60. Collect, conduct, and disseminate research on any shift in demographics, retention, or student outcomes of first-year class profiles since the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC)/Harvard decision.

Campus Climate 09.6.24

Here’s what the federal government can do:

  • The U.S. Department of Education should collect, conduct, and disseminate research on any shift in demographics, retention, and student outcomes of first-year class profiles since the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC)/Harvard decision.

Here’s what state government can do:

  • Higher education coordinating agencies should require higher education institutions to collect, conduct, and disseminate data on any shift in demographics, retention, and student outcomes of first-year class profiles since the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC)/Harvard decision.

Here’s what institutional leaders can do:

  • Higher education institutions should collect, conduct, and disseminate data on any shift in demographics of first-year class profiles since the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC)/Harvard decision. Higher education institutions should ensure this information is accessible to the general public.
  • Higher education institutions should use their data analysis as a tool to develop targeted recruitment strategies centering traditionally underrepresented students.

Higher education institutions and the U.S. Department of Education should collect, conduct, and disseminate data on any shift in demographics, retention, and student outcomes of first-year class profiles since the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC)/Harvard College decision. Higher education institutions should further make their reported data easily accessible to the general public so students can gauge the environment they will be met with on campus.

Before the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina (UNC)/Harvard College decision, several states had already implemented bans on race-based affirmative action in college admissions. These states saw dips in their enrollment of Black and Latino students, especially at their most selective institutions. For example, before voting to ban the practice of race-based affirmative action in 1996, California’s higher education institutions were fairly representative of their high school graduate population. Once the ban was implemented, the enrollment of Black and Latino students at two of California’s most selective institutions, UC Berkeley and UCLA, fell by 40 percent.[i] Across the country, higher education institutions are failing to make their student bodies representative of the populations of their home state and the country. [ii]

[i]Bleemer, Zachary. “Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California’s Proposition 209” Center for Studies in Higher Education, August 20, 2020. https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/affirmative-action-mismatch-and-economic-mobility-after-california%E2%80%99s-proposition-209.

[ii]Perez, Sandra. “Segregation Forever? Access at 4-Year Universities in the U.S.” https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sandra.perez5960/viz/SegregationForeverDraftV3/SegregationForever.