.png)
The Supreme Court overturned affirmative action, which means that colleges can no longer legally practice "race-conscious admissions." Though, some have hinted that they will continue to use admissions essays to pursue racial diversity.
Colleges, especially elite ones, have been particularly sensitive to claims of racism. Until recently, they were overwhelmingly white, but they have spent considerable time and effort to change this—due at least in part to affirmative action.
If a goal of affirmative action in education was to make colleges more diverse, it has arguably done so. "Over the last 40 years, non-white ivy league students went from 14% to 50% of the student population." In 2020, Harvard noted that admission rates of Black and Asian students reached record highs, while Latinos represented almost 15% of students, roughly reflecting the population of the U.S. These are positive trends to be sure, and perhaps they help explain why there was (relatively) little outcry with the Court’s decision in "Students for Fair Admission vs. Harvard"—colleges are more racially equal. Harvard, it would seem, has become a beacon of diversity and progress. But is it?
Racial disparities in higher ed have improved, but who exactly did affirmative action help? Over 70% of Black and Latino students at Harvard come from the top 20% of the income distribution. As Bertrand Cooper wrote, "Affirmative action is not intended to combat the barriers faced by the poor, Black or otherwise. It is meant to achieve racial diversity. Where it finds the bodies does not matter." This is probably not the outcome those favoring affirmative action envisioned, as it suggests the policy doesn’t cast a very wide net.
One area of college admissions that affirmative action did not affect is that of "legacy students." Alumni and donors make up a powerful group in academia. Their ability and willingness to donate are a large reason why endowment funds at schools like Harvard surpass the GDP of small countries ($53 billion). But their power and generosity often come with strings: "Please let me know to whom I should address the check for the new athletics center—by the way, any updates re: my nephew’s application?" "Legacies" get accepted because of their bloodline and bank account rather than their merit; they are also almost entirely white (75%).
Any discussion about access to higher education, or its admissions process, inevitably comes back to "fairness." It’s helpful to know that liberals and conservatives often hold different working definitions of the word “fair.” For the Left, fairness means equality. For the Right, fairness is about karma—which in the case of college admissions means that one should earn their spot. This is likely why most Republicans (74%) disapprove of the consideration of race/ethnicity in admissions—it’s not merit-based—and 54% of Democrats approve of it—on the grounds that it will result in more (racial) equality. It also explains why 75% of Americans disapprove of legacies, that violate both parties’ conceptions of fairness.
But what about the cost of tuition and what’s a “fair” price? As colleges have become more inclusive racially, they’ve become less so economically. The cost of attending college has skyrocketed in recent decades, along with student debt. Today, tuition at a 4-year public school is around $25,000. Ivy’s charge three times that amount, which makes them the least economically inclusive. As few as 5% of ivy league students come from low-income families. But all of this hasn’t hurt demand. Over 40,000 students apply to Harvard each year, 95% of whom are rejected. It’s all part of the appeal—ivies are an exclusive club.
In American society, economic inequality is regarded differently than racial inequality. The Harvard’s of the world may not like being called “elitist,” but they’re much more willing to swallow that than being labeled racist.
Harvard could be forced to lower their tuition, to say nothing of whether or not they should. But even if they did so, America’s most elite schools—those that accept less than 25% of applicants—still account for just 6% of college students. Most colleges are much more accessible and diverse (racially and economically), and it’s these schools, not the elite, that educate the overwhelming majority of students.
Of much higher concern should be the fact that, despite our more accessible institutions and improvements to diversity, only 38% of Americans have a bachelor’s degree and just 10.5% have an associate’s degree. Acceptance is one thing, graduating is quite another. And graduating is disproportionately challenging for low-income students—those who would benefit the most from the upward social mobility that a college degree affords.
It’s not just graduating, though; everything is harder when one is poor. Take health, for example. The less money one has the shorter and more unhealthy their life will be. Conversely, with each additional bump in income, one can expect to live a longer, healthier life thanks to better access to healthy food, better health care, safer neighborhoods, and cleaner air. This stepwise relationship has been shown repeatedly across countries and time periods. When we combine this with the knowledge that advantages and disadvantages in early life often accumulate, affecting us well into adulthood (see here and here), we begin to have a much clearer explanation for societies’ inequities.
The well-off have the resources to build environments and systems that produce more favorable outcomes; the poor do not. Epidemiologist Sir Michael Marmot described it this way, "When inequality is high, we tend to see the poor… inhabiting a different world from people in the middle, and the rich inhabiting a different world from everyone else: separate schools, living arrangements, transport, gyms, holidays, and attitudes."
Inequality is a natural, expected outcome in capitalism, and in life. But when it’s the result of racism and a deeply embedded economic segregation that keeps the “haves” having and the "have-nots" without, then inequality is very much a problem. Creating environments that produce more equal starts in life would help address racism and classism and allow us to maximize our potential and flourish based on our actual merit as the rule instead of the exception.
