy preferences that really actively work against colleges state of goals of equity so today we'll consider all of these factors together and hopefully end with some policy recommendations and passports for the practitioners in the audience today today I'll introduce our three panelists who are all experts on affirmative action College admissions and education law standing away that Mitchell Chang who is the associate Vice Chancellor in the office of equity diversity and inclusion and professor of higher education and organizational change at the University of California Los Angeles Mitch glad to have you here with us today next we have Cara McClellan she's the director of the advocacy for racial and Civil Justice Clinic as well as practice associate professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Cary law school welcome Cara thank you and then we have Kelly slay who's an assistant professor of higher education and public policy in the department of leadership policy and organizations at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College Kelly glad to have you here let's start with just the broad setting question what is affirmative action uh how is the policy evolved over time you know what does it mean for college to engage in affirmative action in their admissions review processes I think it's important to understand that affirmative action initially started in our hiring practices so in work in the workforce in the late 1960s colleges around the country began considering race as a factor in their admissions practices and these practices were implemented in part to address a long-standing history of racial discrimination therefore providing opportunities to higher education for black students who had historically been excluded from colleges and universities throughout the country we begin to see that affirmative action has challenged with the Baki case in 1978 in which the use of racial quotas was ruled unconstitutional and I'm skipping over some things I'm sure Carol will probably jump in as the legal scholar on our panel but what we've seen since then is that the courts have consistently ruled that race may be considered along with many other factors and the missions process because it is a compelling interest and that means that there are educational benefits associated with recruiting and enrolling a diverse student body on our college campuses and so we have seen uh several race-conscious admissions cases since Bucky the most recent as you mentioned involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill so think of what's at stake here is the future of being able to use a race as one of many factors in the admissions decisions of students and yeah go ahead Karen oh no I was gonna say that was it that was an excellent summary um the only thing I'll add is that we often get questions about um why doesn't the Supreme Court consider things like history of segregation ongoing inequality through in K-12 education really the elephant in the room when we're talking about affirmative action um and as Kelly just pointed out um are in a world in which the Supreme Court's precedent really forecloses um the conditions under which um affirmative action satisfies what's called strict scrutiny and compelling interests and affirmative action which the court has recognized to be pursuing the educational benefits that flow from diversity and not the remedial justification that I think many people often uh assume would be the reason for continuing to have affirmative action distinction yeah and and if I can let me also add that raise conscious emissions it's actually applied in very limited ways due to three important factors first there are nine States including my own California that have banned such practices for public institutions second there are about 4 000 colleges and universities in the in the US and only a very small fraction of them receive more qualified applicants than they can admit in other words only a small number of Highly selective and I would actually call them hyper selective colleges consider race and emissions and third those that do use it and apply it to tip to scale in favor of Highly qualified applicants from underrepresented groups in ways similar to favoring applicants with unique talents or skill sets and even legacies um and in fact several Studies have shown that being a legacy has an even stronger positive effect on your chances of being admitted than um through the consideration of race yeah I think that's a really important point to make we had an audience question asking you know how many colleges really engage in using affirmative action I think much to your point it's it's a very small share of the overall higher education sector when we think about the the total number of undergraduates in the country for example so we touched on this a little bit let's back up and look at the history of affirmative action this obviously isn't the first time that the Supreme Court has heard a case on affirmative action um maybe Carrie you could take the lead at helping us understand what are the key legal questions at play in these two cases um and maybe how they're different from um arguments that have been made in previous cases sure so just to start with what the president currently holds um we mentioned already Baki later on there was a case that's known as gruder and that case really outlines what the state of the law is today in terms of how race can can be considered in higher education admissions so the Supreme Court has told us that you can consider race as one of many factors in admissions but the use of race has to be narrowly tailored and essentially what that means is that it is illegal to have quotas but you can consider race as one of many factors it can't be the determining factor and you can't have um it it can't be the case that Minority applicants are insulated from competition that's how the court has talked about it so really as Mitch said what we're talking about is a very limited consideration of race as a plus Factor once you're within um the kind of subcategories of applicants who are highly qualified and in both of the cases that are currently preferred the SIM card as as well as previous cases it's been clear in the record that all of the students who are admitted under affirmative action policies are are qualified they're already within the subset of some of the most highly competitive applicants and that the consideration of race is limited to again to pursue the educational benefits of diversity which has to do with universities mission of really ensuring that there is diversity in the classroom to bolster things like critical thinking class discussion really exposing students to differences and preparing them for the work environment after they graduate from college so that's where the law stands but we have these two cases that are going before The Supreme Court now that have made two different sets of arguments so to start with the Harvard case um this case was brought by students for fair Admissions and just to step back for a minute and make clear what is students for fair admissions so it's an organization it's the plaintiff in these two cases and the founders of students for fair admissions are essentially three people um one is Abigail Fisher folks May recognize that name from Fisher V Texas which was the last case to go before The Supreme Court challenging race conscious admissions in that case the court ultimately said that considering race again is one of many factors to pursue the educational benefits of diversity is constitutionally permissible it has to be nearly tailored the plaintiff in that case was Abigail Fisher and after she lost in that case um she actually teamed up with a man named ed Bloom who is Ed Bloom Ed Bloom is a former stock broker and he is an advocate who has worked behind the scenes as one of the architects in several cases um challenging race conscious admissions including Shelby County Beholder which is the case that gutted the Voting Rights Act um so he Abigail Fisher and then a third person who is Abigail Fisher's father um teamed up and together founded students for fair admissions um students for fair admissions is an organization that claims that the consideration of race is discriminatory and so they brought cases against Harvard against UNC that led to the two cases that are now before the Supreme Court but they also challenge race conscious admissions at different universities across the country um and in the Harvard case they allege that the consideration of race and Harvard's admissions process is discriminatory against Asian American applicants and they claim that they have members within students for fair admissions who are Asian American and who are applicants to Harvard and who claim that they didn't get in because they were discriminated against um based on race it's important to note that during trial there were no Asian-American students or alumni who came forward to testify that they were actually discriminated against and so we never heard from these members of students for fair admissions that Abigail Fisher and Ed Bloom you know claim the organization represents um in addition to the the claim of intentional discrimination that's at play um in the Harvard case they also um bring claims saying essentially that the way that Harvard considers race isn't narrowly tailored or doesn't comply with the existing precedent um and then lastly they bring a claim challenging um gruder essentially and saying that the Supreme Court should overturn over 40 years of existing precedent which would be a really remarkable um and unusual step for the Supreme Court to take the UNC case is slightly different in that there actually is no claim of intentional discrimination at play in the UNC case so it is a challenge of the existing precedent and also um claims that UNC does not um use or consider race in ways that it complies with existing precedents so those are essentially the differences between the two cases the one other thing to point out is that Harvard is a private institution and so the claim in that case is under title VI of the Civil Rights Act um whereas um in the UNC case because it's a State University it's an equal protection claim the analysis under both is is very similar almost the same although the court has never said that it has to be exactly the same um but the intentional discriminations are on different bases because of the private public distinction great that was incredibly helpful I just want to add one thing to what Kara said in in discussing the legal Arguments for the plaintiffs the arguments in favor of colleges that want to continue to use race conscious affirmative action is that diversity is important uh we have now amassed over 25 years of research from different fields from education to business to health to medicine that's that shows the importance of diversity um as important to our colleges and universities and even Beyond uh our institution so when we prioritize diversity and college admissions we improve the representation of students who are historically excluded on our campuses but who could benefit uh individually they could benefit organizations that they are part of they could benefit our society and so colleges are um our their argument in favor of a race conscious admissions is because of what the those policies are able to help those institutions do in terms of meeting their missions in terms of preparing and educating A diversity that has benefits for all of us recognizing that diversity is not the Silver Bullet here of course um that is one of the reasons why it has been upheld in these cases over the years it's because colleges have been able to demonstrate that it is a compelling interest and that it can be achieved through these race patches admissions policies yeah I think that's a really important point to me and you might tell you we have so much evidence both descriptive evidence randomized control trials where you look at sort of small interactions in a diverse group as opposed to sort of more macro studies of what the overall composition of an organization looks like in sort of time and time again the research really hammers home the benefits of diversity for all individuals yeah man I'm glad you raised this because uh this time around with these two cases uh diversity doesn't seem to be on trial here I think even the other side uh the plaintiffs agreed that the evidence uh regarding the benefits educational benefits uh diversity are pretty strong here but uh to just to add what uh to what Kelly said here institutions are also eager to defend um race conscious emissions as an option for them because they want to remain legitimate to society and they know that uh having a diverse student body signals that not only for incoming students because they they want to have that experience a very different from their uh home environments um usually coming from segregated neighborhoods and but also uh to prepare um students for what's next in in life so so um I think it helps them help institutions uh signal to the public that they they are a legitimate preparation ground for Future Leaders um question following up on between Harvard and UNC and it's not the reserve this intentional discrimination claim um I am not a legal scholar um but I know what has been discussed a lot uh and the other kind of big higher ed cases the student loan cases has been an issue of standing and somebody having a sort of a a cause for uh bringing a case how does that play out in these two cases if particularly in the Harvard case it seems like they're making a claim of standing but no actual individual uh is coming forward to State intentional harm it's a really great question and I don't have a satisfactory answer not because um it didn't come up at trial but because this is an area where um we've seen over the years federal courts have really relaxed then typical standing requirement um in ways that they don't do in other areas of law and in ways that have um in the reverse discrimination cases really privileged white plaintiffs in a way that um plaintiffs who are people of color often don't get that benefit of the doubt when it comes to standing and brain discrimination cases but essentially um although I can speak this is specifically an issue in the Harvard case where there is an intentional discrimination claim um Harvard challenged the standing of students for fair admissions you know saying who is the injured individual um that that supports your standing in this case and although an individual wasn't identified by name or didn't testify during trial and in fact there wasn't even an individual application in despite thousands of applications being available on the record to both sides that students for fair admissions point it to as an example of discrimination despite that um there there was students for fair admissions um did offer um redacted um essentially affidavit saying that they had members who had applied to Harvard who were Asian American and if they had the opportunity would transfer um to Harvard and so that was that was the basis for standing although you know typically um establishing that an individual is injured for a standard for standing purposes is a more rigorous analysis right yeah oh that's fascinating um all right so nobody has a crystal ball I'm not going to ask anybody to make a specific prediction of what you think the ruling is going to look like when it comes out in a couple of weeks but I would say most colleges and universities and experts are expecting that the court is going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and there will be at least a severe limitation if not outright ban on the consideration of race in college admissions uh without sort of identifying what you think is the most likely option what are the variations of a ruling that could come out in the next few weeks and how what are sort of the meaningful differences in the way that the corporate rule foreign you can go ahead I was just gonna say I would love for the for affirmative action to be upheld I mean I think that's the best case scenario is that we are all surprised uh in the next few weeks and uh it is maintained as the law but as you said I think that there are a lot of signals that suggest that that might not be the case um and I'm sure Kara can talk about what some of those things might look like so I I just want to emphasize um Kelly's point that although although um predictions are that the the court based on um the way this current um composition of the Supreme Court has um kind of disregarded precedent and Starry decisis in other cases already showed a willingness to do this the common prediction um is that the Supreme Court will overturn 40 Years of precedent and actually say that it is no longer constitutional to consider race as one of many factors but that even though it is you know being predicted by many looking at the Supreme Court today that is still an unusual step to take right I just want to emphasize um that for this Supreme Court to disregard president or even to Grant sir on an issue that it has recently decided right as recently as Fisher V Texas um is is a highly unusual step and is an extreme action for the court to take but it's likely that the Supreme Court will rule affirmative action to breed unconstitutional um it could be that there we get a different decision um under the equal protection analysis and the UNC case versus the title VI case um it could be you know that we get a more limited decision um that um provides us more guidance on what is required for narrowly tailored um but it's also quite possible that the court um will tell us that diversity is no longer a compelling interest for a considering race because that's what the um the plaintiffs have asked the court to do is literally to overturn um the existing precedent that says that it is a compelling interest um one other thing I just wanted to emphasize um which you know Mitch is right that um diversity um was not what the plaintiffs spent a lot of time saying is not a compelling interest but it still is the case that um that overturning precedent could lead to that outcome and and even more importantly um just from a practical standpoint it's very much the case that saying that gruder is no longer um controlling law and that race can't be considered is going to lead to a severe reduction in the number of students of color on campus that was very clear and in the record of both cases in the Harvard case um the the record that both sides acknowledged that was was that without considering race the number of black and latinx students on campus would reduce be reduced by around 50 percent and so the stakes of this case are huge in terms of what our institutions of higher education look like and in terms of the pipelines that higher education creates that there would be a severe number um a severe production in the number of students of color on campuses particularly black latinx um Native American and and some groups of Asian American students as well yeah I think that's a great transition Mitch obviously here in California which has for years banned the consideration of race and admissions what do we know from what happened in California and other states when affirmative action has been banned yeah we know this all too well so um so I can make some predictions here uh if the court were to prohibit their consideration or race um that my first prediction will be would be that we would expect a what the courts call a meaningful reduction in the proportion of underrepresented students at highly selective institutions that is exactly what we saw in California especially with UCLA and UC Berkeley we uh both institutions saw the African-American undergraduate population dropped by nearly half following the enactment proposition to an eye which was the ballot initiative passed in 1996 and went into effect in the 1998 emissions year at UCLA uh According to some Court testimonies um Harvard expects to see a 32 percent reduction in uh African-American representation if they were to lose their case now it took UCLA nearly two decades to return to the numbers of what we we had with African-American students prior to proposition 209 and for the numbers of African-American male we are now just barely above the numbers we were at in the mid 90s now this slow recovery um even though it took so long was actually a very deliberate process and we we had to make some some new policy and Emissions adjustments to do it and and um if we if you'd like I can talk about that later but I'll I'll open it up to other folks at this time I'd like to just um say that the effects are that we see in instances where affirmative action is banned it's not just immediate so certainly you know that there's uh you know California I think the the percentage of applicants dropped by 50 in the in the couple years or two to three years after the ban was implemented but sometimes it can be long lasting I think Mitch's point about the the slow recovery is reflective that so in 2021 uh there was an article I think it was um New York Times I believe uh that reported there were 258 black students that entered UC Berkeley's freshman class out of 7 000 2021 and at the University of Michigan which is my alma mater and the context that I've mostly focused on in my research on affirmative action black students made up about four percent of enrollment that same year so at the University of Michigan and in the state of Michigan affirmative action was banned in 2006 uh through a voter a Statewide voter referendum so you see that many years after these bans have been implemented that they are still um persistent uh inequities in the enrollment of students of color across you know many different groups including black students Native American students Hispanic students Pacific Islander another and some other Southeast Asian groups the other thing that I want to do is I want to complicate um those numbers a bit by by suggesting that when we see the low enrollment numbers in places where affirmative action has been banned and the selective institutions that is not only about students perhaps not being successful in the admissions process in the absence of race conscious affirmative action is also about students making choices about the types of Institutions where they want to attend and so some of the research that I've conducted and some of the research that I've seen from Scholars studying the California context suggests that students are deterred from applying even though they might have academic profiles that suggest they would be successful in the admissions process they they decide to go to other institutions that they perceive to be more racially diverse and inclusive sometimes they go to institutions that are within the state as in California that may not be as selective as UC Berkeley or UCLA Great Schools but don't have as many resources but those are schools where those students shift to and so this idea of the changes that we see in the representation of students on campuses in these post affirmative action environments is a bit more complex than students perhaps not being successful because we're not thinking of race as one of many factors in admissions decisions so I just want to kind of foreground the the agency and the perceptions that students have about the kind of environments that they want to want to be a part of yeah okay I was just gonna um emphasize a subpoint within that which is that um we've mentioned this in different ways but it's not as if um without the consideration of race admissions process would be somehow fair and neutral right we've talked about Legacy preferences um but they're all all different kinds of other ways that the way colleges and universities conduct admissions disproportionately benefit white students and wealth students and disadvantaged students of color and low-income students so when we think about even the use of standardized tests which we have long known our most highly correlated with the background of students parents and are both racially biased but also um that students who have Highly Educated parents or who come from wealthy backgrounds um score higher on standardized tests there's many ways that the existing admission systems serves to disadvantage students of color and and to privilege other students but it's also the case that um without if in a world in which a firm of action or race conscious at missions is unconstitutional it's still the case right that that universities consider um other aspects of identity so students for fair admissions has not asked for an injunction preventing universities from considering religion um from considering sexual orientation from considering gender from considering many other aspects of identity they are just focused on stopping universities from considering race right and so who does that disproportionately impact in terms of not being able to talk about the ways that race and ethnicity have impacted you and and should inform and be considered as part of understanding your application that is only going to have a disproportionate impact on students of color so I just wanted to complicate the idea that that somehow the existing status quo is is fair and neutral because really the ways that Pro is based baked into admissions policies currently is only going to be exacerated exacerbated if we can't consider the impact that of that race has on Africans because we know that race continues to shape applicants K-12 experience and can't just be ignored at the moment that they apply to college yeah I think two points that really stuck with me there is sort of the weaponization of the word fair I think in in discussions around admissions because it's to me has always uh felt like a very vague word that gets to be applied when uh certain Advocates want it to be applied in a certain way um and this discussion around you know race neutral Alternatives and I think any of us who do serious education research know that there is no such thing as a race Mutual policy there may be a policy that doesn't name race well it doesn't mean it's race neutral certainly if you think about legacy admissions and the decades that white families have had to access higher education compared to black families that were barred from attending higher education Admissions and they're simply fewer Generations um from which children legacy admissions preferences and and and uh some of those analyzes were conducted uh on record for their Court decisions uh prior Court decisions and UNC for uh particular I I was involved in some of that expert testimony and I saw you know some of the uh analyzes uh by the plaintiffs and they they even acknowledged that there will be a um reduction in the proportion of uh of underrepresented students especially uh African-Americans and um and their their uh prediction is that the reduction in their in their eyes is smaller than the analyzes conducted by like Carolyn huxby and Bridget long who also submitted uh testimony um but they see this reduction as a relatively small and unmeaningful I mean what they came up with and one analysis was a drop of 10 even under uh consideration of uh SES or social economic status of the applicants but uh when I look at 10 percent I think that I think that's a that's a a significant reduction for a population of African Americans that's a red already relatively small and you multiply that over four years and I think it's it's very significant and meaningful so so um I I think Planos also acknowledged that there will be um a reduction I I think the difference is whether they consider it to be meaningful or not maybe this is a good time to transition because I think we've started raising some other admissions practices to think about other Trends going on things like Trends in test optional admissions or as we've mentioned sort of um gained momentum opposing the use of Legacy preferences and missions um Kelly I know you've done a lot of work understanding how admissions officers make meaning of different shifts in policies um what are what are important insights from that work and what are considerations that colleges should have top of mind to support admissions officers over the next summer over the next few years responding to changes in different admissions policies yeah that's a great question um I think it's important to know that no Admissions Office anywhere will be caught off guard every conversation that I have been a part of every group that is that I've uh conference that I've attended uh admissions officers everywhere are thinking about the possible contingencies what if affirmative action goes away how do we prepare and they are they are putting together strategies and thinking through practices learning from States like Michigan and California where affirmative action has been banned so there's a lot of work that has already been done a lot of conversations the National Association of college admissions professionals are Knack at College admissions counselors have been involved in a lot of these trainings and conversations about what to expect and how admissions professionals can respond um that being said I do think that this shift will be will not be an easy one uh for the small number of uh institutions that do use race conscious affirmative action um because they have to rethink the application process uh how to review applicants without considering race I think the point that Cara was saying earlier about students have applicants having to Discount uh their racial Identity or their experiences that maybe racialized in the application process it's really hard so how do you do that and of course we do have some insights from other institutions but it's still I think something that could be challenging I would say that I think one of the larger issues um and some of the conversations that I've had is one of uh one is it is more personal and ethical which is admissions professionals want to understand the whole of who applicants are they want to hear their stories they want to know what it is that they would bring to the college environment should they be admitted and so I think it kind of takes away from some of the work that they are excited about and motivated to do and the roles that they occupy um and I would say that the other thing that that they are considering and that should certainly be an important part of the conversation is how to communicate these policy changes potential policy changes to key stakeholders so to prospective students two counselors parents others how do they communicate what this policy might mean one of the things that I've been learning in my research uh on test optional admissions is that how we communicate to prospective students is really really important um so their work is not just about rethinking the review process perhaps rethinking recruitment but also knowing how to communicate that to prospective applicants the only other thing that I would add is that I think when we're having these conversations about the potential work and the impact of affirmative action in this ruling is that we should think about and it's taken expansive view of admissions so I study enrollment management of which admissions is one critical function but the work of adapting uh to a potentially post affirmative action environment is not only about how we review applications it's also about how we recruit students how we award financial aid the policies that we put in place to allow students to you know transfer to other institutions our practices around credits and standard credits so there's a lot that um that is at stake here and I think that this is an opportunity for admissions professionals and enrollment management professionals to think about reimagining what they do in a lot of ways I think that's a great go ahead and mention them a lot of people will translate yeah I just you know appreciate your comments there Kelly and and and that had a lot to do with uh how we were able to make the slow recovery in the UCS and um and you know you get you you can't take shortcuts anymore um using um test scores to to cut off uh um make you know uh minimal cutoffs or uh minimal achievement cutoffs or something like that I mean uh institutions will have to begin to work a lot harder to uh earn the enrollment of a more diverse group of students and and at UCLA we called uh that process of recruiting students intrusive recruitment because we we recognized um after prop 2 and I that we had to work harder to gain a build lasting relationships and the trust of folks in communities that hadn't had a lot of access to UCLA and so they we began with bringing in students from those communities to campus and going out to where they live to offer tutoring College counseling and fundraising to support their college aspirations so so those are just some of the things that we had to do but the bottom line is um you know uh taking shortcuts will no longer work and and institutions will really need to work harder to to earn the enrollment of those highly qualified underrepresented students yeah I think that's a great transition we're starting to get a lot of questions coming in from the audience around these alternative practices that colleges can engage in and I think would love to hear you all's thoughts on you know what are successful practices to um sort of ameliorate the effects of an affirmative action ban um but also Cara may be particularly your perspective which of those practices might be impacted by the ruling you know are there for example are there going to be any impacts of the ruling on uh targeted scholarship programs whether those are universities or at foundations and thinking about that um you know specifically we've had a couple of questions come in around um you know what our alternative metrics to use in admissions we've got a lot of questions come in about uh the use of class based or you know wealth or income driven affirmative action practices um what do we know about sort of the potential of those policies to increase diversity on campuses so first I'll just uh clear that what's that issue and the student for fair admissions cases that are before The Supreme Court is race conscious Consciousness and not race neutrality so there should not be a decision coming out of the Court um saying that some of the race neutral alternatives are unconstitutional I think that would be going Beyond what's currently before The Supreme Court that doesn't mean that there won't be a a future case challenging race neutral Alternatives and arguing that they should be subject to strict scrutiny in fact plaintiffs are already making those arguments and the K-12 setting and in other cases but that's not it's not what's at an issue in this case and I think it would be an overreach for the court to or or even from people for people to interpret a decision in these cases as saying um that race neutral alternatives are creating diversity are um are thrown into question by um this case or a ruled unconstitutional by this case which is explicitly about considering racial classifications right um in terms of um how how we should think about some of the race neutral Alternatives that have been and used in other settings already and their effectiveness I should say first of all that folks who do admissions are going to be best positioned to answer that but the one thing I'll I'll say is that um from these two cases and looking at the record in these cases um because the universities had to establish that race neutral alternative Alternatives weren't going to be effective we already know um from the expert reports and what's in the record that for example um relying more on financial aid is not a substitute for considering racing what the universities wouldn't be able to achieve the same level of diversity by relying on a race neutral alternative like that because if that were the case they wouldn't have been able to satisfy strict scrutiny and in the district court they did right they they put on evidence and showed that they had considered race Mutual Alternatives and that they wouldn't be as effective so we know that many of these things are not a substitute for actually considering race when it comes to creating racial diversity but that doesn't mean that there's not um that there aren't promising practices that could Foster racial diversity even though they're not a complete substitute for considering race um and I'll just say very briefly um you know in some places things like considering geography which is closely often mapped on to race because of the reality of segregation in our country and socioeconomic status can um in a targeted way um ensure that there is greater racial diversity but it has to be very targeted so for example we know that socioeconomic status is not a substitute but that when you and that's in part because um socioeconomic status is not experienced in the same way by um all racial groups so for example if you look at um middle income black families and families of other backgrounds of the same income levels um those families have different experiences in terms of the neighborhoods that they have access to the level of segregation and the schools serving um their neighborhoods the level of funding in the schools that their kids go to even though they are families of the same income level right and so SES isn't a complete substitute for a race in any way but thinking about things like wealth and the experiences of different racial groups and access to wealth and and the ways that disparities play out um is a way to in a more targeted fashion um try to create racial diversity yeah just like to add that when we think about the number of kind of practices that institutions have experimented with or have implemented there are a number of things that that we've seen including the use of targeted Recruitment and Outreach efforts such as those that Mitch talked about getting into communities partnering with organizations building those relationships we've also seen the use of tuition free programs and initiatives where in-state students who apply to and gain admission to a university are offered free tuition again that focuses more on social socioeconomic status but one of the arguments is that that can also help to restore some of the racial diversity there's also top 10 percentage plans and others where students who graduate at a certain level within their High School gain automatic admission to the institution and then finally we've seen an unprecedented expansion of test optional policies test optional policies have been around for a while but they were adopted by liberal arts institutions and private colleges when the pandemic happened a number of universities and colleges Public Ivy League all types different locations adapted test optional Admissions and when I say tests optional I'm saying that is kind of an overarching turn to include institutions that are test blind test free test flexible the idea is that they're de-emphasizing tests standardized tests in the admissions process because of the barriers that those tests presented for students during the admission during the pandemic so removing those tests incentivizes students to apply and so far we have seen small but positive effects on diversity which is great and I think something that I you know if we have time I'll talk about later is you know that we need more research in this area but certainly that could be a possibility that being said I do want to say that the research is very clear with simulation studies that have been done uh Reardon in 2017 did simulation studies most recently we've had some work done at the Georgetown Center on education in the workforce by Carnaval and blimey and that work suggests that no policy no socioeconomic status policy or class-based affirmative action will be as effective at helping to restore or even exceed levels of racial diversity that we had with the use of race conscious affirmative action so we should be thinking about all of these alternative practices we should be using them together because there's no Silver Bullet but we also need to recognize that so far the research has suggested that race conscience affirmative action is still the best policy to help us to increase and restore levels of racial diversity and well I feel like I keep harping on legacy admissions but I feel like the the consensus is really that no College can in good faith engage in Legacy preferences in a world in which affirmative action is banned if their stated goal is to increase equity and diversity in their student body um let's let's shift to email Kelly you can introduce some of the test optional Trends um what are some other interesting Trends going on in college admissions um I guess maybe we can touch a little bit on if we think test optional is going to persist as a policy and what are some other sort of shifts in the holistic review process apologize for the background noise um I'm I remain excited about test optional admissions policies that's something that I'm working on right now but uh there are also other uh policies that are being explored right now including direct admissions uh and that is when students don't actually apply they're directly admitted to a college or institution based on their profile and so there are a few states that uh have piloted that or are piling piloting it including Idaho I believe Illinois and maybe Minnesota and so we need to know more about that but that could also be a possibility for institutions who want to increase access to their colleges without uh making the application process a barrier or a deterrent for students thank you all right I'm gonna slide in one more audience question because I was fascinated and then we'll go to closing remarks we had a question about the role of AI in college admissions to kind of completely shift um which I think could play out on both the student and the admissions office side anybody wanna uh offer some thoughts on Ai and chat GPT and and such technology in the admission process oh go ahead Kara oh I I'm not an expert in this area but I just know from um from reading and seeing different examples that our algorithms are only as effective as the data we put into them and so biostata is going to produce bias algorithms and I think that's important um to keep in mind as we're expanding our use of AI into new settings I think that's a hugely important Point these are these are created by people um and so the design matters all right well this seems like a good time to wrap up with a kind of a final comment for everyone I know we've talked about sort of areas where we need more research but as kind of a closing comment we want to go around I'd love to hear you speak to either what you think is you know an area where we desperately need more research when it comes to kind of the future of college admissions uh or if you wanted to highlight a policy or a practice that you think is going to be really crucial to have colleges and state support in the coming years to advance these goals diversity and equity and inclusion in college campuses let's go we'll go alphabetical order I'll start with you much oh thank you I was hoping it would be a reverse order but uh but since uh uh we've already touched upon this uh let me start with uh my my biggest concern and and that is uh that we will lean more into colorblind Solutions or approaches and as already noted by Kara and Kelly that the central problem with these approaches is um to address at least racial disparities in educational access and opportunity is that we are invariable we invariably and uh seeing inequality through a perspective that continues to privilege whiteness in other words we end up upholding an understanding of racial inequality through a white gaze that's like trying to address am I my poverty by understanding economic disadvantage through the perspective of the wealthiest quartile of our nation's popular relation I mean this approach simply will not capture the full spectrum of issues and lived experiences and even with Goodwill uh results in misguided Solutions we know that already know this because we tried it and been down that road and historically those subsequent Solutions end up blaming the victims and attributing their condition to deficits in their culture character and upbringing colorblind Solutions will always miss the mark and history tells us that those Solutions make the problem worse rather than better super important and Carrie I think I think I've got an alphabet right um so yeah I want to um Echo Mitch's point which I think is really important and maybe relatedly um you know I think the need um for disaggregated and intersectional data is critical in the college admissions process um I think that holistic admissions although I I would be the first to say that the way many universities are doing admissions currently is not perfect I do think one of the benefits of holistic admissions um is the ability to be intersectional in our thinking and and to create diversity within diversity on campus and that that is incredibly important but that um we need to have data and um rigorous data and disaggregated data to really look at the impact of different policies on different intersections of identity one of the things that was most compelling to me um during the Harvard trial and I should say um that I represented students and alumni um at Harvard in support of affirmative action during my time at the NAACP legal defense fund who represent it um 25 groups of student and alumni in that case um and students testified repeatedly about how diversity had benefited them educationally but in particular about how diversity within diversity matters um and we heard testimony from students who talked about how having diversity within the Asian American Community was important to them as well and could both combat stereotyping um but also Combat tokenism on campus and this is true for um African-American students for latinx students but I think it's it's really important that we have um disaggregated data and then we're able to continue to consider all different aspects of of students identity um and I I think part of why this testimony was um so impactful was because it showed in particular that the students who did testify during trial who were Asian American talked about how important their identity was to them and in their application process and how race conscious admissions benefited them in the in the admissions process but also as students on campus sequence all right Colleen get to go have our last day I I also want to Echo the importance of disaggregated data um earlier this year uh James Murphy at education reform now coordinated a campaign to raise awareness around the need for the Department of Education to expand its collection of admissions data uh and to disaggregate by race and ethnicity for college applicants and admitted students so right now when we look at ipest data we know who was enrolled but we also need to know who applies and who is admitted I think that goes a long way in helping us to address uh potential and inequities inequalities blind spots uh in in the event that affirmative action is banned even if it's not banned we still need that information for many of the reasons that mission care have already mentioned so that is really important the other thing that I I want to say is that a lot of the discourse around affirmative action College admissions focuses on selective institutions and that is in part because you know the the history of holistic review the the connection between uh the 2003 cases and uh holistic review processes at our more selective institutions um the reality however as we've we've said earlier is that the majority of students uh get into the majority of Institutions that they they apply to so as we start to think about how to reimagine the future of college admissions I also want us to begin to think about higher education as a whole how can we shift and invest more resources into our community colleges into our regional institutions and to other campuses that have a heavy lift I mean they educate the largest share of students and they often educate students who come having experience inequities in the K-12 education system and so I want us to begin to think about uh those institutions that are so vital to the higher education landscape into the future of uh of our you know education system and our country so thinking about uh the implications of affirmative action and the implications of college admissions is more than the set of Institutions that we typically choose to focus on well I cannot think of a better way to end our discussion than with that call for all of us um thank you all so much thank you to our viewers for joining but thank you so much Kelly Cara Mitch for joining us today as well as Catalina Navarro and our it team and Elizabeth Gelman our spring intern who will help to make this event possible if you'd like to attend more Brookings events we have them almost every day there's an event tab at the top of the page that you're viewing this on that you can subscribe to for more information and this recording will be available immediately following the event thank you all again so much for joining us

Channel: Brookings Institution

Views: 1,636

Keywords:

Id: RkCya1olbWA

Length: 62min 0sec (3720 seconds)

Published: Wed May 24 2023