I Support Campus Diversity, Which Led Me to Oppose Affirmative Action. -- Editorial
A concentration on economic disadvantage is enhancing admissions opportunities for students of every race.
TroibNews 
In November 2020, amid the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, I felt a mix of anxiety and determination as I took off my mask and approached the witness stand at the federal district courthouse in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. I was there to serve as an expert witness for Students for Fair Admissions, a conservative organization contesting racial preferences in admissions at the University of North Carolina. My testimony would emphasize the importance of racial diversity in college student bodies while also asserting that UNC-Chapel Hill could achieve integration without relying on race. This could be accomplished by eliminating preferences for privileged children of alumni and faculty and providing a significant admissions advantage to economically disadvantaged students, regardless of their race.
This was an unexpected turn for me. Historically, I had closely aligned myself with civil rights organizations and prominent Black leaders, including civil rights activist and attorney Maya Wiley, the late Sen. John Lewis, and John B. King, who served as Education Secretary during President Obama’s administration. However, on the contentious issue of whether elite college admissions should prioritize race or class, I found myself on the opposing side of many of my allies. I was now working with the staunchly conservative attorneys of the law firm Consovoy McCarthy, some of whom had ties to Justice Clarence Thomas and had even represented Trump regarding his tax returns. The driving force behind Students for Fair Admissions was Edward Blum, a conservative activist known for challenging a critical component of the Voting Rights Act—litigation that I had strongly opposed. My decision to assist them puzzled many of my liberal friends, some of whom were quite dismayed.
Nonetheless, I had long believed there was a more effective method to fulfill the legitimate objectives of racial affirmative action. I shared the view with my liberal colleagues that racial integration on campuses is vital, as it enables students to appreciate and respect individuals from diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, I agreed that the nation must take meaningful steps to address the historical injustices of racial oppression. However, the data indicated that prioritizing economically disadvantaged students would not only facilitate diversity in a more equitable manner but also avoid the divisiveness and inequities associated with racial criteria in admissions.
The data from the UNC case illustrated that due to the enduring legacy of discrimination in America, Black and Hispanic students would disproportionately gain from a class-based approach. Poor white and Asian students would also benefit from such a policy. Moreover, this shift would have substantial political implications: whereas racial preferences tended to exacerbate divisions between working-class white and Black individuals—serving conservative interests—economic preferences could highlight shared challenges between these groups.
Supporters of the UNC admissions policies claimed that social justice was best served by aligning with civil rights organizations. However, the reality within higher education was that admissions processes predominantly favored the affluent. Race-based preferences tended to benefit upper-middle-class students of color and perpetuated favoritism towards the children of alumni and wealthy donors. Although affirmative action produced some level of racial diversity, the system obscured the inherent unfairness, as UNC, which touted its commitment to progressive ideals, actually enrolled 16 times as many affluent students as those from low-income backgrounds.
Elite universities argued that the elimination of affirmative action would lead to a “catastrophic” decline in the presence of marginalized racial groups on prestigious campuses, as noted by Yale Law professor Justin Driver in the New York Times. While some institutions saw a decrease in racial diversity following the Supreme Court's ruling against racial affirmative action, many others managed to maintain or even bolster their diversity, particularly in terms of working-class representation. Notably, Harvard tripled its percentage of first-generation college students from 7 percent to 21 percent between the initiation of litigation and 2024.
My testimony raised concerns among my liberal peers. Nevertheless, the evidence that emerged since I took the stand has only solidified my belief that the decision to end racial affirmative action was correct, especially for those committed to diversity.
For years, I had endeavored to influence the Democratic Party to pivot from racial to economic affirmative action in college admissions. My advocacy for class-based affirmative action was inspired by the late Democratic Senator Robert Kennedy, who fought against racial discrimination through landmark civil rights legislation but later recognized that future struggles would center on economic issues. He stated, “You know, I’ve come to the conclusion that poverty is closer to the root of the problem than color,” as documented in journalist Jack Newfield’s book, *RFK: A Memoir*. This perspective parallels the views of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who contended that to genuinely address the United States' racial legacy, the focus should expand from a narrow Bill of Rights for Black Americans to a more inclusive Bill of Rights for all disadvantaged individuals.
In the mid-1990s, I held hope that President Bill Clinton would steer the federal government towards adopting a system of affirmative action focused on the economically disadvantaged. Following the 1994 midterms, Clinton expressed interest in transitioning from race-based to economic-based affirmative action. After I wrote about this in the *New Republic*, Joel Klein, a Clinton aide and future chancellor of New York City schools, reached out for more information. However, this initial momentum was thwarted when Jesse Jackson threatened to run for president if Clinton did not "stand firm" on affirmative action, leading to a swift reversal by Clinton.
When President Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2007, I was hopeful again, especially when he remarked that his daughters did not require racial preferences while working-class students of all backgrounds did. After his election, I followed up with one of his top aides, Cassandra Butts, who informed me that due to political pressures, Obama could only make such changes if compelled by the courts.
Ultimately, this realization guided me toward my unexpected partnership with Edward Blum and my subsequent testimony in the Harvard and UNC cases.
Students for Fair Admissions faced setbacks in lower court rulings, but in June 2023, the Supreme Court ultimately invalidated racial preferences in a landmark 6-3 decision. President Joe Biden, who honored the legacies of Kennedy and King with busts in the Oval Office, urged colleges to establish a “new standard” that recognizes students who have overcome “adversity.”
Skepticism arose regarding whether colleges would follow this directive. Yet, following the decision, many institutions unveiled new strategies aimed at addressing the imbalance favoring affluent white students. Numerous schools announced they would discontinue legacy preferences, and early admissions policies—which typically advantage wealthier students—came under scrutiny. Virginia Tech eliminated its early decision program, while Wake Forest announced an early admission option exclusively for first-generation college students.
In addition to scrapping detrimental practices, several universities embraced new economic affirmative action initiatives. In the wake of the court's ruling, UNC declared it would offer free tuition to every North Carolina undergraduate from families earning less than $80,000 annually in a state where the median household income hovers around $61,000. Duke University similarly provided free tuition for North and South Carolina students from families earning less than $150,000, and many other institutions significantly enhanced their financial aid offerings.
Innovative recruitment strategies likewise emerged. For example, the University of Virginia rolled out a plan to enhance outreach to 40 high schools that historically produced few applicants. Percentage plans—like Texas’s Top 10 Percent plan, which guarantees admission to state colleges for those in the top 10 percent of their high school class—gained traction, including in largely conservative states where racial preferences were under threat. Interestingly, Texas's plan produced slightly greater racial diversity than previous racial preferences, with Black student enrollment rising from 4.1 percent to 4.5 percent and Hispanic representation increasing from 14.5 percent to 16.9 percent.
Princeton University acknowledged that, given the new legal landscape, its greatest opportunity to attract diverse talent now lies in socioeconomic diversity. It committed to enhancing the proportion of students receiving financial aid to at least 70 percent, increasing the percentage of Pell Grant recipients to at least 22 percent, and boosting the number of community college transfer students. In a report from the National Student Clearinghouse, data showed a 13.3 percent increase in enrollment of community college transfer students from low-income neighborhoods and a 20.4 percent rise from middle-income areas among elite institutions.
The anticipation of diminishing diversity on campuses largely proved unfounded. Initially, concerns arose from U.C. Berkeley’s David Card, predicting that Black enrollment at Harvard for the class entering in 2015 would plummet from 14 percent to 6 percent. However, as enrollment figures were released in 2024, it became evident that numerous selective colleges upheld substantial levels of racial diversity. Harvard reported a Black enrollment figure of 14 percent, revealing only a slight decrease from the prior year. Moreover, the Hispanic representation increased from 14 percent to 16 percent, while Asian enrollment remained steady at 37 percent. This success can be attributed at least in part to the race-neutral alternatives I advocated during the litigation, such as increasing the support for first-generation college students. At least 11 other elite universities, including Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, and the University of Virginia, reported similar stability in diversity post-decision.
While some selective institutions, including MIT, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Columbia, and Amherst, experienced notable drops in Black enrollment, those that successfully maintained diversity positions raised questions about their admissions strategies. MIT’s president, Sally Kornbluth, acknowledged the need for “new approaches.”
The key question became: What accounts for the varied success in preserving racial diversity among universities following the court's ruling?
The opacity of admissions processes makes it challenging to ascertain what transpires behind the scenes. It is plausible that some colleges are taking advantage of a loophole that permits the consideration of racial discussions in personal essays, potentially sidestepping the Supreme Court's intended restrictions. The ruling implies that if a university rewards a Black student for overcoming discrimination based on a narrative of resilience, it must similarly value the experiences of an Asian or white student who has faced poverty. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and other dissenting liberals described the provision as “lipstick on a pig,” suggesting that potential litigation may expose any infringements.
What is evident is that the shift towards economic affirmative action has been remarkably successful. For instance, the University of Virginia saw its share of Pell Grant-eligible students grow from 14 percent to 24 percent over five years, while Duke doubled its proportion of Pell students—from 11 percent to 22 percent—in just two years. Duke’s admissions dean, Christoph Guttentag, remarked that fostering economic diversity “was clearly helpful to us in terms of racial diversity in enrollment,” indicating a substantial interest from colleges in analyzing what works moving forward. Yale and Dartmouth both achieved record levels of representation for first-generation and low-income students.
Looking ahead, there is an additional impetus for universities to adopt legal and race-neutral strategies to secure diversity: political necessity.
Higher education, particularly at elite levels, faces significant political challenges. In recent decades, there has been a dramatic decline in support from Republicans. Between 2015 and 2023, the percentage of Republicans expressing a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education dropped from 56 percent to less than 20 percent, with the primary critique being that colleges have become “too liberal/political.”
While Democrats remain comparatively supportive of higher education, this favorable perspective may wane if universities fail to ensure racial inclusivity. If elite academic institutions lose the backing of progressive Democrats, their ability to counter Republican critiques will diminish.
The Trump administration issued threats to cut federal funding not just for universities employing racial preferences but also for those implementing race-neutral efforts aimed at enhancing racial diversity. The administration pointed to a university's decision to eliminate standardized testing as an example. Although Trump has not explicitly targeted economic affirmative action, the same reasoning could be applied, as my entire argument is that such policies benefit both racial and class diversity. Fortunately, when a conservative group attempted to challenge a selective high school in Virginia for adopting a race-neutral plan to enhance the chances of admission for economically disadvantaged students, the Supreme Court opted not to take up the case despite dissent from two conservative justices.
Because of Trump’s challenges, my advocacy for class-based affirmative action now aligns with civil rights leaders, although some resentments persist. I find myself no longer invited to the same conferences or included on the same boards as before.
Yet, that is a minor inconvenience compared to my involvement in the Students for Fair Admissions case. Paradoxically, it took a conservative ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on race to motivate colleges to take progressive action and begin broadening access for more working-class students of all backgrounds.
Adam Young for TROIB News
This was an unexpected turn for me. Historically, I had closely aligned myself with civil rights organizations and prominent Black leaders, including civil rights activist and attorney Maya Wiley, the late Sen. John Lewis, and John B. King, who served as Education Secretary during President Obama’s administration. However, on the contentious issue of whether elite college admissions should prioritize race or class, I found myself on the opposing side of many of my allies. I was now working with the staunchly conservative attorneys of the law firm Consovoy McCarthy, some of whom had ties to Justice Clarence Thomas and had even represented Trump regarding his tax returns. The driving force behind Students for Fair Admissions was Edward Blum, a conservative activist known for challenging a critical component of the Voting Rights Act—litigation that I had strongly opposed. My decision to assist them puzzled many of my liberal friends, some of whom were quite dismayed.
Nonetheless, I had long believed there was a more effective method to fulfill the legitimate objectives of racial affirmative action. I shared the view with my liberal colleagues that racial integration on campuses is vital, as it enables students to appreciate and respect individuals from diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, I agreed that the nation must take meaningful steps to address the historical injustices of racial oppression. However, the data indicated that prioritizing economically disadvantaged students would not only facilitate diversity in a more equitable manner but also avoid the divisiveness and inequities associated with racial criteria in admissions.
The data from the UNC case illustrated that due to the enduring legacy of discrimination in America, Black and Hispanic students would disproportionately gain from a class-based approach. Poor white and Asian students would also benefit from such a policy. Moreover, this shift would have substantial political implications: whereas racial preferences tended to exacerbate divisions between working-class white and Black individuals—serving conservative interests—economic preferences could highlight shared challenges between these groups.
Supporters of the UNC admissions policies claimed that social justice was best served by aligning with civil rights organizations. However, the reality within higher education was that admissions processes predominantly favored the affluent. Race-based preferences tended to benefit upper-middle-class students of color and perpetuated favoritism towards the children of alumni and wealthy donors. Although affirmative action produced some level of racial diversity, the system obscured the inherent unfairness, as UNC, which touted its commitment to progressive ideals, actually enrolled 16 times as many affluent students as those from low-income backgrounds.
Elite universities argued that the elimination of affirmative action would lead to a “catastrophic” decline in the presence of marginalized racial groups on prestigious campuses, as noted by Yale Law professor Justin Driver in the New York Times. While some institutions saw a decrease in racial diversity following the Supreme Court's ruling against racial affirmative action, many others managed to maintain or even bolster their diversity, particularly in terms of working-class representation. Notably, Harvard tripled its percentage of first-generation college students from 7 percent to 21 percent between the initiation of litigation and 2024.
My testimony raised concerns among my liberal peers. Nevertheless, the evidence that emerged since I took the stand has only solidified my belief that the decision to end racial affirmative action was correct, especially for those committed to diversity.
For years, I had endeavored to influence the Democratic Party to pivot from racial to economic affirmative action in college admissions. My advocacy for class-based affirmative action was inspired by the late Democratic Senator Robert Kennedy, who fought against racial discrimination through landmark civil rights legislation but later recognized that future struggles would center on economic issues. He stated, “You know, I’ve come to the conclusion that poverty is closer to the root of the problem than color,” as documented in journalist Jack Newfield’s book, *RFK: A Memoir*. This perspective parallels the views of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who contended that to genuinely address the United States' racial legacy, the focus should expand from a narrow Bill of Rights for Black Americans to a more inclusive Bill of Rights for all disadvantaged individuals.
In the mid-1990s, I held hope that President Bill Clinton would steer the federal government towards adopting a system of affirmative action focused on the economically disadvantaged. Following the 1994 midterms, Clinton expressed interest in transitioning from race-based to economic-based affirmative action. After I wrote about this in the *New Republic*, Joel Klein, a Clinton aide and future chancellor of New York City schools, reached out for more information. However, this initial momentum was thwarted when Jesse Jackson threatened to run for president if Clinton did not "stand firm" on affirmative action, leading to a swift reversal by Clinton.
When President Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2007, I was hopeful again, especially when he remarked that his daughters did not require racial preferences while working-class students of all backgrounds did. After his election, I followed up with one of his top aides, Cassandra Butts, who informed me that due to political pressures, Obama could only make such changes if compelled by the courts.
Ultimately, this realization guided me toward my unexpected partnership with Edward Blum and my subsequent testimony in the Harvard and UNC cases.
Students for Fair Admissions faced setbacks in lower court rulings, but in June 2023, the Supreme Court ultimately invalidated racial preferences in a landmark 6-3 decision. President Joe Biden, who honored the legacies of Kennedy and King with busts in the Oval Office, urged colleges to establish a “new standard” that recognizes students who have overcome “adversity.”
Skepticism arose regarding whether colleges would follow this directive. Yet, following the decision, many institutions unveiled new strategies aimed at addressing the imbalance favoring affluent white students. Numerous schools announced they would discontinue legacy preferences, and early admissions policies—which typically advantage wealthier students—came under scrutiny. Virginia Tech eliminated its early decision program, while Wake Forest announced an early admission option exclusively for first-generation college students.
In addition to scrapping detrimental practices, several universities embraced new economic affirmative action initiatives. In the wake of the court's ruling, UNC declared it would offer free tuition to every North Carolina undergraduate from families earning less than $80,000 annually in a state where the median household income hovers around $61,000. Duke University similarly provided free tuition for North and South Carolina students from families earning less than $150,000, and many other institutions significantly enhanced their financial aid offerings.
Innovative recruitment strategies likewise emerged. For example, the University of Virginia rolled out a plan to enhance outreach to 40 high schools that historically produced few applicants. Percentage plans—like Texas’s Top 10 Percent plan, which guarantees admission to state colleges for those in the top 10 percent of their high school class—gained traction, including in largely conservative states where racial preferences were under threat. Interestingly, Texas's plan produced slightly greater racial diversity than previous racial preferences, with Black student enrollment rising from 4.1 percent to 4.5 percent and Hispanic representation increasing from 14.5 percent to 16.9 percent.
Princeton University acknowledged that, given the new legal landscape, its greatest opportunity to attract diverse talent now lies in socioeconomic diversity. It committed to enhancing the proportion of students receiving financial aid to at least 70 percent, increasing the percentage of Pell Grant recipients to at least 22 percent, and boosting the number of community college transfer students. In a report from the National Student Clearinghouse, data showed a 13.3 percent increase in enrollment of community college transfer students from low-income neighborhoods and a 20.4 percent rise from middle-income areas among elite institutions.
The anticipation of diminishing diversity on campuses largely proved unfounded. Initially, concerns arose from U.C. Berkeley’s David Card, predicting that Black enrollment at Harvard for the class entering in 2015 would plummet from 14 percent to 6 percent. However, as enrollment figures were released in 2024, it became evident that numerous selective colleges upheld substantial levels of racial diversity. Harvard reported a Black enrollment figure of 14 percent, revealing only a slight decrease from the prior year. Moreover, the Hispanic representation increased from 14 percent to 16 percent, while Asian enrollment remained steady at 37 percent. This success can be attributed at least in part to the race-neutral alternatives I advocated during the litigation, such as increasing the support for first-generation college students. At least 11 other elite universities, including Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, and the University of Virginia, reported similar stability in diversity post-decision.
While some selective institutions, including MIT, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Columbia, and Amherst, experienced notable drops in Black enrollment, those that successfully maintained diversity positions raised questions about their admissions strategies. MIT’s president, Sally Kornbluth, acknowledged the need for “new approaches.”
The key question became: What accounts for the varied success in preserving racial diversity among universities following the court's ruling?
The opacity of admissions processes makes it challenging to ascertain what transpires behind the scenes. It is plausible that some colleges are taking advantage of a loophole that permits the consideration of racial discussions in personal essays, potentially sidestepping the Supreme Court's intended restrictions. The ruling implies that if a university rewards a Black student for overcoming discrimination based on a narrative of resilience, it must similarly value the experiences of an Asian or white student who has faced poverty. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and other dissenting liberals described the provision as “lipstick on a pig,” suggesting that potential litigation may expose any infringements.
What is evident is that the shift towards economic affirmative action has been remarkably successful. For instance, the University of Virginia saw its share of Pell Grant-eligible students grow from 14 percent to 24 percent over five years, while Duke doubled its proportion of Pell students—from 11 percent to 22 percent—in just two years. Duke’s admissions dean, Christoph Guttentag, remarked that fostering economic diversity “was clearly helpful to us in terms of racial diversity in enrollment,” indicating a substantial interest from colleges in analyzing what works moving forward. Yale and Dartmouth both achieved record levels of representation for first-generation and low-income students.
Looking ahead, there is an additional impetus for universities to adopt legal and race-neutral strategies to secure diversity: political necessity.
Higher education, particularly at elite levels, faces significant political challenges. In recent decades, there has been a dramatic decline in support from Republicans. Between 2015 and 2023, the percentage of Republicans expressing a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education dropped from 56 percent to less than 20 percent, with the primary critique being that colleges have become “too liberal/political.”
While Democrats remain comparatively supportive of higher education, this favorable perspective may wane if universities fail to ensure racial inclusivity. If elite academic institutions lose the backing of progressive Democrats, their ability to counter Republican critiques will diminish.
The Trump administration issued threats to cut federal funding not just for universities employing racial preferences but also for those implementing race-neutral efforts aimed at enhancing racial diversity. The administration pointed to a university's decision to eliminate standardized testing as an example. Although Trump has not explicitly targeted economic affirmative action, the same reasoning could be applied, as my entire argument is that such policies benefit both racial and class diversity. Fortunately, when a conservative group attempted to challenge a selective high school in Virginia for adopting a race-neutral plan to enhance the chances of admission for economically disadvantaged students, the Supreme Court opted not to take up the case despite dissent from two conservative justices.
Because of Trump’s challenges, my advocacy for class-based affirmative action now aligns with civil rights leaders, although some resentments persist. I find myself no longer invited to the same conferences or included on the same boards as before.
Yet, that is a minor inconvenience compared to my involvement in the Students for Fair Admissions case. Paradoxically, it took a conservative ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on race to motivate colleges to take progressive action and begin broadening access for more working-class students of all backgrounds.
Adam Young for TROIB News
