Introduction to the Executive Order
President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. This move comes after the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions in 2023, but allowed colleges to consider how race has shaped students’ lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays.
Background on Affirmative Action
The role of race in admissions has been a contentious issue, with conservatives arguing that colleges have continued to consider race through proxy measures despite the Supreme Court ruling. The executive order makes the same argument, stating that “the lack of available admissions data from universities — paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice.”
Impact on Colleges
The executive order requires colleges to submit data on the race, grade point average, and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students. This data will be used to determine whether colleges are complying with the Supreme Court ruling. Some colleges, such as Brown University and Columbia University, have already agreed to provide this data as part of settlement agreements with the government.
Changes in Admissions Policies
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant’s background. This strategy was invited by the Supreme Court, which stated that “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”
Practical Impact of the Executive Order
It is unclear what practical impact the executive order will have on colleges, which are prohibited by law from collecting information on race as part of admissions. Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, stated that “ultimately, will it mean anything? Probably not. But it does continue this rhetoric from the administration that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.”
Alternative Strategies for Achieving Diversity
As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges have tried a range of strategies to achieve diversity. Many have given greater preference to low-income families, while others have started admitting top students from every community in their state. For example, the University of California system started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds.
Examples of Colleges’ Efforts to Achieve Diversity
The University of Michigan, for example, shifted attention to low-income students after Michigan voters rejected affirmative action in 2006. The school sent graduates to work as counselors in low-income high schools and started offering college prep in Detroit and Grand Rapids. Despite these efforts, the share of Black and Hispanic undergraduates hasn’t fully rebounded from a falloff after 2006.
Conclusion
The executive order signed by President Trump requires colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. While the practical impact of the order is unclear, it continues the administration’s rhetoric that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students. Colleges have tried alternative strategies to achieve diversity, but the results have been mixed. As the debate over affirmative action continues, it remains to be seen how colleges will adapt to the changing landscape.
FAQs
Q: What is the purpose of the executive order signed by President Trump?
A: The executive order requires colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions.
Q: What was the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in 2023?
A: The Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions, but allowed colleges to consider how race has shaped students’ lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays.
Q: How have colleges responded to the Supreme Court ruling?
A: Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process, while others have tried alternative strategies to achieve diversity, such as giving greater preference to low-income families.
Q: What is the potential impact of the executive order on colleges?
A: The practical impact of the order is unclear, but it may continue the administration’s rhetoric that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.
Q: Can colleges still consider race in admissions?
A: Colleges are prohibited by law from collecting information on race as part of admissions, but they can consider how race has shaped students’ lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays.
By ANNIE MA and JOCELYN GECKER, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students’ lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays.
Trump’s Republican administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race, which conservatives view as illegal discrimination.
The role of race in admissions has featured in the administration’s battle against some of the nation’s most elite colleges — viewed by Republicans as liberal hotbeds. For example, the executive order is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the government negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research money. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public.
Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race through proxy measures.
The executive order makes the same argument. “The lack of available admissions data from universities — paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,” said a fact sheet shared by the White House ahead of the Thursday signing.
The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges’ diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next.
Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year.
Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant’s background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling.
“Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court’s conservative majority.
It is unclear what practical impact the executive order will have on colleges, which are prohibited by law from collecting information on race as part of admissions, says Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents.
“Ultimately, will it mean anything? Probably not,” Fansmith said. “But it does continue this rhetoric from the administration that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.”
Because of the Supreme Court ruling, schools are not allowed to ask the race of students who are applying. Once students enroll, the schools can ask about race, but students must be told they have a right not to answer. In this political climate, many students won’t report their race, Fansmith said. So when schools release data on student demographics, the figures often give only a partial picture of the campus makeup.
As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges for years have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses.
Many have given greater preference to low-income families. Others started admitting top students from every community in their state.
Prior to the ruling, nine states had banned affirmative action, starting with California in 1996. The University of California saw enrollment change after the statewide ban in 1996. Within two years, Black and Hispanic enrollments fell by half at the system’s two most selective campuses — Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students.
The 10-campus University of California system also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited for expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model.
In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no impact at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants.
Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Hispanic students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996 but lower than their 53% share among California’s high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 4% of undergraduates at Berkeley.
After Michigan voters rejected affirmative action in 2006, the University of Michigan shifted attention to low-income students.
The school sent graduates to work as counselors in low-income high schools and started offering college prep in Detroit and Grand Rapids. It offered full scholarships for low-income Michigan residents and, more recently, started accepting fewer
