ANALYSISApril 13, 2026
Should colleges use race-conscious admissions criteria?
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina that race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively banning the practice nationwide after more than 40 years of precedent. Colleges have since shifted to alternative strategies such as socioeconomic indicators, first-generation status, and zip-code-based metrics. The Trump administration has further escalated enforcement in 2025 by investigating 45 universities over DEI programs and ordering new admissions data collection.
When a university considers an applicant's race to build a diverse class, is it correcting a historical injustice — or committing a new one? The Supreme Court said the latter, but the debate over what fairness actually requires in college admissions is far from over.
Not familiar with this story? Get context →
What the 14th Amendment actually requires
C
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to end government racial classification — not to pause it when the purpose is sympathetic. That principle was not invented by conservatives; Thurgood Marshall and the early NAACP argued it explicitly. The SFFA ruling did not betray the civil rights movement. It returned to its foundational premise.
L
You invoke Thurgood Marshall, but Marshall himself argued in Regents v. Bakke that remedial race-consciousness was constitutionally distinct from discriminatory exclusion — the same distinction you're collapsing. Colorblindness has never been applied symmetrically: explicit racial sorting disadvantaged Black Americans for a century under constitutional sanction. The question isn't whether race can matter; it's whether remediation and discrimination are the same thing.
C
Marshall's Bakke position lost. The Court has now ruled twice — in Grutter and then against it in SFFA — and the majority's answer is that the Constitution does not grade racial classifications by motive. If liberals want to contest what equal protection requires, the place to do that is with a constitutional amendment, not a judicial workaround.
L
An amendment requiring supermajority support in a polarized Congress is not a serious alternative — it's a way of saying 'accept the outcome.' The jurisprudential argument about remediation versus discrimination remains genuinely unsettled, and pretending the Court closed it permanently is exactly the kind of finality claim that gets reversed in thirty years.
MIT and Princeton enrollment data
C
The enrollment data is real and should be named directly: MIT dropped from 16% to 6% Black freshmen in a single year, and Princeton's Class of 2029 is 5% Black — the lowest since 1968. We said the transition would be painful. But single-year enrollment figures are not the right unit of measurement for a structural reform. The question is what the numbers look like after pipeline investment matures, not twelve months in.
L
You're asking us to wait for pipeline investment to mature — but Princeton's baseline is 1968, the year Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. That's not transitional friction; that's a named institution in 2025 achieving a level of exclusion it hasn't managed since the civil rights movement was still being fought. And the pipeline investment you're banking on requires political will that has not materialized in California after two decades.
C
California's partial recovery happened without serious federal investment — imagine what sustained funding could produce. Citing 1968 as a moral indictment is powerful, but it's an argument for fixing K-12 schools and wealth gaps, which caused those numbers, not for reinstating the admissions mechanism that masked them for fifty years.
L
The admissions mechanism didn't mask the problem — it partially offset it while the underlying conditions went unaddressed. Removing the offset without fixing the conditions doesn't expose the disease; it just makes more people sick.
Race versus class as diversity proxies
C
The conservative alternative — economic-based admissions — is not a concession that race-conscious policies were right. It's a recognition that class disadvantage is the constitutionally legitimate variable that correlates heavily with race in American life. Georgetown found class-conscious admissions can partially recover racial diversity. Partial recovery through permitted means is superior to full recovery through prohibited ones.
L
Georgetown found it can only partially recover — and you're calling that acceptable. But a Black student from a middle-income family in Birmingham and a white student from the same bracket do not face identical barriers to Harvard. Race and class are correlated but not identical variables. If your proxy systematically undershoots for Black and Hispanic applicants even controlling for income, you've built discrimination into the neutral framework.
C
You're arguing that because race and class aren't perfectly correlated, race must be a separate admissions variable — but that logic proves too much. Gender and class aren't perfectly correlated either. The Constitution draws the line at race, and that line exists precisely because the history of racial classification is categorically more dangerous than other forms of sorting.
L
The danger of racial classification cuts both ways — which is exactly why using race-neutral proxies that predictably disadvantage Black applicants while calling it colorblindness should trouble you as much as explicit sorting does.
California model as viable precedent
C
Proposition 209 is the closest thing to a natural experiment we have. Enrollment fell, then California invested in K-12 pipeline programs and feeder relationships with underfunded high schools, and the system partially adapted. The lesson isn't that race-neutral admissions works perfectly — it's that pressure to fix inequality at the source is more productive than a workaround at the end of the pipeline.
L
Two decades of California data showed persistent underrepresentation at flagship campuses despite race-neutral strategies — you're citing the experiment while soft-pedaling its result. And now the Trump administration is investigating 45 universities over DEI programs and calling race-conscious financial aid unlawful under Title VI. The California model assumed universities could still use race-neutral workarounds. That floor is being removed.
C
The Trump enforcement overreach is exactly where conservatives should push back — I said as much. Striking down race-conscious admissions is grounded in constitutional text; treating student support services as Title VI violations is a different and much more aggressive position that I don't defend. Don't conflate the two to win the argument.
L
I appreciate the distinction, but the enforcement apparatus doesn't make it — and the practical effect on Black and Hispanic students at selective institutions is the same regardless of which legal theory is being used to produce it.
Popular support as democratic legitimacy
C
68% of Americans supported the SFFA ruling. That alignment between constitutional principle and democratic intuition matters — it suggests the colorblind ideal isn't elite legal theory imposed on a resistant public, but something most Americans recognize as the right conception of fairness.
L
Popular approval has never been the constitutional test for equal protection — if it were, 1954 would have gone differently. And that 68% figure is polling-methodology dependent: support for 'racial quotas' and support for 'considering race as one factor in holistic review' produce very different numbers. You're citing a framing artifact as democratic consensus.
C
Brown v. Board wasn't unpopular because a majority thought segregation was fair — it was unpopular in specific regions with specific interests. The 68% is national and crosses partisan lines. That's meaningfully different from Jim Crow's regional support, and the methodological caveat cuts both ways: softer framing also inflates opposition.
L
The point isn't that majority opinion invalidates the ruling — it's that majority opinion doesn't validate it either. If the constitutional argument stands, it stands on its own. Citing polls to bolster an equal protection claim is the one move that should make everyone uncomfortable.
Conservative's hardest question
The MIT and Princeton enrollment data — a single-year drop to 1968 levels at Princeton — is genuinely hard to dismiss as transitional friction. If race-neutral alternatives cannot recover meaningful diversity at the most selective institutions over the next decade, conservatives will face the uncomfortable question of whether constitutional purity was purchased at the cost of real human opportunity, and whether the pipeline investments they advocate were ever seriously funded.
Liberal's hardest question
The strongest challenge to this argument is the 14th Amendment's text and the colorblind principle's genuine internal logic — if equal protection means anything, it plausibly means the state cannot sort by race even with remedial intent, and the Court's conservative majority is not wrong that this principle has constitutional weight. A liberal position that simply waves this away in favor of outcomes is vulnerable to the charge that it instrumentalizes constitutional law when convenient, which undermines the institutional legitimacy liberals depend on in other fights.
Both sides agree: Both sides accept that race-neutral alternatives — economic proxies, zip-code metrics, first-generation status — can only partially substitute for race-conscious admissions at the most selective institutions, and that full demographic recovery through these means is unlikely.
The real conflict: They disagree on a foundational factual-causal claim: conservatives argue race-conscious admissions treated a symptom while leaving structural inequality intact, while liberals argue it was a necessary corrective precisely because structural inequality cannot be fixed fast enough to matter for students alive today — this is a genuine disagreement about causal sequence and policy timing, not just values.
What nobody has answered: If race-neutral alternatives demonstrably fail to recover meaningful Black and Hispanic enrollment at the most selective institutions over the next decade — not partially, but substantially — is there any legal or policy mechanism either side would accept as a legitimate response, or has the ruling effectively foreclosed all corrective tools while leaving the structural conditions that necessitated them untouched?
Sources
- CBS News analysis of first-year enrollment data from 116 colleges and universities, published June 2025
- Supreme Court opinions in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (June 2023)
- Princeton University student newspaper reporting on Class of 2029 demographics
- Georgetown University research on class-conscious admissions as a substitute for race-conscious policies
- U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights announcements on DEI investigations and Title VI enforcement (2025)
- Web search results summarizing SFFA litigation history, enrollment impact data, and Trump administration higher education policy actions