The vibe on college campuses changed the second the Supreme Court dropped its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. It wasn't just a legal tweak. It was a massive earthquake. For decades, affirmative action in colleges was the standard operating procedure for every elite admissions office from the Ivy League to big state schools like UNC Chapel Hill. Then, suddenly, it wasn't.
You’ve probably heard people arguing about it at dinner or seen the TikToks. Some folks say it’s finally fair. Others think we’ve just slammed the door on diversity. Honestly? The reality is way more complicated than a spicy headline.
The Day the Old Playbook Died
June 29, 2023. That’s the date. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion that basically said "enough." The Court ruled that the way Harvard and the University of North Carolina were using race in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause.
It’s huge.
Before this, schools could use race as a "plus factor." It wasn't a quota—those were already illegal—but it was a thumb on the scale. If you were a talented Black or Latino student, your background could give you a slight edge in a sea of perfect SAT scores. Roberts argued that this essentially penalized Asian American applicants and relied on stereotypes. He famously wrote, "The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race."
But here is the catch. The Court didn't say race is totally invisible. It just said you can't check a box. If a student writes an essay about how their racial identity shaped their character, that’s still allowed. It’s a loophole? Sorta. But it’s a lot harder to quantify than a checkbox.
What Admissions Officers are Actually Doing Now
Admissions officers are stressed. They’re staring at piles of applications and trying not to break the law while still trying to build a class that doesn't look like a 1950s country club. Since they can't look at the race data in the "back end" of the software anymore, they are pivoting hard toward "adversity scores" and geographic targeting.
Take the University of California system. They’ve actually been living in a post-affirmative action world since 1996 because of Proposition 209. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to keep diversity up without using race. They look at zip codes. They look at whether your parents went to college. They look at how much money your high school has.
👉 See also: The 1959 Revolution in Cuba: What Most People Get Wrong
It’s a massive lift.
The "Holistic" Pivot
Schools are doubling down on what they call "holistic review." This sounds fancy, but it basically means they’re reading your essays with a magnifying glass. They want to see "grit."
- Did you work a job at McDonald's while taking AP Physics?
- Are you the first person in your family to even know what the FAFSA is?
- Do you live in a neighborhood where the local school hasn't sent anyone to a Top 50 university in a decade?
If you're applying today, your essay is your only real chance to talk about your background. If your race is a part of your story, you have to write it out. You can't just expect the data to do the talking for you.
The Data is Starting to Trickle In
We finally have some numbers from the first admissions cycle after the ruling. It’s a mixed bag. At MIT, the percentage of Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Pacific Islander students dropped from about 25% to 16%. That’s a massive cliff.
At Yale and Princeton? It stayed pretty steady.
Why the difference? Some experts, like Richard Kahlenberg, who has been a vocal proponent of class-based preference, argue that schools with massive endowments can "buy" diversity by offering insane financial aid packages to low-income students of all races. Schools with slightly less money? They might struggle more to keep those numbers up.
The Legacy Debate is Finally Getting Loud
You can't talk about affirmative action in colleges without talking about legacy admissions. This is the elephant in the room. If we aren't giving a "plus" to underrepresented minorities, why are we still giving a "plus" to the kids of wealthy donors and alumni?
It feels hypocritical. Honestly, it kind of is.
States like Colorado and Virginia have already banned legacy preferences at public unis. Wesleyan University and Johns Hopkins dropped it voluntarily. The logic is simple: if the goal is a "colorblind" meritocracy, then being the son of a guy who donated a library shouldn't give you a leg up. It’s becoming a huge PR nightmare for schools that want to claim they care about fairness.
Recruiting Beyond the "Feeder" Schools
For a long time, elite colleges just went to the same private prep schools over and over. They knew the counselors. They knew the curriculum. Now, they have to go into "recruiting deserts."
They are looking at community college transfers more seriously than ever. Historically, community colleges were seen as a "second choice," but now they are a goldmine for talent. Schools like UVA and UNC have strong "pipeline" programs that guarantee admission if you hit a certain GPA at a local two-year college. This is a massive, often overlooked way that affirmative action in colleges is being replaced by socioeconomic strategies.
Misconceptions That Need to Die
There is this weird myth that affirmative action meant "unqualified" people were getting into Harvard over "geniuses." That’s just not how it worked. We are talking about choosing between a kid with a 1580 SAT and a kid with a 1540 SAT. Everyone at that level is qualified. The debate was always about which type of qualified person adds more value to a classroom.
Another one? That Asian American students would suddenly make up 80% of every class. While their numbers have gone up at some schools, it hasn't been a total takeover. Admissions is still a black box, and "personality ratings" (which were a huge part of the Harvard lawsuit) still play a role.
What This Means for You (The Actionable Part)
If you are a student or a parent navigating this mess, the strategy has changed. The "check the box" era is over. Here is how you actually handle it.
1. Own Your Narrative in the Essay
If your identity or your race has impacted your perspective, you must write about it. The Supreme Court specifically said this is allowed. Don't be afraid to be specific. Generalities don't work anymore. Tell the story of the time you had to navigate a specific cultural challenge or how your background shaped your career goals.
2. Focus on "Distance Traveled"
Admissions officers are looking for "distance traveled." This is a metric of how far you’ve come relative to where you started. If you go to a fancy private school, your "distance traveled" is shorter than a kid who excelled at an underfunded rural high school. Highlight your obstacles.
3. Look at Class-Based Admissions
Research schools that have strong policies for Pell Grant recipients. Since many schools are moving toward socioeconomic diversity to replace racial diversity, being low-income is now a significant "plus factor" in a way it wasn't ten years ago.
4. Don't Ignore Public Universities
While the Ivies get all the press, big public research universities are often more transparent about their points systems and how they evaluate "adversity."
5. Keep an Eye on "Test Optional" Trends
Many schools went test-optional during the pandemic and stayed that way to help diversity. However, some (like Dartmouth and Yale) are bringing tests back because they realized high SAT scores from low-income kids were actually a great way to identify talent. If you can get a high score, take the test. It proves you can compete, regardless of your school's quality.
The landscape of affirmative action in colleges is still cooling after the big explosion. We won't know the full impact for another four or five years when these "post-affirmative action" classes start graduating. For now, the name of the game is individuality. The "box" is gone, but the person behind the application is still there. You just have to work a little harder to make sure they see you.