geoff: As colleges and
universities digest yesterday's
supreme court ruling that
effectively ended affirmative
action, schools are left to
grapple with how to revamp their
admission policies to ensure
diversity of their campuses.
William brangham takes a look at
these implications and how some
colleges say they'll ensure
diversity remains a top
priority.
William: Geoff, with admissions
officers no longer able to take
race into account, colleges and
universities will need to adopt
other approaches if they want to
build a diverse student body.
For some perspective, we're
joined by Jeff selingo.
He's a writer who's covered
higher education for years.
He's the author, most recently,
of who gets in and why?
Great to have you back on the
newshour.
The reality of the new landscape
is sinking in for schools.
You spend for your last book
under the hood look with
admissions officers, how they go
about their jobs.
What is your sense of how they
will be responding to this new
challenge?
Jeff: They will have to figure
it out over the next year.
Especially given applications
will start arriving this fall
one of the interesting things is
admissions is a very data-driven
object -- operation.
They are constantly following
how they are doing on their
various priorities, whether that
is geography, race and
ethnicity, and and women -- they
are always looking at these
priorities for the admissions
season that starts in November
through the last acceptance or
denial in March.
They will not be able to track
that.
They always knew during the
process how well they were doing
at enrolling black students, or
accepting black or hispanic
students, in the can do that as
much as they used to.
They will flying blind in terms
of their enrollment until they
know the numbers later in the
season.
William: The majority opinion
implied there were other ways
schools could try to take race
into account, through things
like essays.
Is that how you imagine schools
will adapt?
Jeff: I think they will look for
other ways.
He specifically said students
can talk about lived
experiences, but he also warned
colleges in essentially the same
opinion, don't use that as a
workaround on race.
It's clear students can talk in
different places and also
teachers and counselors can talk
in their recommendations about
students, but they have to be
clear, there has to be a clear
line, and for a lot of
admissions readers it will be
difficult at least the first
year around in terms of
determining how can we use race
in this way?
William: Prior to yesterday
there were several schools in
the country that because of
local laws not take race into
consideration.
California and Michigan in
particular.
What has their experience been
like?
How are they looking to the
future?
Jeff: I think the experience
there, and I was at the
university of Washington for my
book, it was really around the
recruitment process.
They had to get that funnel very
big at the top to enroll the
number of students they wanted.
This requires working with high
schools, working with high
school counselors.
There are 25,000 high schools in
this countnt but the reality is
that most of the colleges, you
might only get applications from
6000 or 7000.
They have to do a lot more
outreach than they ever have
before.
For most of the schools, they
did not do that in the past.
William: I understand California
spent half $1 billion trying to
reach out to students.
Jeff: And they were focused
mostly on California.
These other colleges will have
to look young to their own
states.
William: Justice Roberts in his
majority opinion said diversity
on the campus is a commendable
goal not at the expense of
others, was the implication.
How do universities respond to
this allegation that was made by
Asian American students that
they were being discriminated
against in the shins process?
Jeff: We tend to think of
admissions as a meritocracy but
it never has been one and
probably never will be.
The reality is nine out of 10
students who apply to the most
liked colleges are denied
admission.
The students who are accepted
are accepted for a variety of
reasons.
We have athletes, legacies.
We need to have a balance among
gender at these places, balance
among geography.
Sometimes students are accepted
because they are from the Wright
state in many cases, or might be
a full pay student or the third
baseman for the baseball team.
We should not think of the
meritocracy of admissions as a
pure thing.
I think that's what was missing
in the supreme court decision.
William: Lastly, the issue of
standardized testing -- we know
they have been fading somewhat
in what schools are requiring
peer to does this have an impact
on that?
Jeff: I don't think it is coming
back, testing is done as a
requirement, specially at
selective colleges.
For two reasons.
They've seen, because they went
test optional during the
pandemic, they've gotten a more
diverse population.
The other thing is the
plaintiffs in these affirmative
action cases over the years,
going back 20 years, have used
test scores as one proof point
in terms of that they were
discriminated against.
Students were denied admission
with a 1500 S.A.T. And other
students with a 1200.
When you don't have scores from
everybody it is a lot more
difficult to make that case.
William: Jeffrey, thank you.
Jeff: Great to be here.
♪♪