Higher Ed. at Harvard Event Addresses Looming End of Affirmative Action

The potential end of affirmative action was front and center at Harvard Graduate School of Education’s 23rd annual Higher Ed. at Harvard forum. The event, held at Gutman Library’s conference center on April 4, featured three experts speaking about the future of higher education diversity initiatives in light of the potential end of affirmative action.

A Supreme Court decision regarding a lawsuit filed against Harvard and the University of North Carolina is expected later this summer, and a conservative-leaning court is likely to bar school admissions offices from using race as a factor when determining college applications.

Speaking to a crowd of 100 in person and more than 400 on Zoom, the panel was hosted by Senior Lecturer Francesca Purcell and featured Professor Susan Dynarski, Assistant Professor Anthony Jack, and CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling Angel Perez.

The group outlined the challenges ahead for schools that will deal with a rapidly changing academic landscape in the coming months and years ahead. While each panelist made it clear the exact outcome of the court’s ruling is still unknown, none expect affirmative action to exist as it currently does come fall semester.

“I just don’t see this court exercising judicial restraint. I think that they’re going to try to gut a program that a lot of people have been trying to gut for a very long time,” said Jack, noting the court’s recent reversal of abortion rights granted with Roe v. Wade. “They have their opening now and they’re going to run with it. They’re running with everything.”

The loss of affirmative action, according to the panel, would severely limit the ability to encourage diverse student populations in secondary education. It would also cripple some outreach abilities to more underrepresented populations depending on the ruling’s scope. Dynarski noted that substituting income levels in lieu of race during the admissions process, for example, makes a much lower impact on diversity efforts overall.

“The thing is that low-income [designation] does not correspond perfectly in any way to race and ethnicity in the United States,” said Dynarski, noting that only about half of the 38 million Americans in poverty are Black. “You just run into a numbers problem. So unless we expand our elite schools extensively, it’s not like it’s going to change the numbers a lot.”

The panelists suggested that, if race cannot be a factor in admissions, geographic place could be a “proxy” because of the extreme segregation of cities and, by extension, schools. But that effort may be cost prohibitive and, as Jack noted, using tools like the College Board’s Landscape “doesn’t equal the playing field, but it shows how unequal it is.”

Jack, in particular, noted that ending affirmative action cuts off a crucial pathway for minority students into higher education, while other routes like athletic scholarships more often utilized by white students remain.

“Athletes tend to be whiter and wealthier than the average population,” said Jack. “You have all these different inroads into elite schools that are paved with easier admissions because of not what boxes you check but what you can put on your resume.”

All panelists recommended one measured response to affirmative action’s demise is to end the practice of legacy admissions for the children of alumni, which Jack noted is one of many “preferential systems” that overwhelmingly serve white students from wealthy households.

“It really is kind of a twisted reflection of affirmative action,” said Dynarski. “It’s a finger on the scale for those who have already had all of the advantages in our society.”

The scope of the ruling, and its ripple effect across education, was a focal point of the conversation throughout the night. Perez noted that what schools like Harvard and MIT do in response to the ruling will echo across higher education.

“We are very privileged to be talking about this through the lens of the elite, the most highly selective colleges and universities. Which by the way, is not how the majority of Americans experience higher education,” said Perez. “If we think about the fastest way we’re going to open the doors wider for low-income, first-generation, and students of color, it’s how we fund higher education in this country.”

Despite the challenges, there was some optimism that universities can learn from the impacts previous affirmative action bans in states like California and Michigan have had on admissions and student populations to make other diversity initiatives yield positive results.

“I’m a believer in ‘don’t let a crisis go to waste.’ This is truly an opportunity for reinvention,” said Perez, suggesting schools prepare for changes well ahead of the actual ruling. ”We need to reinvent. And so I do think that this is an opportunity.”