Race, Class, and Affirmative Action
Race, Class, and Affirmative Action, Julie J. Park, foreword by Liliana M. Garces. Harvard Education Press (ISBN: 9798895570456) 2026.
Summary: The effects of SFFA v. Harvard on efforts to advance diversity in college admissions and what may be done.
Race-conscious admission, in which an applicant’s race is one of the numerous considerations in admissions, has been one way colleges have recruited racially diverse student classes. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled to restrict race-conscious admissions in two landmark cases. These were Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill. The impact was immediate and dramatic with huge drops in the enrollment of underrepresented minority (URM) students at many schools.
Julie J. Park, who has studied race-conscious admissions efforts over 20 years wrote this book to address the admissions landscape, the scope and impact of the SFFA rulings, and the tools universities still have to advance diverse admissions. To begin with, it is important to understand how Park uses the term “race-conscious admissions.” She writes:
“In conventional race-conscious admissions, an admissions reader could view a student’s self-identified racial/ethnic identification as listed on the application. However, one’s race/ethnicity did not provide the applicant with any sort of automatic advantage in the admissions process. Instead, the reader had direct knowledge of a student’s race/ethnicity and could use it to contextualize a student’s experiences, enhancing understanding of how a student might contribute to the diversity of a student body. Contrary to popular opinion, being a URM student did not result in automatic admissions” (pp. 6-7).
This is very important to keep in mind for Park’s discussion of the SFFA rulings.
But first, Park addresses some of the ways the admissions system was broken even prior to the ruling, most of this not related to race-conscious admissions but impacting racial diversity on campus. This includes legacy admissions, out-of-state enrollments at state schools, early application and admissions, enrollment management programs, and the lack of diversity among admissions professionals.
Then Park turns to the ruling. What is key here is to distinguish the actual ruling from the hype around it. Specifically, Park notes that demographic data cannot be use in consideration of an applicant. However, Justice Roberts allowed that “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.” In other words, readers can consider what applicants write about their racial experience but not demographic data. Likewise, counselors and teachers can talk about a student’s race in their recommendations. Also, despite policies extending this to other aspects of campus life, the ruling only addresses admissions. And universities may still collect racial data, important to Title VI reporting. They simply can’t use that in admissions.
Park discusses other implications as well, but the key takeaway for me was the narrowness of the ruling. However, the challenge is that both legal counsel and administrators will often obey laws that don’t exist, especially in a climate where state and federal governments are actively oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Park notes that it takes courage leadership to do otherwise.
Park goes on in the remaining chapters to discuss the tools that universities still have (at present). She assesses efforts to focus on economic factors and other “race-neutral” approaches. She commends the model of the UC Davis School of Medicine, a multi-faceted approach. Park considers a number of incremental changes including outreach, contextualized GPAs, “push-out” financial aid offers, or even free tuition programs.
Then she turns to the debate over standardized testing. It’s complicated, but Park teases out evidence that test-optional or test-free admissions do result in increased applications from URM students. While standardized test takers with high scores tend to have higher GPAs, test-optional or test-free students evaluated on other factors do nearly as well. Intriguingly, in test-free situations, readers tend to make a more holistic assessment.
Park also considers the inequalities that must be allowed for in other aspect of the admissions process. These range for extra-curricular activities for which URM students may have less opportunity, to the attention given to recommendations from public versus elite high school teachers and counselors.
Park has focused her research on the effects of changes in diversity on student experience. So it makes sense for her to include a chapter in this book discussing how diversity affects student experience. Notably, she also advocates for diversity in faculty hiring, not addressed in the ruling. She advocates for the structures that support student diversity including cultural centers, living-learning programs and student organizations.
As she closes, passionately arguing, “we won’t go back,” it struck me that one of the most important arguments she makes is for a mindset of abundance. While there are only so many slots at a Harvard, this country has a plethora of schools where a student can obtain a high quality education. State schools could prioritize in-state students as opposed to chasing tuition lucrative out-of-state enrollments. She highlights the investment Mackenzie Scott has made in HBCUs. Surely, if we believe in sustaining our national greatness, expanding the opportunities for all our citizens should go without saying.
One of the backstops Park refers to for pursuing racial diversity is Title VI enforcement. I wonder what the implications of shifting enforcement from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice will be in our current politicized climate. This is a development since the book’s publication.
One of the most useful aspects of this book is to parse out what exactly the SFFA ruling does and doesn’t prohibit. We don’t want to obey laws that don’t exist. While the effect of SFFA was chilling, Park shows that schools still have many options available to them. My sense is that we can take none of these for granted. And we may have to fight for many of them.
I also appreciate that Park, combines evidence-based research with a passion for racially diverse campuses. Likewise, rather, than using the abbreviation DEI, throughout the text she spells out diversity, equity, and inclusion, emphasizing that this is what race-conscious efforts strive for and that this is a good thing. We can afford to be generous and expansive as a nation in the education of all our citizens. Park is right: we can’t go back.
_____________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.
Review of other books by Julie J. Park:
When Diversity Drops: https://bobonbooks.com/2014/02/25/review-when-diversity-drops-race-religion-and-affirmative-action-in-higher-education/
Race on Campus: https://bobonbooks.com/2018/11/14/review-race-on-campus/