What would ending affirmative action mean for college admissions? More than you think.

This year, the Supreme Court will decide the legality of using affirmative action in colleges admissions in a combined case challenging race-conscious admission policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The 2 cases are:

• Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
• Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina

Both cases were originally brought in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by Edward Blum, who has spearheaded other lawsuits challenging race-conscious admissions policies and voting rights laws. The group represents the latest skirmish in the decades-long battle over the legality of colleges considering race as a factor in their admissions decisions.

“Harvard and the University of North Carolina have racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas,” Blum claims. “Every college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as some representative of a racial or ethnic group.”

In the cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Students for Fair Admissions argue that the universities have discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preferences to Black, Hispanic, and Native American students.

The universities have responded by:

• Claiming that the plaintiffs’ allegations are based on faulty statistics;
• Denying that they have discriminated against any group of students; and
• Maintaining that they use race as a factor in admissions because diversity is critical for learning.

Based on the oral arguments before the Courts last October, most experts are predicting the Court’s conservative supermajority will use the cases to end the use of affirmative action as a means of increasing student diversity.

Several justices appeared skeptical of the diversity justification during their questioning of the lawyers in the case. “I’ve heard the word ‘diversity’ quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “It seems to mean everything for everyone.”

Based on the oral arguments before the Courts last October, most experts are predicting the Court’s conservative supermajority will use the cases to end the use of affirmative action as a means of increasing student diversity.

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch also seemed concerned about the problem of measuring when an adequate level of diversity had been achieved and whether race-conscious admissions was necessary to achieve it.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wondered whether Harvard was ready to embrace all sorts of diversity. “Why the disparate treatment of religion and race?” he asked. “Evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Muslims add to the educational diversity at Harvard and other religious groups add to the diversity. Why not ask about that?”

As we await a final decision, many college leaders are expressing concern about the fate of affirmative action and defending the need to allow race to be considered as one admissions factor in the interests of promoting greater student diversity. They predict that a decision banning the use of race-conscious admissions could result in a decreased representation of Black and Latino students along with increases in the number of white and Asian students.

Other Implications of ending affirmative action in education

Depending on the scope of the Supreme Court’s financial decision, several other college policies and practices used to build diverse student bodies may be in jeopardy. For example, would special outreach and recruiting programs be permitted if they target specific racial and ethnic groups? What about scholarships, summer enrichment experiences, and honors programs? If they are intended to benefit certain racial and ethnic minority students, will they also be prohibited?

A ban on affirmative action might also have several unexpected side effects. Even if they are not declared illegal, how could a university justify continuing to give admission preferences (“legacies”) to the children of major donors or alumni, who at almost every elite college in America are overwhelmingly white, if they were prohibited from giving extra consideration to students of color?

What about scholarships, summer enrichment experiences, and honors programs? If they are intended to benefit certain racial and ethnic minority students, will they also be prohibited?

“If the Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action, legacy preferences will not be long for this world,” said Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School. Mr. Driver added that legacy preferences are “a little like rooting for Elon Musk to purchase the winning lottery ticket”.

During the oral arguments on the Harvard and North Carolina cases, Justice Gorsuch seemed to recognize the parallel between a preference for minorities and ones for other categories of students: “Universities also have all kinds of other plus factors they use, like for legacies of alumni, for donors’ children, for squash players. We learned there are plus factors because [institutions] need those, too. And I guess I’m wondering, suppose a university, a wealthy university, could eliminate those preferences, which tend to favor the children of wealthy white parents and achieve diversity without race-consciousness. Would strict scrutiny require it to do so?”

Effect on early decision admissions

An objection could also be raised against the use of early decision admissions by many selective universities. Early decision admissions generally favor more well-to-do applicants; would it not be, at the very least, awkward, for that practice to be continued knowing how it skews in favor of more advantaged students? Should it be okay to give an advantage to the children of wealthy alumni but not to those from a low-income Black family?

» Read: The truth about college acceptance rates: Are selective schools really better?

Effect on standardized admissions tests

And then there is the issue of standardized admissions tests. Already in steep decline because of the pandemic’s disruptive effects and concerns about racial biases, the use of the SAT and ACT in college admissions might become even less common in a world where affirmative action was banned. An acceleration of test-optional admissions policies is a likely consequence of rolling back race-conscious considerations when evaluating applicants.

An acceleration of test-optional admissions policies is a likely consequence of rolling back race-conscious considerations when evaluating applicants.

A return to lottery admissions?

A ban on affirmative action might even bring back calls for lottery admissions, where acceptances are based on a random selection process meant to eliminate unfairness. However, while they sound fair, research suggests they may decrease the diversity of students admitted to college.

Final thoughts

The Supreme Court decision on ending affirmative action in college admissions will be one of the major developments on the higher education scene this year. Regardless of the final outcome, the decision will have multiple and profound effects on colleges, students, and society at large. Although some of those effects are already being anticipated, others are not as foreseeable and may usher in a new era as institutions strive to remain accessible to students from all types of backgrounds.