Unpacking the Impact of the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling

In June 2023, in the cases Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, a precedent that had allowed higher education institutions to consider race in admissions. These decisions fundamentally altered the landscape of college admissions nationwide. As colleges and universities share data on their first-year student enrollment and continue adjusting their admissions practices, it is critical to examine what led to this moment, what has changed, and what steps lie ahead for creating equitable pathways to higher education. 

To learn more about the ruling, check out our analysis of the decision. 

What Led Us Here?

Affirmative action policies have historically aimed to increase the representation of underrepresented groups in sectors such as higher education, the military, and the workforce. The debate over affirmative action in college admissions has spanned decades, with proponents and opponents locked in frequent ideological struggles (and legal battles). 

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court upheld the use of race as one of many factors that can be considered in a holistic admissions process. However, in the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decisions, the Court ruled that race-based admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that admissions decisions should evaluate applicants as individuals rather than evaluating them based on race. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, described the ruling as a regression from progress, arguing that race-conscious policies are necessary to address systemic inequities. 

What Has Changed?

Since the ruling, many colleges and universities—particularly selective and highly selective institutions—have reported shifts in their enrollment patterns. Research shows that Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous student representation has declined at numerous schools. For example: 

• The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), one of the parties in the Supreme Court ruling, saw Black student enrollment drop from 10.5% last year to 7.8% post-ruling.
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) saw a 14-percentage-point drop in Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous first-year student enrollment compared to last year. Black students made up only 5% of its newest class, compared to 15% the previous year. Conversely, Asian American enrollment at MIT has increased seven percent compared to the prior class. Similar trends can be seen across other selective universities. 
• Across Massachusetts, Black first-year student enrollment at 11 of the state’s most competitive schools decreased by an average of approximately 40% this year, compared with the average of the previous two years. Meanwhile, White student enrollment has stayed the same, and Asian American student enrollment has slightly increased.

It is imperative to recognize some limitations in the data, as colleges and universities have only admitted one class of students post-ruling. Researchers caution that enrollment data writ large lacks important context, especially as the rise in the number of students declining to report their race complicates understanding the impact of the affirmative action ban. Furthermore, while the trends above are pervasive among selective institutions, they are not universal: at Yale University, for instance, admissions rates have not changed this year for Black or Native American students.  

Nevertheless, many universities are exploring alternative approaches to fostering diversity. To start, instead of using race as a factor when seeking to admit students, many universities are leaning towards increasing the socioeconomic diversity among their pool of applicants. At Duke University, the proportion of Pell Grant-eligible freshmen has doubled over the past two years, while Yale has increased its share from 22 percent in 2023 to 25 percent this fall. Princeton University and Duke University have offered free tuition to students from families earning below $100,000 and $150,000, respectively, to increase access to higher education. Nationally, institutions are also reassessing practices such as legacy admissions, which have historically benefited White students and families. Among other institutions, Wesleyan University, Johns Hopkins University, and Amherst College have decided to do away with legacy admissions in an attempt to promote equitable access and increase diversity on campuses. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

Policymakers, educators, and institutions across the Commonwealth are working to address the effects of this ruling. In Massachusetts, the Healey administration launched the Advisory Council to Advance Representation in Education (ACARE), which provides resources to support underrepresented students and advance inclusive practices. ACARE’s recommendations include implementing innovative admissions models, such as dual enrollment programs, to remove barriers for historically underserved and underrepresented students, expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development for faculty, administrators, and staff at public and private higher education institutions, and enhancing the MassTransfer program to improve curriculum alignment and streamline credit transfer.

Data from California, which banned affirmative action through Proposition 209 in 1996, offers a cautionary tale to policymakers and higher education leaders. Studies of the state’s institutions reveal long-term declines in Black and Hispanic enrollment in higher education, particularly in STEM and graduate programs. The consequences for workforce diversity, innovation, and equity are significant, underscoring the importance of sustained efforts to support underrepresented students. 

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a turning point in the debate over affirmative action in higher education and underscores the need for creative, inclusive approaches to admissions and student support. As research emerges on the impact of the Court’s ruling, it is important to keep a close eye on the data in order to comprehend the long-term effects of this change. In the meantime, policymakers, educators, and higher education institutions must remain vigilant in promoting policies and practices that uphold equitable access to education for all.