The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-conscious college admissions was treated as a catastrophe by one half of American politics and a vindication by the other. Both responses skipped over the case for ending the policy on its own merits. That case is stronger than the prevailing narratives admit, and the silence around it is doing nobody any favors.
This is not an argument against the original civil rights project, or against considering disadvantage in admissions. It is an argument that race-based affirmative action, as actually practiced, had become a poor instrument for the goals it claimed to serve.
The policy outgrew its rationale
When Bakke was decided in 1978, the country was a generation removed from formal segregation. Race-conscious admissions could plausibly be defended as a corrective to recent, identifiable harm. By the 2010s, the children of upper-middle-class Black professionals and the children of Nigerian and Caribbean immigrants — groups with no claim on the original justification — were the primary Black beneficiaries at elite institutions, while descendants of American slavery remained underrepresented. Class-based disadvantage tracked race poorly enough that the policy delivered its benefits to the wrong subset of the intended population. Defenders pivoted to a “diversity” rationale that the Court accepted, but the rationale always had a thin empirical basis and required pretending that race was a proxy for viewpoint, which is itself a problem.
It produced real injustices to real applicants
The Harvard litigation surfaced internal data showing that Asian American applicants were systematically rated lower on subjective “personal” scores in a pattern that did not appear in objective measures. That pattern is hard to read as anything other than a thumb on the scale to manage demographic outcomes. Whatever you believe about the goals of admissions policy, doing this to specific applicants — assigning lower personal ratings to teenagers based on group membership — is not a defensible mechanism. It is the kind of thing the civil rights project was originally meant to prevent. Defending it because the demographic outputs were politically convenient was a moral compromise, and the people making it should have been honest about what they were trading.
Better tools were available and got crowded out
Class-based preferences, percentage plans tied to high school performance, aggressive recruiting in under-resourced schools, and need-blind admissions with strong financial aid all produce significant socioeconomic and racial diversity without the constitutional and ethical problems of explicit racial classifications. These tools existed throughout the affirmative action era and were systematically underused, partly because they were less politically symbolic and partly because they would have shifted benefits away from already-advantaged minority students at elite schools. Ending race-based admissions does not end the project of broadening access. It forces a switch to instruments that work better and are easier to defend.
The bottom line
The end of race-based affirmative action was a correction, not a tragedy. Saying so out loud doesn’t require denying the harms of historical racism or abandoning the goal of broader access. It just requires being honest that a particular policy had drifted from its purpose, harmed identifiable people, and was overdue for replacement.
Leave a Reply