What to make of the puzzling data coming from colleges regarding the racial makeup of this fall’s freshman class? It appears that last year’s Supreme Court decision banning the use of race in college admissions has led to different responses from leading institutions.
Why would the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report a drop in the share of black students from 15% to 5% while the numbers at the University of North Carolina remained stable? Why would Yale University find that the percentage of black students was unchanged at the same time as the percentage of Asian admissions fell, while at Harvard University the percentage of black students dropped and the share of Asian students remained the same? It is difficult to interpret college admission practices in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision when more students do not report their race in applications, and some schools, such as Harvard, seem to have changed the ways they count admissions in regard to race and ethnicity.
There are good reasons to suspect that schools are not following the letter of the law — not to mention playing fast and loose with their data. But it is worth noting that they are doing it in different ways and not according to any single plan. The fact that schools are forging their own paths on this and other issues is a positive development for higher education — particularly for students.
Colleges, especially those judged to be “elite” institutions, have long practiced a form of groupthink. It was on display last year when Ivy League presidents went before Congress to testify about the antisemitic protests on campus. The leaders of these universities all gave similar answers when asked whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” violated their schools’ codes of conduct. It all depends on the context, they noted, and whether speech actually counts as conduct. They followed the advice of counsel, often from the same counselors. They decided that the safest course was for all to hang together — but, as things turned out, they all hung separately. Trustees, faculty, and students responded independently to their testimony.
Those colleges have a lengthy history of colluding in admissions practices, financial aid, tuition, and other issues: All have the same application deadlines and announce decisions about admissions and financial aid on the same dates? It is hardly a coincidence. In 2019, the Justice Department sent a letter to the National Association for College Admission Counseling seeking information on its “ethics code.” The department suggested that colleges were violating antitrust law by trying “to restrain trade among colleges and universities in the recruitment of students.”
The members of NACAC actually settled with the DOJ: Now colleges must allow members to recruit students after they have committed to other schools and even permit institutions to allow students to transfer to other institutions after they have already enrolled. This was a blow to colleges that sought to limit competition for students by adopting common practices — a tactic long used by monopolists in other industries.
It appears that the college cartel is gradually disintegrating, due to the Supreme Court decision, the NACAC settlement, and other developments. In February, Dartmouth College surprised many of its fellow Ivy League schools by reinstating a requirement that applicants must take the ACT or SAT, the two leading aptitude tests used for college admissions. Lee Coffin, vice president and dean of admissions and financial aid, told the Wall Street Journal that he “hasn’t spoken to any of his counterparts at other schools.” He also noted that he would not be surprised if they followed suit.
He was right about that. Several institutions have since readopted the testing requirement, while others have gone partway in making the tests optional. Some schools remain on the fence, announcing that they plan to revisit the issue. Schools eliminated the testing requirements in the first place because they sought to increase the number of applications and did not wish to create evidence that would show they were admitting less qualified students based on race. If they eliminated the tests, then more students would apply, and no one could prove they were screening applicants based on race. That policy would give administrators more freedom to mold their incoming classes based on diversity criteria.
But there are obvious problems with that policy. Schools found they were less able to identify the most talented and qualified students — in other words, those best equipped to handle the academic workload and graduate in four years. Many of those students, they found, were drifting to other institutions. Their standing as “elite” institutions depended to a great degree on their ability to recruit “elite” students. They could be “diverse” or they could be “elite,” but it was difficult to be both.
Now, the Supreme Court decision has created another level of confusion and disorder in the world of college admissions. In response to the court’s decision, colleges independently consulted their own lawyers, statisticians, and public relations teams in crafting answers to difficult questions. How far could they go to get the diverse class they wanted while still adhering to the law? Who would find out? What kinds of initiatives could they launch to mitigate the effects? Some schools, for instance, are claiming that additional outreach and financial aid allowed them to get more economically diverse classes, which also improved their numbers of historically underrepresented minorities.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Then there is the question of how academic leaders could “spin” the issue to the media and the public. They faced a dilemma of their own creation. On one hand, they claimed they used race as but a minor criterion in screening applications while also saying it was a vital factor in recruiting diverse classes. It was important when speaking to some audiences but unimportant when speaking to others. Now they are no longer able to “fudge” the question because colleges are addressing it in different ways and no longer speaking in a common voice. This makes it easier to identify institutions that may be cheating or evading the court’s decision. Why would UNC’s outreach be better than Harvard’s? Surely, it’s not a matter of resources.
But the new “every college president for himself” landscape has other advantages, too. It will lead to colleges taking different paths and devising creative solutions to an old problem while still abiding by the new legal landscape. Students who want to attend elite institutions will no longer be faced with a monolith saying the same thing.
Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at the Independent Women’s Forum. James Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
