What the Trump Administration Gets Wrong About Affirmative Action

In what looks like the beginnings of a sweeping campaign against affirmative action, the Department of Justice is investigating Harvard University over the use of race in their admissions process, which is being accused of holding white and Asian-American students to higher standards than black and Latino applicants. For years, there have been claims and clamor that the use of affirmative action is “reverse discrimination,” a flawed argument that the Supreme Court most recently struck down in 2016. But the truth is, race is barely a factor in admissions decisions in most cases. According to the National Association of College Admission Counseling’s latest survey, the top four factors in admissions decisions are:

Based on these factors, low-income students and students of color immediately enter the admissions process disadvantaged compared to their white and more affluent peers, who have better access to resources and opportunities. In fact, research supports the argument that it is white students — not black and Latino — who have a systemic advantage in the college admissions process. The admissions counseling study finds that only 3 percent of institutions indicate that race has “considerable influence” in admissions decisions, and 11 percent report that race had “moderate influence” on admissions decisions. So, yes, the system is rigged – but not against white students. Therefore, the only way to truly create an equitable process is by using race and income as factors in college admissions. Here’s why:

Strength of curriculum. According to the survey, 87 percent of admissions officers rate strength of curriculum as considerable or moderate importance. But if students attend schools that do not offer rigorous courses, should they be disadvantaged in an admissions process? In order for a student to have a strong college prep curriculum on an application, that student must first have access to college prep courses. However, the Department of Education issued a report on college and career readiness, which found that black and Latino students have less access to college prep coursework. The study also found that high schools with high black and Latino enrollment were less likely to offer algebra II and chemistry courses compared to schools with low black and Latino enrollment. We see similar gaps in access to a full range of math and science courses: algebra I, geometry, algebra II, calculus, biology, chemistry, physics and Advanced Placement courses.

Given that strength of curriculum and rigor are of such importance in college admissions, black and Latino students should have access to these courses at the same rate as other student populations. Absent equity in access to rigorous coursework, black and Latino students remain disadvantaged at the point of application.

Grades. We can agree that the use of grades in admissions is a reasonable variable by which to measure academic achievement. In fact, over 90 percent of colleges rate grades in college prep courses and all grades as considerable or moderate importance in admissions decisions. However, as previously stated, students cannot take courses that are not even offered at their high school. And evidence suggests that Black and Latino students may be disadvantaged in how they are graded. One recent report, by Michael Hurwitz of the College Board and Jason Lee, a doctoral student at the University of Georgia’s institute of Higher Education, found that grades have been rising since at least the 1990s. The study found that between 1998 and 2016, high school GPAs rose by .11 of a GPA point. Over this same period, the proportion of SAT-takers with grades in the A-range rose from 39 percent to 47 percent as SAT scores declined slightly. The argument here is that grade inflation has occurred even as student’s scores on the SAT have decreased. The problem is that grade inflation has not occurred uniformly. The study finds that grade inflation has been most noticeable at high schools with students who are wealthier than average and where the majority of students are White.

If GPA is going to be of “considerable importance” in admissions, institutions should control for high school GPA to ensure that students are being judged equitably. A system that does not adjust for grade inflation based on school and wealth remains biased against poor and black and Latino students.

Admissions tests. Finally, 88 percent of institutions reported that admissions tests are of considerable or moderate importance in admissions. An increasing number of colleges and universities have been moving away from using standardized tests as a factor in admissions, but for those that do, research shows that these tests have an economic, racial and gender bias. This bias leads to lower scores for low-income students as well as black and Latino students. Research evidence consistently finds that black and Latino students score lower on the SAT, including the newest version of the test. Additional research has found that on the verbal section, “the SAT, a high-stakes test with significant consequences for the educational opportunities available to young people in the United States, favors one ethnic group over another.” Research also has found that found that in addition to a racial bias, the SAT has a gender bias (skewed toward males) and an economic bias (skewed toward students from higher incomes families).

The use of standardized tests in admissions remains biased against black and Latino students. These tests have been shown to be economically, racially and gender biased but still institutions continue to use them as a factor in admissions.

Non-academic factors. These systems of disadvantage continue to work against black and Latino students given how colleges weigh nonacademic factors like legacy status (9 percent), extracurricular activities (31 percent) and indicators of demonstrated interest (39 percent). Academic factors like GPA and standardized test scores are built into admission formulas, disadvantaging black and Latino students on the front end because of inequities inherent in the K-12 system. Then, institutions take the group of students deemed academically qualified based on those formulas and judge them on factors that further exacerbate inequities. Students can’t participate in the debate team after school if they’re busy working a part-time job to bring home extra income; and they may not have the time or resources to travel out of town for college campus tours, both of which would score them extra points during a holistic review. Wealthy students are also more likely to have access to a college counselor in their high school to help them write admissions essays, apply for scholarships, and tailor their applications — and even if they don’t, they can likely afford to pay outside consultants.

Given the bias black and Latino students face in access to rigorous curriculum, grade inflation and the bias in the standardized test, all institutions should be using race as a factor in admissions. Otherwise, black and Latino students are applying for entrance to a “rigged system,” which disadvantages students of color in the name of meritocracy.