Grok says:
Key Points
- Research suggests some universities, especially law schools, may be defying the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling against racial affirmative action by maintaining or increasing minority enrollment through indirect methods.
- It seems likely that this defiance could continue as long as universities find legally permissible ways, like considering race in personal essays, but legal challenges may arise.
- The evidence leans toward varied responses, with some universities complying (e.g., Harvard) and others potentially pushing boundaries (e.g., Yale, Stanford), highlighting ongoing controversy.
Background
The Supreme Court ruled on June 29, 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina that race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause, effectively ending direct use of race in college admissions (Supreme Court Ruling Summary). However, universities can still consider how race has affected an applicant's life, creating a potential loophole.
University Reactions
Universities have shown mixed responses. For instance, Harvard Law School saw a significant drop in Black enrollment from 43 students in 2023 to 19 in 2024, suggesting compliance. In contrast, Yale Law School increased Black enrollment from 11.4% to 12.2%, and Stanford Law School from 6.9% to 12.4%, which some analyses, like Steve Sailer's article, suggest may indicate defiance (Steve Sailer's Article).
Legal and Future Implications
The sustainability of any defiance depends on whether universities can maintain diversity without directly violating the ruling. Legal challenges could emerge if universities are found to use race as a factor beyond the allowed scope, but as of 2024, no major challenges have been reported. Without 2025 data, it's uncertain how long this trend will persist, but universities may continue using indirect methods indefinitely unless further court rulings intervene.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of University Responses to the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling
This section provides a comprehensive examination of how American universities, particularly law schools, have responded to the Supreme Court’s June 29, 2023, ruling against racial affirmative action in admissions, as outlined in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. The ruling declared that race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively prohibiting the direct use of race as a factor in college admissions (Supreme Court Ruling Summary). However, the decision allows universities to consider how race has affected an applicant’s life, such as through personal essays, providing a potential avenue for maintaining diversity.
Context of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision overturned decades of precedent, including the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case, which had permitted limited race-conscious admissions to foster diversity. The ruling was a 6-3 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority that colleges must use colorblind criteria, stating, “Our constitutional history does not tolerate” race-based admissions (Supreme Court guts affirmative action). This shift has forced universities to rethink their admissions strategies, especially at highly selective institutions where race had been a factor.
University Enrollment Data and Analysis
To assess whether universities are defying the ruling, we turn to enrollment data, particularly from law schools, as highlighted in Steve Sailer’s analysis published on Taki’s Magazine in December 2024 (Steve Sailer's Article). Sailer examined data from the American Bar Association, accessible at ABA Required Disclosures, focusing on 19 top law schools with median LSAT scores of 170–175, such as Vanderbilt, UCLA, Berkeley, Duke, Boston University, and Yale, which account for 14% of all law students (US News Law Schools).
The following table summarizes the enrollment changes for these top 19 law schools from 2023 to 2024:
Year | Black % (Top 19) | Hispanic % (Top 19) | White % (Top 19) | Asian % (Top 19) | Total Black Students (Top 19) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2023 | 7.8% | 11.5% | 51.7% | 13.4% | 437 |
2024 | 7.1% | 11.0% | 50.7% | 20.2% | 406 |
- Harvard Law School: Experienced a significant decline, with Black students dropping from 43 in 2023 to 19 in 2024 (3.4% of the class), the lowest since the 1960s, as reported by The New York Times (Harvard Law Black Enrollment Decline). This suggests compliance with the ruling.
- Yale Law School: Increased its Black share from 11.4% in 2023 to 12.2% in 2024, which Sailer notes as potentially defying the ruling by maintaining higher-than-expected enrollment.
- Stanford Law School: Saw a notable increase from 6.9% Black enrollment in 2023 to 12.4% in 2024, described by Sailer as “spitting in the Supreme Court’s eye,” indicating possible defiance.
Sailer’s analysis also compares LSAT scoring trends, noting that in 2023, about 35 Black students nationally scored 170+ on the LSAT, yet Yale and Harvard alone had 66 Black first-year students, suggesting reliance on preferences (LSAT Data). This discrepancy supports the idea that some schools may be using indirect methods to maintain diversity.
Legal Loopholes and Interpretations
The Supreme Court’s ruling allows universities to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affects his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” as noted in the majority opinion (Admissions at most colleges). This provision enables universities to maintain diversity by encouraging applicants to discuss racial experiences in essays, potentially without directly factoring race into admissions decisions. For example, universities might weigh essays heavily, where applicants from underrepresented groups discuss racial discrimination, effectively achieving similar outcomes to affirmative action.
Sailer’s article suggests that schools like Yale and Stanford may be leveraging this loophole, as their increased Black enrollment does not align with merit-based expectations based on LSAT scores. However, this interpretation is controversial, as it relies on enrollment data analysis rather than direct evidence of policy changes.
Compliance and Defiance: Case Studies
- Compliance Example (Harvard): Harvard’s drop in Black enrollment aligns with the ruling’s intent to eliminate race-conscious admissions. The New York Times article highlights this as a direct result of the court’s decision, with Harvard adjusting its admissions practices to comply (Harvard Law Black Enrollment Decline).
- Potential Defiance Examples (Yale, Stanford): Yale and Stanford’s increases in Black enrollment, despite the ruling, suggest they may be using indirect methods. Sailer notes that Stanford’s jump to 12.4% Black enrollment is particularly striking, given the small pool of high-scoring Black LSAT takers, implying possible race-conscious practices under a different guise.
Legal Sustainability and Future Challenges
The legal sustainability of any defiance depends on whether universities’ practices are challenged in court. The ruling’s allowance for considering race in essays provides a gray area, but if universities are found to use race as a direct factor, they risk violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as noted in legal analyses (U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action). As of 2024, there have been no reported major legal challenges to university admissions policies post-ruling, suggesting universities are either complying or operating within the legal boundaries.
However, the potential for future challenges exists, especially if groups like Students for Fair Admissions, led by Edward Blum, monitor and sue universities for perceived violations. Sailer’s analysis hints at this possibility, noting that the increased Asian enrollment (from 13.4% to 20.2%) might reflect a shift due to reduced race-based preferences, potentially leading to legal scrutiny if other groups feel disadvantaged.
Duration of Defiance
Given the mixed responses, it is uncertain how long universities will continue any form of defiance. Harvard’s compliance suggests that some institutions are aligning with the ruling, while Yale and Stanford’s actions indicate others may push boundaries. Without 2025 data, we cannot predict the exact duration, but universities may continue using indirect methods (e.g., socioeconomic status, geographic diversity) to achieve diversity goals, as seen in states like California post-Proposition 209 (The Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action). These methods, while race-neutral, often correlate with racial outcomes, potentially sustaining diversity without direct defiance.
The longevity of such practices depends on legal challenges, public opinion, and university priorities. If no significant challenges arise, universities might continue indefinitely, but further court rulings or legislative changes could force adjustments.
Conclusion
In summary, some American universities, particularly law schools like Yale and Stanford, appear to be defying the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling by maintaining or increasing minority enrollment through indirect means, as evidenced by enrollment data from 2024. Harvard’s significant drop in Black enrollment, however, indicates compliance. The legal sustainability of this defiance hinges on whether universities can operate within the ruling’s allowances, such as considering race in essays, without facing challenges. Without 2025 data, the duration of this trend remains uncertain, but universities may continue these practices as long as they remain legally permissible, potentially indefinitely unless further legal or legislative actions intervene.
Key Citations
