Is Race-Conscious Admissions Really Dead?

Understanding the Landscape After the 2023 Supreme Court Ruling

Black student enrollment is plummeting at a number of highly selective institutions, with noteworthy drops at Amherst, Johns Hopkins, Caltech, Cornell, and others. At Princeton, Black students made up 5 percent of the first-year class in 2025, the lowest representation since 1968.

Altogether, these demographic shifts reflect the fallout of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, which restricted race-conscious admissions nationwide. Beyond elite institutions, there are ripple effects for the broader higher education system, from public universities to community colleges.

The Supreme Court ruling is devastating, but the ruling also has some surprising features. Some argue that the majority opinion is more race-conscious than many realize and does not overturn the precedent set in Grutter v. Bollinger.

Still, the Trump administration is using the ruling to attack diversity, equity, and inclusion nationwide. Confusion persists about the ruling. Headlines proclaimed messages like “affirmative action is dead,” but is it really? Did the Supreme Court rule that Harvard discriminated against Asian Americans? Can institutions still work to expand access? Should colleges stay test-optional or go back to requiring standardized tests? What does the ruling say about diversity, equity, and inclusion?

What did the ruling in SFFA say?

Due to the Supreme Court ruling, institutions cannot consider race/ethnicity as a demographic factor during the admissions process. In my new book, I argue that race-conscious admissions is restricted but not dead. The distinction is subtle but important.

As Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in the ruling, “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” Such discussion does not guarantee admission, but institutions can consider it if it is relevant to a trait or characteristic valued by the institution. Thus, the ruling still permits a form of “race-sensitive” admissions, if a student chooses to discuss race in their application. Understandably, not every student wants to do that. Regardless, nothing in the opinion blocks a student’s ability to discuss race or institutions’ ability to take that discussion into account.

Race-conscious admissions has evolved considerably over the years. In 1978, the court struck down the approach of allocating seats for certain groups. In 2003, it struck down the practice of giving students points for being of a particular race/ethnicity. After 2023, race-conscious admissions is undergoing its most significant shift to date. One could say, perhaps, that what we have today is “race-conscious admissions, version 4.0.”

The ruling sidestepped the question of whether Harvard intentionally discriminated against Asian Americans. In my book, I explain how Students for Fair Admissions leveraged the Asian American issue to gain public favor while downplaying its goal of overturning Grutter v. Bollinger. Even though the court struck down the specific admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, legal scholars like Benjamin Eidelson (Harvard Law School) and Deborah Hellman (University of Virginia School of Law) note that the 2023 ruling did not explicitly overturn Grutter and even affirmed many of its principles.

What did the ruling not say?

The ruling does not address contexts outside of selective college admissions. Regardless, the Trump administration is using it to attack programs like race-conscious scholarships, financial aid, and programming.

Still, the ruling does not mean that all race-conscious programs are automatically illegal. In 2025, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul successfully petitioned the state supreme court to hear a defense of a race-conscious retention grants given to Black, Latino, Native American, and Southeast Asian American students at mostly technical colleges.

Kaul argued that the ruling in SFFA does not apply to the grant for numerous reasons and noted how the state had exhausted race-neutral options. At the time of writing, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue. Institutions and states should defend vulnerable programs, versus preemptively giving in to political pressure.

In an incredible act of overreach, the Trump administration continues to contend that SFFA applies to all of campus life and not just college admissions. As a result, many institutions have moved away from programs like supporting graduation ceremonies celebrating communities of color. Such moves reflect “repressive legalism,” in which institutions preemptively pull back on efforts to promote diversity out of fear or excess caution, despite the lack of an actual legal requirement.

What is the impact of SFFA so far?

The effects are most obvious in the elite sector, but there are system-wide ripple effects. Out of 29 elite institutions reporting data for fall 2025, Black enrollment fell at 24 and Latino enrollment fell at 16. Black student enrollments is hit especially hard by SFFA because of population trends: Latino youth 18 and under outnumber Black youth in the same demographic almost 2:1. So fewer Black students can benefit from class-based affirmative action programs, even though both communities have high percentages of low-income students. Concurrently, institutions have less ability to attract middle-class Black students, who often still face significant barriers to accessing selective institutions. Previously, race-conscious admissions benefited Black students across the economic spectrum, as well as students of other races/ethnicities.

Many public universities are also losing Black and Latino students, especially more selective state flagships. However, losses are often hard to see, being offset by increased enrollment of Black and Latino students who are now turned away from the elite sector. This phenomenon is known as the cascade effect. In turn, Black and Latino students who would have previously been admitted to a state flagship are now routed toward lower-selectivity or open access institutions, such as regional comprehensive institutions, community colleges, and for-profit institutions.

While such institutions can play a crucial role in supporting students, students often experience more adverse outcomes in these environments, from student debt to transfer challenges. In 2024, Black enrollment increased by 15,000 students in the for-profit sector, which is known for predatory practices. Selective, historically White institutions usually tend to have more resources to support students, given years of unequal funding.

What can institutions do?

In my book, I highlight incremental changes that institutions should consider, from retaining test-optional admissions to direct, “push-out” financial aid programs. I discuss how research does not support certain policies, like lottery-based admissions. On the question of standardized testing, I argue that the evidence often does not point in a single, clear-cut direction.

I also highlight untested legal options for bringing back limited consideration of race in admissions. Such approaches include leveraging the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Croson v. Richmond to bring back and defend race-conscious admissions within specific institutions. This approach would justify policies due to discrimination perpetrated by individual, specific institutions or due to passive participation in an industry that fostered unequal outcomes, like the standardized testing industry. Croson can also be referenced to defend class-based affirmative action.

Altogether, institutions have options to expand access. Far too many institutions have held on to problematic practices like legacy admissions. The data show the precipitous drop in diversity at many elite institutions, and the whole system suffers as a result. Now is the time for courageous leadership, despite the daunting political landscape.

Julie J. Park is a professor of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is the author of the new book Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era (Harvard Education Press) and served as a consulting expert in SFFA v. Harvard on the side of Harvard.