President Donald Trump’s administration is scrutinizing higher education. Last week, the White House issued a memorandum requiring all universities receiving federal funds to submit admissions data on all applicants to the Department of Education. The goal is to enforce the 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-based affirmative action.
Days before the memo was released, Columbia and Brown agreed to share their admissions data with the administration, broken down by race, grade point average, and standardized test scores. The administration suspects that universities are using “racial proxies” to get around the ban on race-based admissions. The Department of Education is expected to build a database of the admissions data and make it available to parents and students.
Amid this increased federal scrutiny, an choice idea from Richard Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project for the Progressive policy Institute, is gaining attention. Kahlenberg, who testified in the Supreme Court cases against Harvard and UNC, advocates for class-based affirmative action instead of race-based admissions.He argues that this approach will yield more economically and racially equitable results.
Today, Explained co-host Noel King spoke with Kahlenberg about how he contends with the consequences of helping gut race-based affirmative action, why he believes class-based affirmative action is the path forward, and if his own argument may come in the crosshairs of a Trump administration eager to stamp out all forms of affirmative action.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple podcasts, and Spotify.Now, to be clear, the white and asian students were even richer. But for the most part, this was not a program that was benefiting working-class and low-income students.
Alright, so the supreme Court in 2023 hands down this decision that says, essentially, we’re done with race-based affirmative action. Was there a difference in how progressives and conservatives interpreted the Supreme Court ruling?
Most mainstream conservatives have always said they were opposed to racial preferences, but of course, they were for economic affirmative action. But now we have some on the extreme, including the Trump administration, saying that economic affirmative action is also illegal if part of the rationale for the policy is seeking to increase racial diversity.
What do you make of that? That was your team once upon a time, right?
Well, I think it’s troubling when people shift the goalposts. In a number of the Supreme Court concurring opinions in the case, conservatives said that economic affirmative action made a lot of sense. Justice [neil] Gorsuch, for example, said if Harvard got rid of legacy preferences and instead gave economic affirmative action, that would be perfectly legal. And now some extremists are shifting their position and saying they’re opposed to any kind of affirmative action.
Are you surprised by that shift?
I’m not surprised. I’m confident, however, that a majority of the US Supreme Court won’t go that far. The Supreme Court, to some degree, looks to public opinion. Racial pre
The Shifting Landscape of Affirmative Action and the Republican party
Table of Contents
The recent Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action policies has opened a new chapter in the debate over diversity and equal opportunity in education and employment. While public opinion generally supports racially integrated environments, there’s significant resistance to policies perceived as granting racial preferences. This creates a complex political landscape, especially for the Republican Party, and potentially for a future Trump administration. A shift towards class-based affirmative action could broaden the base of beneficiaries, including white working-class students, but a hardline stance against all diversity initiatives could alienate voters.
Public Opinion on Affirmative Action
For years, the Trump administration challenged affirmative action, focusing on the idea of merit-based systems. However,public opinion is nuanced. According to a Pew Research Center study from June 2023,Americans broadly support the goal of racially integrated student bodies and workplaces. The key point of contention isn’t diversity itself, but the methods used to achieve it. Many oppose policies that explicitly consider race as a determining factor, favoring approaches that focus on socioeconomic disadvantage or other factors.
The Potential of Class-Based Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions effectively ended the use of race as a direct factor in college admissions. This has led to discussions about alternative approaches, notably class-based affirmative action. This model prioritizes applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, regardless of race.
Experts suggest this approach could have unexpected political benefits for the Republican Party. while black and Hispanic students would likely still disproportionately benefit from such policies, a significant number of white working-class students would also qualify for consideration. These voters form a crucial part of the Republican base, as highlighted by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball.
A Trump administration actively opposing all efforts to promote diversity, even those based on class, could risk alienating this key demographic.
The Risk of Inconsistency and Alienation
A potential challenge for a future Trump administration lies in maintaining a consistent message. if Trump were to oppose all forms of diversity initiatives, including class-based approaches, he risks appearing inflexible and out of touch with broader public sentiment. Moreover, such a stance might not align with the legal framework established by the Students for Fair Admissions ruling, which allows for consideration of how race has affected an applicant’s life, albeit in a limited way.
Key Takeaways
Public opinion supports diversity but is wary of racial preferences.
Class-based affirmative action could benefit both minority and white working-class students.
A hardline stance against all diversity initiatives could alienate key Republican voters.
Consistency with the Students for Fair Admissions ruling will be crucial.
The future of affirmative action remains uncertain. The Republican party, and particularly any future Trump administration, faces a delicate balancing act. Navigating this landscape will require a nuanced approach that acknowledges the complexities of public opinion and the evolving legal framework surrounding diversity and equal opportunity.