Universities Must Act After the Demise of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action as we know it is gone. And while experts have predicted this outcome for months, countless questions remain for students, schools, and employers.

But one thing is clear: This decision creates an opportunity—and obligation—for schools to reimagine their diversity, equity, and inclusion tactics.

For decades, affirmative action has been an important tool for advancing educational equity, but it was also an imperfect one. Today, Black and Hispanic students are more underrepresented at the nation’s top universities than they were 35 years ago. And according to a poll conducted by George Mason University, a majority of Americans oppose the kind of racial consideration at the core of the US Supreme Court case, despite an equally large majority supporting “programs designed to increase diversity.”

As an Asian American, I’ve had many conversations with friends and family members leading up to these cases—supporting greater opportunities for Black students and other minority students, but grappling with zero-sum systems that seem to advance them at the expense of Asian applicants.

This disconnect—between support for the idea of diversity and discomfort with how we achieve it—points to a broader systemic issue that schools need to address. Indeed, even in cases where diversity is heralded, the outcomes may not measure up.

Without a holistic approach, practices designed to increase racial diversity on campus can come at the expense of equity and inclusion. For instance, when schools fail to differentiate between Black experiences, admissions tends to favor well-resourced immigrants at the expense of lower-income Black American students.

In addition, schools that admit high-potential applicants of color don’t always give them the academic, financial, and sociocultural support systems they need to thrive. These realities have unintended consequences—especially for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds—including alienation, dwindling confidence, and reduced graduation rates. And when Black or Asian students who have been set up to fail inevitably do, it reinforces misguided stereotypes about the communities they represent.

Schools cannot afford to prioritize surface-level diversity while neglecting deeper inequities. At the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, we believe systemic problems require systems-level solutions.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision, schools can’t simply look for an affirmative action substitute. They must invest in sustainable pipelines and policies that support students from application to graduation and beyond.

That starts with schools sharing data on admission, faculty and student body composition, and graduation rates to better understand what works and why. Earlier this year, many professional schools dropped out of US News rankings saying their calculations disincentivize DEI efforts. Now that the publication has promised to revise its methodology, it’s time for administrators to reengage and voluntarily release their data.

With increased transparency, students can hold schools accountable in pursuing their DEI goals. And as schools test strategies for increasing diversity, from optional SATs to increased financial aid, tracking trends across the years helps pinpoint which policies actually move the needle.

Knowing what works empowers schools to do better and to explore creative solutions.

For example, many have suggested socioeconomic status and neighborhood preferences as race-neutral admissions alternatives. And in addition to acknowledging and removing systemic barriers, some schools have begun removing the structural advantages built into admissions.

The University of Pennsylvania seems to be phasing out its longstanding legacy admissions boost, while other elite schools are reconsidering their own traditions.

These institutions should also reexamine their decisionmakers themselves. Diversifying admissions offices guards against similarity bias at elite institutions and ensures that applicants from a range of backgrounds will be evaluated by committees that understand and value their lived experiences.

In addition, hiring and promoting diverse faculty and administrators gives students of diverse backgrounds more mentors and role models who look like them and can empathize with their experiences, creating a more inclusive environment that fosters belonging and success.

By taking these steps, colleges and universities can create more sustainable pipelines for diverse talent—a need that we at the MCCA hear about from our partners in law and business every day.

Indeed, as one amicus brief from both schools and corporations argued, American businesses “depend on the availability of a diverse pool of qualified graduates of elite institutions.”

Of course, this reimagining of admissions will not come without challenges. Schools have been scrambling to anticipate the implications of this decision, and any response will require a deeper investment of time, effort, and financial resources.

But real transformation is possible. After California passed Proposition 209, a statewide ban on race-based admissions, enrollment of people of color and Indigenous students dropped at the state’s elite universities and medical institutions.

One outspoken leader, Mark Henderson, took matters into his own hands. Recognizing that that medical schools needed to change or risk being complicit in the systemic inequities of the field, Henderson revolutionized the admissions process at UC Davis.

Sixteen years later, after diversifying staff, considering economic class, and prioritizing inclusion once students arrive on campus, UC Davis’ 2026 class is the most diverse medical school in the region, with over half of the students coming from a group traditionally underserved in medicine.

If schools and administrators are committed to doing better, this setback is their chance to take action. By sharing transparent data, embracing creative solutions, and eliminating systemic barriers—and advantages—to level the playing field, colleges and universities can make their campuses more diverse, more equitable, more inclusive, and better able to provide the qualified candidates for workforce.

The case is Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, U.S., No. 20-1199, 6/29/23.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Jean Lee is president and CEO of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines