Our country thrives when we benefit from the talents and potential of students from all backgrounds and build respect for everyone. Yet our system of higher education has long fallen short of its duty to prepare all students to participate and lead in a robust, multiracial democracy. With recent attacks on a vital tool for eliminating unfair barriers to educational opportunity — affirmative action in college admissions — the need for a robust and inclusive agenda has become even more evident. While the U.S. Supreme Court may have taken away one vital path in its June 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC)/Harvard, there are many doors that remain open and where more can be done. Our belief in a nation where we bring down barriers to ensure that everyone — regardless of appearance or background — can get ahead demands a path forward. It is with this clarity of purpose and sense of urgency that we offer the included recommendations.
The opportunity to learn with and alongside students whose life experiences and perspectives are both similar to and different from their own is fundamental to higher education. The benefits of higher education are both societal and personal, as college-educated individuals are healthier, vote at higher rates, and are more likely to be employed with greater earnings. [i] Racial equity in higher education is essential to shaping the nation’s future workforce, with nearly 72 percent of jobs projected to require a postsecondary degree or credential by 2031. [ii] Our hope is that decades from now, we will celebrate the creative approaches of advocates and policymakers working together to build a higher education system that offers equitable opportunities for all students — including those who are Black, Latine [iii] , Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Native American, [iv] and white.
Beginning in the 1970s, affirmative action [v] programs helped to dismantle legalized discrimination in higher education, leading to greater enrollment of students of color. For more than four decades, affirmative action and race-conscious admissions programs helped shape college campuses into more diverse and integrated learning communities. From the very beginning, these programs faced attacks, such as the one resulting in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Although this decision did not eliminate the consideration of race in college admissions, it did reject the use of affirmative action to remedy societal discrimination, prohibited racial quotas, and insisted that if race was used as a factor, it must be considered as one of many. [vi] In the more than 40 years between the Bakke decision and the decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC)/Harvard College, the U.S. Supreme Court validated affirmative action policies four times. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Grutter v. Bollinger that the Constitution supports the “use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” and the Court continued to uphold race-based affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016). [vii]
On June 29, 2023, after changes to the ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court broke with decades of precedent and ruled that race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) were inconsistent with the law. [viii] While this decision was devastating, the U.S. Supreme Court did not take away students’ freedom to fully express themselves in their college applications and share their talents, experiences, and contributions to the university community — and how race affects their lives. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling also did not find that diversity was no longer a compelling state interest or that the pursuit of racial justice and diversity were inconsistent with the law.
“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” [ix]
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Given all that we know about the benefits to individuals and to the nation as a whole that come from racial equity and diversity, as well as an unwavering commitment to our core values of equal opportunity, fairness, and inclusion, we must continue to invest in programs that eliminate discriminatory barriers and achieve the benefits of diversity through lawful means. Although the U.S. Supreme Court did limit a vital and irreplaceable tool for achieving the national imperative of racial equity and diversity, it did not prohibit the policies described in this document. While we disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s misguided break from precedent and its backwards interpretation of civil rights laws, in this document we offer recommendations that are fully consistent with the new restrictions the U.S. Supreme Court has put in place. It is both possible and necessary to change policies at the federal, state, and institutional level to remove race-based barriers to opportunities in higher education and ensure a fair chance at success for all students.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively closed the door on race-conscious admissions, it has kept other tactics fully open, such as recruitment and financial policy approaches. The civil rights community has always supported policies that did not explicitly consider race, while recognizing their limitations in achieving full equality. When affirmative action in education, employment, and contracting was eliminated in California in 1996, Black and Latino student enrollment at the University of California (UC) system declined. [x] A similar story has followed whenever affirmative action was eliminated. However, this future is not inevitable, and we must work together to keep open the doors of opportunity. Although opponents of racial progress worked hard to end race-conscious admissions and shut students of color out from higher education, those who believe in fairness, equality, and opportunity must work even harder.
The promise and power of this nation will always lie in its ability to ensure that people of all races, backgrounds, and origins have the opportunity to achieve their dreams and goals. This policy agenda represents the civil rights community’s ongoing work to center racial equity, diversity, and educational opportunity for all.
The policy recommendations identified in We Shall Not Be Moved: A Policy Agenda to Achieve the National Imperative of Racial Equity and Diversity in Higher Education serve as an actionable tool for federal, state, and institutional advocates and policymakers. There is no one policy or approach that will be sufficient to overcome years of unequal educational opportunity. The breadth and depth of this agenda is designed to offer many starting places and paths forward depending on the context of the reader. In offering so many different ideas, we seek to demonstrate how much can be done in spite of recent wins by the opponents of racial progress. Equity and diversity are both possible and necessary. We look forward to working with all allies wherever we find them to move this work forward and create the future we all deserve.
Protecting and Preserving Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA)
Many well-intentioned diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) policies are under attack in the courts and in the court of public opinion. Critics suggest that DEIA programs and policies run afoul of federal laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. While DEIA programs and policies generally vary in their terms and scope, most DEIA programs and services, as well as the recommendations offered in this document, are lawful under federal statutory and constitutional laws.
Some of the recommendations are also required by federal law, such as data collection and reporting. They are also important tools to improve climates and to bring people across different races and backgrounds together. Some state legislatures, governors, and university boards of trustees, among others, have enacted anti-DEIA policies through state or local laws, regulations, executive orders, and similar measures. Such policies frequently vary in their terms, scope, enforcement, and consequences. These anti-DEIA policies are often confusing and misunderstood, causing many lawful, laudable programs, positions, and services to become restricted or even canceled. Readers are encouraged to consult with their attorneys for legal advice to understand the rights and obligations of students, faculty, administrators, and greater society.
[i] Ma, Jennifer, and Matea Pender.Education Pays 2023. College Board, 2023.
https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/education-pays-2023.pdf.
[ii] Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, Martin Van Der Werf, and Michael C. Quinn.After Everything: Projections of Jobs, Education, and Training Requirements through 2031. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2023.
https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Projections2031-National-Report.pdf.
[iii] Throughout this document different words are used to describe people who were either both in or are descended from people born in Latin America. In this instance we are using “Latine” because it is gender inclusive. There are many sources for information about the use of various terms, including: Cipriani-Detres. “Hispanic, Latino, Latinx, or Latine? Which One Is It?!” National College Attainment Network. October 5, 2023.
https://www.ncan.org/news/654515/Hispanic-Latino-Latinx-or-Latine-Which-One-Is-It.htm.
[iv] Native American is a political identity based on the relationship between members of sovereign tribes and the U.S. federal government. In this document we have referenced Native American students alongside students from racial groups to acknowledge the ways in which white supremacy has limited Native American students from accessing higher education. Native American students may be of any race. For some important historical context about the ways in which access to higher education for some came at the cost of sovereignty, self-determination, and land for Native people, see, for example: Goodluck, Kalen, Tristan Ahtone, and Robert Lee. “The Land-Grant Universities Still Profiting off Indigenous Homelands.”High Country News, August 18, 2024.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/indigenous-affairs-the-land-grant-universities-still-profiting-off-indigenous-homelands/.
[v] Affirmative action programs were created through Executive Order 10925 by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 and refers to certain education, contracting, and employment policies that aim to increase the representation of racial and ethnic groups who have been historically underrepresented.
[vi] In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, there was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. Affirmative action policies that relied on race as one of several factors were still legal after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bakke.
[vii] “Fisher v. UT Austin.” Legal Defense Fund, October 25, 2023.
https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/fisher-v-ut-austin/.
[viii] For more information, see: “Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision, Explained.” NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., April 11, 2024.
https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/sffa-v-harvard-faq/.
[ix] Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (U.S. Supreme Court October 2022).
[x] Ross, Janell. “The ‘Infamous 96’ Know Firsthand What Happens When Affirmative Action Is Banned.” TIME, July 1, 2023.
https://time.com/6291241/affirmative-action-infamous-96-ucla-supreme-court/.
We Shall Not Be Moved: A Policy Agenda to Achieve the National Imperative of Racial Equity and Diversity in Higher Education was developed by the Higher Education Civil Rights Coalition, composed of civil rights and education organizations convened by The Leadership Conference Education Fund and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. It is both possible and necessary to change policies at the federal, state, and institutional level to remove race-based barriers to opportunity in higher education and ensure a fair chance at success for all students. The promise and power of this nation will always lie in its ability to ensure that people of all races, backgrounds, and origins have the opportunity to achieve their dreams and goals. The title of this document draws from the song “We Shall Not Be Moved,” and we owe so much to this song’s authors, whose names history does not record but whose power and brilliance built this nation. We hope to do their dreams and aspirations justice and convey to all that we march onward, no matter the obstacles before us. This policy agenda represents the civil rights community’s ongoing work to achieve racial equity, diversity, and educational opportunity for all.