By Donald Gilpin

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court, in two historic decisions, ruled against affirmative action, prohibiting colleges and universities from taking race into account in the admissions process.

Proponents of affirmative action have vowed to find and pursue other means to promote diversity and equity on college campuses, but the impact of the June 29 decisions will be significant, on higher education and the society as a whole.

“While today’s decision will make our work more difficult, we will work vigorously to preserve —and, indeed, grow — the diversity of our community while fully respecting the law as announced today,” Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber wrote in an email to the University community just hours after the decisions were announced.

Claiming that the Supreme Court had “backed away from more than 50 years of established case law allowing colleges and universities to take race into account as one factor among many in a holistic admission process,” Eisgruber emphasized “principles and commitments fundamental to this University’s mission.”

Those include, he said: “Talent exists in every sector of American society, and we have an obligation to attract exceptional people of every background and enable them to flourish on our campus. Diversity benefits learning and scholarship by broadening the range of questions, perspectives, and experiences brought to bear on important topics throughout the University. Our multicultural society requires that, in the words of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, ‘the path to leadership [must] be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.’”

Eisgruber described the Supreme Court’s ruling as “unwelcome and disappointing,” but “not unexpected.” He added, “Princeton has been preparing for this possibility with assistance and advice from legal counsel.”

Emphasizing the importance of diversity for Princeton, the country, and the world, Eisgruber’s statement concluded, ”Princeton will pursue it with energy, persistence, and a determination to succeed despite the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court in its regrettable decision today.”

The two affirmative action decisions announced on June 29, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFAI) v. President and Fellows of Harvard and SFAI v. University of North Carolina (UNC), were both decided in favor of the plaintiffs. SFAI argued in the former case that Harvard’s admission practices discriminated against Asian Americans and in the latter case that UNC unlawfully considered race in admissions decisions and gave preference to underrepresented minority applicants. 

Three of the nine Supreme Court justices are Princeton University graduates: Samuel Alito, class of 1972, who was part of the six-vote majority in the decisions to end affirmative action, as well as Sonia Sotomayor, class of 1976 and Elena Kagan, class of 1981, who both supported Harvard and UNC and their admissions policies.

Writing in her dissenting opinion that “the devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated,” Sotomayor noted, “Today, this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”

She continued, “At its core, today’s decision exacerbates segregation and diminishes the inclusivity of our nation’s institutions in service of superficial neutrality that promotes indifference to inequality and ignores the reality of race.”

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy also weighed in on the Supreme Court decision in a June 29 statement, describing the ruling as “yet another way in which the U.S. Supreme Court is taking our country backwards.”

Asserting that “The Supreme Court’s extreme stance does not reflect the values of New Jersey,” Murphy noted, “Systemic inequities remain stubbornly rooted in our society, yet a college degree has long offered a path to opportunity and financial success. For generations, equitable access to higher education has meant social mobility for those who come from under-resourced communities. That too has been the heart of the American Dream — that if you work hard, you can achieve your dreams. But today’s decision will make it harder for many institutions to implement admissions policies that promote equitable access to education and that result in a student body whose members can learn from each other’s diverse backgrounds and perspectives.”

The full consequences of the Supreme Court’s June 29 decisions are not clear, but serious concerns emerge from the cases of the University of California and the University of Michigan, which both saw significant drops in the diversity of their student bodies after voters in the states of California in 1996 and Michigan in 2006 banned race-based admissions practices.

“What Comes After Affirmative Action?” was the question addressed in the New York Times in a July 9 series of essays by experts considering where college admissions goes from here. 

The writers noted that the recent Supreme Court rulings did not ban colleges from the pursuit of the goal of diverse student bodies. “Shower Money on H.B.C.U.s” (historically Black colleges and universities), one article urged, as a means of helping minority students to achieve justice and a closer approach to equity.

“Focus on Class, Not Race,” another writer said, calling for “using socioeconomic disadvantage, rather than race, as a basis for preferences in competitive college admissions.”

Another essay called on elite colleges to “deepen the applicant pool” by building feeder schools and funding them. “The best way to find bright, disadvantaged minority candidates is to help create them,” the article stated.

Other tools that Princeton and other elite institutions may be considering include targeting recruitment to underserved communities, increasing transfer and veteran student admissions, eliminating standardized testing, and eliminating early action. 

One of the most controversial strategies involves legacy admissions, the practice of granting preference to applicants with family ties to the college, a policy that has traditionally favored mostly white students. Legacy admissions have recently faced challenges at several universities with advocacy groups at Harvard petitioning the government to end Harvard University’s legacy admissions preferences.

Princeton University has consistently emphasized its commitment to diversity, frequently citing the need for economic diversity as well as racial diversity, but the specific strategies and policies that will take the place of affirmative action are yet to be revealed.