The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that could potentially ban colleges and universities from considering race as a factor in their admissions process. The decision comes in response to a case brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The court’s ruling suggests that these institutions did not comply with the limitations on race-based admissions set forth in a previous Supreme Court case.

Affirmative action, also known as race-conscious admissions, has been utilized by some US universities as a means to address historical racism and exclusion. However, researchers are warning that this ruling could hinder efforts to increase the representation of Black, Hispanic, and other minority-ethnic groups in academic institutions and may result in reduced diversity in sectors such as science.

A study conducted in 2020 on public universities in states that had banned race-conscious admissions indicated that despite an increase in the percentage of underrepresented minorities attending high school in those states, the universities admitted a smaller proportion of Black, Hispanic, and Native American students. For instance, following the enforcement of California’s ban, UCLA and UC Berkeley experienced a 43% and 66% decline, respectively, in the number of Black first-year students admitted in 1998.

The Supreme Court’s decision will primarily impact elite institutions that have highly competitive admissions processes and often come with significant costs. Stella Flores, an education researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, emphasizes the significance of affirmative action as a tool for bringing in students from non-wealthy families and institutions, providing opportunities for a diverse range of individuals.

Beyond its implications for student bodies, this ruling could also affect the composition of university staff. Elite institutions play a vital role in the pathway to the professoriate, and without affirmative action, the representation of underrepresented groups within the academic workforce may suffer.

Furthermore, the consequences of this decision extend to the diversity of future generations of scientists. The underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic workers in STEM fields is already a concern, with only 9% and 8% of the total STEM workforce in the US, respectively, comprised of these groups, according to a report by the Pew Research Center. The absence of race-conscious admissions may further compromise the diversity of STEM professionals.

In response to the ruling, institutions may seek alternative methods to promote diversity, such as implementing outreach programs and adopting holistic admissions policies. However, these approaches require significant financial investments and a deeper understanding of the decision-making processes of underrepresented groups. Ending legacy admissions, which provide advantages to students with familial alumni connections, and eliminating standardized testing requirements are also suggested as potential steps to enhance diversity, as these practices tend to favor white and affluent applicants.

Critics view the decision to strike down affirmative action as an attack on efforts to rectify historical harm against Black individuals. Affirmative action is seen as part of a larger historical trend.