Last week’s Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action struck down race-conscious admissions and has sparked nationwide debates about the future of college admissions.
USC and other highly selective colleges will now face limitations in their ability to create diverse campuses by the court’s decision, which many believe is a step back from achieving racial equity.
“Lots of folks think that affirmative action is about giving opportunities to folks who are not qualified. There are lots of folks who are qualified. It’s the system that is not equal,” said Royel M. Johnson, a tenured professor at the USC Rossier School of Education and Director of Engagement for the USC Race and Equity Center.
Broadly speaking, affirmative action refers to policies and practices designed to help promote historically disadvantaged communities. Since the 1970s, colleges, specifically prestigious universities like USC, have used race in their admissions process to create a more equitable and diverse campus.
Johnson believes that Thursday’s decision will prohibit waves of qualified applicants from achieving their full potential, creating broader implications than just college admissions.
“It’s likely to have a chilling effect and to slow down progress towards racial equity,” Johnson said.
“Consideration of race is a recognition that we live in an unequal society that is fundamentally shaped by issues of race and racism,” he added. “And the consideration of race in admissions was one tool we had for fighting back against white supremacy.”
Currently USC’s student body is primarily made up of international students who account for 26.6% of the school’s population, and white or Caucasian individuals who make up 24.8% of the undergraduate population. Asians make up 19.3%, Latinos make up 15.3%, and Black/African Americans make up 5.8% (other populations accounted for the last 8.2%).
Prior to the court’s decisions, nine states in the US banned affirmative action, including California. Though it is too early to say how the court’s decisions will affect the future of college admissions nationwide, examining data from UC’s school admissions could provide a roadmap for understanding the potential impact of these decisions.
According to research analyses conducted by the University of California in 2020 on the impact of Proposition 209, which is a ban on considering race, sex, and ethnicity in the areas of public employment, contracting and education, the study concluded that the end of Prop 209 caused 10,000 annual underrepresented minority college applicants at UC to attend lower-quality public and private universities.
As a result, underrepresented minorities’ wages declined by five percent annually between ages 24 and 34. The research further concluded that by the mid-2010s, Prop 209 had caused a cumulative decline in the number of early-career underrepresented minorities in Californians earning over $100,000 by at least three percent.
It is important to recognize that the impact of Prop 209 was mainly seen in top-tier colleges in the UCs system, like UCLA and UC Berkeley. By 2017, 21 out of 23 Cal States campuses had met the Hispanic Serving Institute (HSI) criteria, and five out of the nine UC campuses met the HSI criteria. Hispanic students at UCLA and UC Berkeley made up only 21.5 percent of the 2020 first-year class, 29 points below the state’s college-age Hispanic population, according to a Washington Post analysis.
USC was not subject to Prop 209 due to its status as a private university, however the recent SCOTUS decisions will restrict USC ability to practice race-conscious admissions policies.
“This decision will not impact our commitment to creating a campus that is welcoming, diverse, and inclusive to talented individuals from every background,” said President Carol Folt in a statement posted on Instagram following the court ruling. “We will not go backward.”
“USC has long understood that excellence and diversity are inextricably intertwined.” Folt added, " Each of our students, faculty, and staff have earned a place here and contributes to creating one of the most stimulating and creative educational communities in the world.”
Rising sophomore Breanna Sanchez, a Non-Governmental Organizations and Social Change major said while appreciative of Folt’s response, they still felt uncertain about how this change might affect USC.
“While President Folt’s reassurance of diversity and inclusion was very heartfelt, it ultimately won’t change the fact that this decision will impact those to come; as the Supreme Court has completely disregarded the fact that inclusion is impossible without equity,” Sanchez said.
“I’d like to believe USC will not retrograde, but with the policies currently set in place; as a first gen person of color myself, I’m uncertain and fearful of the repercussions of this decision,” Sanchez said.
When it comes to this fall’s college 2024 admissions cycle, potential applicants and their family members are already concerned of what the implications of this decision may look like, and how it may affect them.
Agustin Leon Saenz is a third-year environmental science and engineering student at Harvard, protest organizer, and the only Ecuadorian student in his year studying environmental science and engineering.
Saenz has family members who are approaching the college admissions age and said he fears for their upcoming experience. “I have a cousin who is applying to college in the fall. My little brother just finished his first year in high school,” Saenz said.
“These decisions had an immediate impact for them, and I think it almost brings me to tears to a certain point,” he added. “I know that I was among the last classes in the history of us to benefit from affirmative action.”
Paige Tang, a rising high school Junior currently enrolled in the USC Annenberg summer program, told Annenberg Media her first reaction was selfish and one she considers not politically correct. “[My} thought was,” she said, “was maybe I would get into a couple more schools now.”
Tang explained that growing up in an East Asian family, college was a big emphasis in her household. She called herself an overachiever growing up.
In the recent SCOTUS case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the plaintiffs argued that the school used subjective personality scores and discriminated against Asians in favor of White, Black, and Hispanic applicants.
According to The Harvard Crimson, a student-run newspaper in Harvard, from 1995 to 2013, Asians earned the highest average SAT score of any racial group but experienced the lowest admission rate among all racial groups.
“When there’s more Asian Americans applying, it’s more competitive,” Tang said. " I don’t agree with the sentiment that colleges discriminate against Asians. I think that’s just often a scapegoat for why you didn’t get in. But I do feel like, if race [isn’t a factor], it’s definitely going to be easier for more privileged communities.”
President Biden also weighed in his thoughts on the court’s decision, acknowledging his disappointment and agreeing with those on the court who voted in dissent following the ruling.
“I believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. Our nation is stronger because we are tapping into the full range of talent in this nation … Our nation’s colleges and universities should be engines of expanding opportunity through upward mobility. But today, too often that’s not the case,” Biden said.
The conversation regarding this particular SCOTUS decision relates to an even larger discussion on the latest string of decisions from the Supreme Court.
“It’s also important to contextualize this decision within this broader context of what’s been happening in the world with state legislators and conservative right wing politicians and think-tank organizations who have been placing restrictions and advocating for the restrictions of how we teach and learn about race,” Johnson said.
Colleges like USC and Harvard both have various outreach programs outside of affirmative action in order to recruit students from underrepresented communities. According to USC’s website the Neighborhood Academic Initiative has garnered more students from the local community.
“NAI annually prepares almost 1,000 6th-12th grade students from low-income households from the neighborhoods closest to USC in South Los Angeles and East Los Angeles for admission and graduation from college,” the website stated. “The majority of USC NAI Scholars will become first-generation college students.”
There is also a conversation surrounding the discontinuation of legacy admissions and early decision, which many view as an unfair advantage, primarily benefiting children from white households. According to an article published by the Daily Trojan in 2022, USC’s class of 2025 is made up of 13% legacy students, and currently, USC does not offer early admission.
“I hope we start moving forward because right now, we’re moving backward,” Tang said. “When I go to college, I hope to go to one where I see all sorts of people, not just certain rich White or Asian groups. I would rather be surrounded by a global group than one with a high SAT score.”