After the 2023 SFFA Supreme Court ruling, admissions patterns at most elite universities followed expected patterns, with the exception of the use of racial preferences in admissions. That is, enrollment of black and Hispanic students decreased and enrollment of Asian American students increased. The three main exceptions to this pattern are Yale University, Princeton University, and Duke University. At each of these universities, enrollment for black students was essentially flat, and enrollment for Asian American students was actually declining. Meanwhile, enrollment of Hispanic students was flat at Princeton and Duke Universities, but actually increased at Yale.
In today’s New York Times, Sonya Starr, a law professor at the University of Chicago, argues that: It says we shouldn’t think these schools were cheating and offers three alternative explanations:
The first possible reason is that the school is not admitting students on their own. They compete for them. Why were fewer Asian American students admitted to Yale, Duke, and Princeton this year? Perhaps they went to other elite schools instead… 2 on school demographics The second most plausible explanation has to do with the statistics themselves. Duke University and Princeton University have seen significant increases in the number of students who refuse to identify themselves by race. (Yale does not report this number.) If the increase was concentrated among Asian American students, it might explain the apparent decline in their numbers. [DB This would not explain the Hispanic and African American figures.]… The third reason why critics’ suspicions may be unfounded is the most important: It is perfectly legal for universities to seek to maintain racial diversity. Even if it turns out that a university is intentionally trying to maintain representation among black and Hispanic students, that in and of itself does not create legal problems.
Make me a skeptic. First, I find it very suspicious that all three schools this year had about the same percentage of African-American enrollment as recently, and two of the three schools had about the same percentage of Hispanic students. Masu. This is a very “interesting” coincidence, considering that there has necessarily been a major change in their admissions process. Related to this, I think it is unlikely that Star’s initial explanation will have the dramatic effect needed to explain this year’s admissions results.
Second, each of these schools signed the court brief He told the Supreme Court that it is impossible to achieve the same racial diversity as in the past without using racial preferences. If Starr is correct that the universities in question have found other ways to achieve diversity without using race as a factor in admissions, that suggests one of two possibilities. However, neither of these are flattering. First, even though schools knew they could achieve diversity without using racial preferences, pre-SFFA Supreme Court precedent used race only as a last resort. refused to do so, even though he was required to do so, and even though it would be lying to school policy. Amicus Overview. Second, while schools have been able to achieve racial diversity without exploiting racial preferences, they have never bothered to do so even though precedent required them to do so. I didn’t.
Most likely, however, all three schools unlawfully considered race when filling soft quotas for underrepresented minority students, while at the same time admitting Asian American students. This means that it was avoided.
