Race-Based Admissions in Higher Education: Addressing Systemic Inequality in American Society and Achieving True Equity

“If only the principle of color-blindness had been accepted by the majority in Plessy in 1896, we would not be faced with this problem in 1978. We must remember, however, that this principle appeared only in the dissent. In the 60 years from Plessy to Brown, ours was a Nation where, by law, individuals could be given ‘special’ treatment based on race. For us now to say that the principle of color-blindness prevents the University from giving ‘special’ consideration to race when this Court, in 1896 licensed the states to continue to consider race, is to make a mockery of the principle of ‘equal justice under law.’”

– Justice Thurgood Marshall
Memorandum to the Supreme Court Conference
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice, highlights the hypocrisy of opposition to affirmative action where opponents claim that it violates the Constitution’s disregard for race. Specifically, Justice Marshall is referring to race-based admissions, the most well-known form of affirmative action in higher education, which is the consideration of race in the college admissions process that extends opportunities to marginalized groups, particularly people of color, in the United States (US) to mitigate systemic inequalities that hinder access to higher education (Hinz 917-918). In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the race-based admissions policy at the University of California Medical School was challenged by a white applicant who claimed that the seats reserved for underrepresented groups infringed on his right to a fair admissions process (Hinz 918). He tried to argue that constitutional “color-blindness” means that preferences cannot be given to marginalized groups because it would constitute racial discrimination toward white people (Hinz 918). The Supreme Court’s decision was multi-faceted and ultimately allowed race-based admissions to continue by allowing race to be considered among other admissions criteria, but still mandated Bakke’s admission and stated that racial quotas were either unconstitutional (according to Justice Lewis Powell) or went against the Civil Rights Act (according to the remaining justices who sided with Bakke) (“Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.”). Justice Marshall wrote a dissent against the prohibition of racial quotas and wrote in support of the legal foundation of race-based admissions in general (“Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.”). 

As the words of Justice Marshall suggest, race-based admissions would not be needed if the Supreme Court did not uphold segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson and cement the severely disadvantaged positions of people of color (Marshall 1). The multi-generational effects of slavery, segregation, and the ongoing marginalization of people of color all perpetuate systemic inequalities that make race-based admissions necessary. Weaponizing the words of opponents of race-based admissions, Justice Marshall emphasizes that the “‘special’ treatment” that favors white people is the precise reason why race-based admissions exist (Marshall 1).Reference to “color-blindness” as an attack against race-based admissions when American society historically has not been color-blind is a “mockery of the principle of ‘equal justice under law’” as Justice Marshall states, and stands in the way of true equality of opportunity (Marshall 2). This inequality of opportunity necessitates a consideration of both race and family wealth in the admissions process to foster true equity and diversity in higher education. 

In this essay, I will start by defining race-based admissions, including its history, where it is practiced, and its legal status given Supreme Court rulings and legislative bans, eventually exploring the ban on race-based admissions implemented by the Supreme Court in June of 2023. I will talk about how race-based admissions policies are stillneeded because people of color stillface systemic inequalities in American society. I will demonstrate how the racial wealth gap plays a role in these systemic inequalities and how the racial wealth gap affects the affordability of college for people of color. I will explore financial aid systems as they exist and explain why race-based financial aid and additional race-targeted scholarships are needed. Then I will show how the K-12 education system disproportionately puts people of color in a worse position for competitive college admissions when compared to white students who are more likely to be in more financially advantaged positions. Finally, I will talk about the benefits of diversity on college campuses and how race-based admissions foster this diversity. In the process, I will also show how race-neutral policies undermine racial diversity. 

Race-based admissions refer to the active consideration of race in the college admissions process with the intent of ensuring that marginalized groups have fair access to higher education and are represented on college campuses. In the 1960s, the implementation of race-based admissions extended the opportunity of a college education to groups that have been systematically denied acceptance or faced severe barriers, particularly people of color and women (Menand, par. 6). The two primary goals of race-based admissions are to ensure equity in the admissions process and to increase diversity for its social and educational benefits. Race-based admissions policies have been primarily used in selective universities, including Ivy League schools and some public flagship universities (Quintana, par. 12-13). However, race-based admissions have faced public opposition and numerous legal challenges. Education and African American studies Professor Walter R. Allen and others, in an article published in the Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, find that several cases have been brought before the Supreme Court to challenge race-based admissions, including Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Gratz v. Bollinger, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which all involved rejected white applicants suing universities for alleged discrimination against them in favor of minority applicants (Allen et al. 44-45). In the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Attashin Safari writes about how the Supreme Court allowed for race-based admissions to continue but eliminated quotas for admissions and required individual policies to be examined critically when challenged in court (Safari 279). Due to public opposition to race-based admissions, eight states have enacted bans on the consideration of race in admissions (Santoro, par. 9).All of the limitations, and in some cases, complete bans on race-based admissions, leave its future uncertain and spark debate over what should be considered in the admissions process. 

The consideration of race through race-based admissions is needed because it takes into account the systemic inequalities that disadvantage people of color, including poverty and educational disparities. Christina H. Paguyo and Michele S. Moses report in the Peabody Journal of Education that opponents of race-based admissions often argue that the policy is no longer needed because the US has become a “post racial society,” suggesting that American society has become equal since the end of segregation (Paguyo and Moses 553). However, and as Paguyo and Moses point out, this view ignores the systemic inequalities present in society that prevent true equality of opportunity from being achieved. In fact, Paguyo and Moses point out that systemic inequalities exist in society despite some people’s belief in a “post racial society” (Paguyo and Moses 553, 563). As noted by a report from the US Department of Education compiled by Terris Ross and others, poverty severely limits one’s access to quality education and one’s ability to excel in and complete school (Ross et al. vii, 7). In 2010, 38 percent of Black children and 32 percent of Hispanic children were living in poverty whereas 13 percent of white children were impoverished — a disproportionate share of people of color (Ross et al. 8). 2021 statistics from another US Department of Education report showed that 31 percent of Black children and 23 percent of Hispanic children were living in poverty compared to 10 percent of white children (Irwin et al. 9). Although the percentages may have decreased, students of color are still disproportionately more likely to be living in poverty. In the Washington Post, Dr. Natasha Warikoo, a Sociology professor at Tufts University, notes how white families on average have over $153,000 more in assets than Black families, which she finds is a result of generations of discrimination that prevented people of color from owning property and gaining economic opportunities (Strauss and Warikoo, par. 7). People of color are more likely to live in poverty compared to white people and tend to have fewer assets available for social mobility as a result of the effects of systemic discrimination, which, as the data gap shows, still has an effect today (Strauss and Warikoo, par. 7). 

Financial aid in conjunction with race-based admissions allows for people of color, particularly those most in need of financial assistance, to access higher education. Race-based admissions are needed to ensure that students of color receive an equitable opportunity to attend college, but financial assistance is needed as well to make the opportunity a reality, especially since systemic barriers have made economic mobility less possible for people of color (Strauss and Warikoo, par. 7). There are different types of financial aid including federal loans, federal grants, university grants and scholarships, private grants and scholarships, and work-study programs (Burns et al. C3-C8). As reported by the National Center for Education Statistics, higher percentages of full-time Black and Hispanic students received grants and loans at 88 and 82 percent respectively compared to 74 percent of white students, and the trend held similarly for part-time students (de Brey et al. 134-137). A higher percentage of Black students received need-based Pell Grants at 72 percent compared to 34 percent of white students (de Brey et al. 134). 

Patricia Gurin and others, researchers at the University of Michigan, explore many benefits of diversity on college education, including its positive effects on “learning outcomes,” relating to academic growth and critical thinking, and “democracy outcomes,” relating to exposure to and relationship building with people from diverse backgrounds (Gurin et al. 334). They note that some college students first experience diversity after arriving on campus because of limited exposure to other groups during adolescence due to neighborhood and K–12 demographics (Gurin et al. 338). College students see academic and social benefits when attending diverse institutions because of classroom interactions and especially because of the activities and experiences students can have outside of the classroom (Gurin et al. 358-359). Students are able to interact with many different students from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints and talk about current events and issues in their studies (Moody, par. 8-10). Diverse colleges create an environment for a free exchange of ideas between students with different backgrounds where they can voice their opinions, learn from others, and potentially alter their opinions on a topic (Moody, par. 8-10). Diversity benefits all students because an open exchange of ideas is a foundational aspect of a university and ensures an exposure to people of different backgrounds to better prepare one for the workforce and being a member of broader society (University of North Carolina et al. 4). Since race-based admissions fosters diversity and creates an environment where varying views on issues can be discussed and students can learn from others’ diverse experiences, it should be maintained because it not only alleviates systemic inequality but also provides irreplaceable experiences for all students (Alon 236). 

Opponents of race-based admissions argue that race-neutral policies can still achieve diversity on college campuses, but the data shows decreases in diversity at universities that no longer practice race-based admissions. One such attempt at a race-neutral approach, the consideration of students’ socioeconomic status only, was implemented at the University of California, Los Angeles Law School; and the increases in diversity paled in comparison to the race-based policies that existed before (Alon 238). According to Sigal Alon, “Although this admission program did increase socioeconomic diversity at the law school, ‘the enrollment of Blacks and American Indians fell by more than 70 percent from the levels typically achieved under the old race-based system’” (238). As mentioned before, eight states have banned race-based admissions in their public universities, and Allen and others, researchers at the University of California, found that after race-based admissions bans were passed in California and Michigan, African American representation declined (Allen et al. 48).

Opponents of race-based admissions often allege that it constitutes reverse discrimination that hurts white applicants. For example, Abigail Fisher, the plaintiff of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin,believed that race-based admissions violated the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment (Safari 272-273). In a 4-3 decision rendered on June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled just the opposite. They saw the UTA race-based admissions policy as a lawful policy that helped to ensure an equitable opportunity existed for prospective students of color facing systemic inequalities to gain admission as white students applying with already-inherent advantages . 

Equality of opportunity means everyone has an equal chance to apply to and compete for admission into a university. The anti-race-based admissions view is that the policy should not be used because it violates the equal opportunity of white applicants. However, it is people of color, under a system without race-based admissions, who are denied equality of opportunity because of systemic inequalities that exist in broader society. People of color never receive ‘equality of opportunity’ in college admissions because it does not exist in the educational stages leading up to the college application process. Thus, race-based admissions are needed to create an equitable opportunity and contextualize those struggles and potentially add a “plus” factor in admissions to help level the playing field (Jackson 18). The same is available to economically disadvantaged white applicants as Justice Jackson noted (Jackson 18-19). As discussed before, people of color are disproportionately more likely to be in impoverished families, and therefore attend schools that lack the resources to give an education that would be at the same level as what more affluent households can gain (Ross et al. vii, 8). This lack of opportunity due to systemic inequality has no bearing on a disadvantaged minority applicant’s true ability and therefore, in the interest of equity, race-based admissions is needed because equality of opportunity does not exist to gain the same qualifications as more privileged applicants. As Malerie Beth Barnes, Director of Admissions, and Michele S. Moses, Professor of Education at the University of Colorado Boulder, assert: “We simply cannot repair centuries of de jure [legally enforced]racism without considering race” (Barnes and Moses 340). Race-based admissions ensure that people of color receive an equitable opportunity when white applicants tend to already have an advantage . 

Opponents of race-based admissions who claim that the policy is unjust reverse discrimination also claim that it admits people of color who are underqualified and will not succeed as a result. The argument is that race-based admissions hurt minority applicants who are less qualified because they will be admitted to universities where they will not be prepared (Alon 243-244). The claim that minority applicants who are admitted are less qualified is untrue. For example, Harvard University has explicitly stated how its race-based admissions policy (and its other policies that give a “plus” or tip to an applicant’s background or other characteristics, e.g. recruited athletes) does not lead to a minority student’s admission if they are not qualified like other admitted students: they meet the academic qualifications (Anderson). Race-based admissions consider one’s experience and, for example, might give a tip to a member of a minority group if their experience showed going through income struggles and a poorly funded K-12 experience; the admissions officers would see a qualified applicant also having to overcome a lot of obstacles to get where they are and want that diversity of experience in their class. Race-based admissions do not hurt people of color or admit underqualified students – but it does provide an equitable opportunity for success: “...despite their disadvantaged starting point, minority students prosper at selective institutions, which bestow certain advantages—such as a higher likelihood of persisting until graduation, attending graduate or professional school, and earning a good income later in life—on all of their students” (Alon 243). This prosperity is reflected in the graduation rates of people of color where Black students earn their degree at the same rate as other students, and sometimes at a higher rate including at Harvard and Princeton with a 99 percent rate compared to slightly lower overall rates (Harper). Therefore race-based admissions simply ensure that people of color are given an opportunity to succeed that they may have been denied without race-based admissions due to systemic inequalities that tend to disadvantage their K–12 educational outcomes, which have no bearing on their ability to work hard and thrive in higher education. 

Some opponents of race-based admissions believe that college admissions should be purely meritocratic without the consideration of race. They claim that college admissions need to solely focus on the academic qualifications that applicants possess (Mac Donald). Not only does this view ignore the realities of how race-based admissions truly operate (and admit academically qualified students of color) and ignore the systemic inequalities that create K-12 educational gaps, but it also assumes that a so-called ‘pure meritocracy’ would exist without race-based admissions. The systemic inequalities that disproportionately impact people of color mean that pure meritocracy is justnot a reality. It is by chance, for example, what school districts one is born into and the impact that it has on K-12 outcomes, and the odds are disproportionately not in favor of students of color (EdBuild 4). By extension, in college admissions people of color still tend to be at a disadvantage because of the lack of opportunity that exists for many people of color to get the K-12 educational experience that best positions them for acceptance into a competitive college. Legacy admissions (even more so) place the odds disproportionately in favor of students who by chance were born into families who have alumni connections or have the resources to make donations— who tend to be white. 

Many elite universities use legacy admissions which gives preferences to students who have parents who are alumni, fosters inequality in the college admissions process, and is not conducive to the pure meritocracy that opponents of race-based admissions wrongly claim is hindered by race-based admissions. In an article published in the Hechinger Report, Jill Barshay reports that legacy students have higher acceptance rates at elite institutions – eight times higher than non-legacy students in some cases (Barshay, par. 2). Legacies had a 33.6 percent acceptance rate when non-legacies only had a 5.9 percent acceptance rate in the Harvard classes between 2014 and 2019 (Barshay, par. 2). While their academic qualifications are generally the same as admitted non-legacy students (Barshay, par. 13), legacy students do not ‘merit’ admission at elite universities over other deserving students just because their parents went to the university. 

Researchers Peter Arcidiacono et al. examined Harvard admissions and the preferences given to applicants who are legacies, athletes, students who have parents who are faculty or staff, and students who are on the dean’s interest list (which often looks at donation or donation potential) (Arcidiacono et al. 134). Of admitted white students over 43% received those preferences and not even 16 percent of admitted students of color received them (Arcidiacono et al. 133, 135). The low percentage of people of color receiving these preferences is to be expected as, for example, only around 30 percent of legacy applicants are people of color (Arcidiacono et al. 135). The researchers determined that with a preference-free admissions model, around 75 percent of the preferred white admitted students would not have been admitted (Arcidiacono et al. 133, 135). Race-based admissions aims to address systemic inequalities that have disproportionately impacted people of color and in some cases helps to admit qualified students of color to extend those opportunities to people that have had to overcome those barriers and have historically had these opportunities denied; legacy preferences only extend admission because the applicant’s parents were alumni and as a result largely favors white applicants. Legacy preferences are the true enemy of ‘meritocracy’ that opponents say race-based admissions stand in the way of. 

Although race-based admissions are needed to take notice of the experiences and struggles that students of color have faced and ensure an equitable opportunity to be accepted into elite universities, more can and should be done on the part of lower-income students of color by making a socioeconomic consideration a greater part of race-based admissions in addition to offering race-based financial aid. As stated previously, people of color face systemic inequalities in the K-12 system and broader society that can limit their opportunities for acceptance at elite colleges. Low-income students of color face both barriers due to race as well as barriers due to lower socioeconomic status (Park). By themselves, low-income barriers can include issues with affordability to actually apply to colleges, affordability to take and prepare for standardized tests, and quality of primary and secondary education and its effect on one’s credentials on college applications as well as college readiness (Dwyer). However, people of color face these low-income consequences disproportionately as indicated by the racial wealth gap and the $23 billion funding gap between predominantly nonwhite and white districts (Harris and Wertz, par. 3; EdBuild 4). Even though colleges often consider socioeconomic status along with their race-based admissions policies (Kahlenberg, “Economic Affirmative Action” 3), evidence indicates that low-income people of color are not benefiting from race-based admissions as much as they could (Kahlenberg, “The Affirmative Action”) (Park). At Harvard University, for example, 71 percent of enrolled Black, Latinx, and Native American students are from families that hold college degrees and make more than the national median income (Kahlenberg, “The Affirmative Action”). It should be noted that students of color are still significantly more likely than white students to have a low-income background but that data shows that more can be done to enroll lower-income students of color (Park). Race-based admissions are still needed to extend these opportunities to people of color that face systemic barriers and discrimination, but more can be done to target people of color from lower-income households, and more specifically, less wealthy households (Park; Jones and Nichols 6).

To combat discrimination and systemic inequalities that disproportionately disadvantage people of color and the racial wealth gap, colleges should continue to use race-based admissions and give preferences to students from less wealthy families, which includes more targeted financial aid for students of color that come from less wealthy backgrounds. In a 2023 Georgetown University study, Anthony P. Carnevale and others proposed an admissions system that is based on race, socioeconomic status, and one’s academic qualifications (Carnevale et al. 21). The race and socioeconomic status considerations ensure that applicants, with a focus on people of color and low-wealth households, have their academic qualifications contextualized where they would gain admission to the university based on their academic performance in the context of racial inequalities faced and the resources their families and their primary and secondary schools had (Carnevale et al. 20-21). Sigal Alon, a professor of sociology at Tel Aviv University, also proposes a policy in the US that would use race and class considerations and the test showed that it would allow for racial diversity and opportunities for low-income students as well (Alon 249-250). The policy would specifically try to increase the enrollment of qualified people of color from lower-wealth backgrounds (Alon 249-250). A race and wealth-based admissions policy would not lead to a lack of success or an “academic ‘mismatch’” that race-based admissions is often accused of creating (Carnevale et al. 42). Since the qualifications of admitted, disadvantaged students of color are contextualized, even if somewhat lower, they would still succeed with the opportunity to attend selective institutions – graduation rates would be similar to admitted white students and the salaries after graduation would be better compared to after graduation from other institutions (Carnevale et al. 41-42). 

In addition to contextualizing the financial struggles of students of color in the admissions process, more needs to be done along with the granting of admission — the introduction of race-based financial aid and more race-based scholarships. As mentioned before, race-neutral financial aid, due to the racial wealth gap, does not benefit students of color as much as it does white students, particularly for middle to high-income families (Levine and Ritter). This means that even when students of color and white students come from similar income backgrounds, the racial wealth gap leaves students of color disproportionately in a worse position to afford an elite college education — people of color receive less aid than they should receive when compared to what white students receive (Levine and Ritter). Since people of color disproportionately make up low-income students and tend to be in a worse position than the average white student due to the racial wealth gap, race needs to be considered with class because they are intertwined (Park). As some organizations give out merit scholarships to low-income students specifically (Dwyer), organizations as well as colleges should designate more race-specific scholarships so that people of color are able to access aid set aside for them and more conscious of the disparate educational experiences they may have had compared to more affluent students who tend to be white. As stated previously, students of color have to take on more student debt to pay for their education, especially when their financial aid is insufficient (Wright, par. 5; Jones and Nichols 7).

Low-income students of color need to have the resources to attend the most selective institutions and be able to afford it through graduation (Carnevale et al. 37-38) and that can be accomplished with financial aid and scholarships that target them since they tend to be the most disadvantaged both because of race and family wealth. Part of the reason that the enrollment of low-wealth students (and by extension students of color of low-wealth backgrounds) is not as high as it could be is because lower percentages of low-income students apply to elite institutions (Carnevale et al. 37-38). Some face financial uncertainty when applying, and by having more financial aid that is targeted to racial minorities and closing the cost gap there could be an increase in applications and actual enrollment when the affordability of an elite education is made clear (Carnevale et al. 37-38). Race and class should be considered in the admissions process to ensure that the accomplishments of low-wealth applicants of color are seen through the lens of the resources they had and in the financial aid part of college decisions where the most vulnerable receive the aid that they need so that the opportunity to gain admission, enroll, and graduate is fully realized. 

People of color face severe barriers to higher education, especially selective higher education, because of systemic inequalities in broader society. This is only amplified by the racial wealth gap, which makes people of color significantly more likely to live in poverty and be worse off than white families who have the same income but tend to have greater wealth (Chingos and Lee par. 6-7; Levine and Ritter; National Center for Education Statistics, “Concentration of Public School Students” 1; Irwin et al. 9). Race-based admissions was created to address these issues and contextualize the educational experiences of people of color, which tend to be in insufficiently funded schools (EdBuild 4). This can only be improved by honing in on people of color from low-wealth backgrounds specifically and ensuring that race-conscious financial aid makes a selective college education and its benefits possible through graduation (Carnevale et al. 21; Alon 249-250). 

Opponents of these equity-focused policies claim that they lead to the admission of students who do not ‘merit’ admission or admit them at the expense of other students who deserve it. The race-based and wealth-based admissions policy (and race-based admissions as previously practiced) do not admit students who are unqualified – their educational experiences are simply contextualized; colleges need to consider the education that a student had and the struggles that they faced to determine what they truly accomplished on an equitable playing field. Unlike through legacy admissions, for example, where disproportionately more white students than students of color gain admission because their parents went to the university (Arcidiacono et al. 133, 135), students of color admitted with these practices deserve admission through their accomplishments contextualized through their unique experiences. Students of color succeed with the opportunity to attend elite institutions with financial certainty (Carnevale et al. 37-38) – as noted previously, their graduation rates at elite institutions are consistent if not higher than the average rate (Harper). It is not that students of color do not merit admission into elite institutions. Rather, broader systemic inequalities make it so that race and wealth-based admissions are needed to bridge an opportunity gap to give the opportunity to attend elite institutions and race-based financial aid is needed to fund that education in many cases. Once the opportunity is extended and able to be seized, students can access the benefits of higher education and succeed (Carnevale et al. 41-42) (Harper). 

A race and wealth-based admissions system, in combination with race-based financial aid and scholarships, has the potential to expand on the good work race-based admissions has done thus far in contextualizing the experiences of college applicants. Race-based admissions should continue where the experiences of people of color in particular are contextualized when looking at academic experience because, as explained, people of color tend to have less access to sufficiently funded primary and secondary schools (EdBuild 4). Additionally, as already laid out, racial diversity is important on college campuses for student learning and professional development (Moody, par. 8-10; University of North Carolina et al. 4) and not having race considered – as shown by data in this paper – would lead to a decrease in that diversity (Alon 238). The wealth-based consideration specifically tries to contextualize the experiences of low socioeconomic status students who tend to attend worse-off primary and secondary schools (Dwyer; Park). The importance of having wealth-based considerations in addition to race is to particularly target students of color that have low-wealth backgrounds who face amplified disadvantages due to the racial wealth gap (Park). The race-based financial aid that comes with these considerations further ensures the affordability of elite college education for people of color. The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down race-based admissions is deeply troubling given the clear disparities that warrant the policies. However, the ruling neither changes the benefits of this policy nor the need for race and economic considerations to be a part of college admissions to ensure true equity. Higher education, particularly elite higher education, provides life-changing opportunities for one’s career and it has been historically completely denied to people of color (Carnevale et al. 41-42). Systemic barriers still hinder access to those opportunities and race and wealth-based admissions along with race-based financial aid would bridge the gap that keeps those opportunities relatively exclusive to affluent students. While race-based admissions and the proposed changes in this paper address the accumulated effect of broader systemic inequalities by the time of a student’s college application, more still needs to be done to alleviate those inequalities where and when they begin, starting with the K-12 education system.