State data on colleges considering race in admissions
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions inStudents for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard andStudents for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions. This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you have any questions or comments,contact us.
Affirmative action in university admissions involved universities taking steps to increase the enrollment of minorities and women to improve their opportunities and outcomes. Such policies were a separate matter fromaffirmative action in employment and operated under different rules and regulations. Federal law requires government contractors and other departments and agencies receiving federal funding to develop and implement affirmative action plans for the hiring process. Public colleges and universities are considered federal contractors and must utilize affirmative action in their employment practices. However, many private colleges and universities across the country implemented similar measures in their admissions processes. These actions were typically voluntary, although a handful of states adopted rules requiring state universities to take affirmative action in admissions.[1][2][3]
Racial preferences
Affirmative action admissions programs were undertaken by public and private universities alike, beginning in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some universities initially established quotas in order to achieve a demographically diverse student body; these quotas were outlawed by theUnited States Supreme Court inRegents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978.A common form of affirmative action in college admissions was that of racial preferences. A preference occurred when a group of applicants was more likely to be admitted than other applicants with similar or better qualifications due to other factors such as race or ethnicity. Preferences were sometimes extended towards women, athletes, and children of alumni. The use of racial preferences may be related to college selectivity: scholars such as law professor Richard Sander have found that preferences were strongest at elite institutions.[1][4][5][6]
State bans and Supreme Court rulings
Eight states enacted laws banning the consideration of race in university admissions: Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington.
InStudents for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College andStudents for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-based considerations in college admissions in a June 29, 2023, decision. The ruling explicitly allowed national service academies to continue considering race as a factor in admissions for reasons of national security.[7][8]
The information below is a historical compilation of data on the consideration of race in admissions at public four-year universities in the 50 states.[9]
State data
| A note on the data: Information on which colleges consider race in admissions came from individual college profiles provided by two websites that aim to assist students in choosing a college, the College Board and College Data. Such information was reported to the College Board by the colleges themselves. Note that schools may have updated their policies since reporting to the College Board. For further details and links to school profiles, you can find your state's individual pagehere. |
| Historical consideration of race at public four-year universities in the United States | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | State ban | Public 4-year colleges | Number considering race | Percent | |
| Alabama | No | 14 | 0 | 0% | |
| Alaska | No | 3 | 0 | 0% | |
| Arizona | Yes | 3 | 0 | 0% | |
| Arkansas | No | 11 | 0 | 0% | |
| California | Yes | 32 | 0 | 0% | |
| Colorado | No | 13 | 3 | 23.1% | |
| Connecticut | No | 7 | 4 | 57.1% | |
| Delaware | No | 2 | 1 | 50% | |
| Florida | Yes | 13 | 0 | 0% | |
| Georgia | No | 23 | 3 | 13% | |
| Hawaii | No | 3 | 0 | 0% | |
| Idaho | No | 4 | 0 | 0% | |
| Illinois | No | 12 | 3 | 25% | |
| Indiana | No | 14 | 2 | 14.3% | |
| Iowa | No | 3 | 0 | 0% | |
| Kansas | No | 8 | 0 | 0% | |
| Kentucky | No | 8 | 2 | 25% | |
| Louisiana | No | 15 | 2 | 13.3% | |
| Maine | No | 8 | 1 | 12.5% | |
| Maryland | No | 13 | 5 | 38.5% | |
| Massachusetts | No | 13 | 4 | 30.8% | |
| Michigan | Yes | 15 | 0 | 0% | |
| Minnesota | No | 12 | 3 | 25% | |
| Mississippi | No | 9 | 0 | 0% | |
| Missouri | No | 13 | 2 | 15.4% | |
| Montana | No | 6 | 0 | 0% | |
| Nebraska | Yes | 6 | 0 | 0% | |
| Nevada | No | 4 | 0 | 0% | |
| New Hampshire | Yes | 5 | 3 | 60% | |
| New Jersey | No | 13 | 6 | 46.2% | |
| New Mexico | No | 8 | 0 | 0% | |
| New York | No | 35 | 11 | 31.4% | |
| North Carolina | No | 16 | 7 | 43.8% | |
| North Dakota | No | 6 | 1 | 16.7% | |
| Ohio | No | 22 | 2 | 9.1% | |
| Oklahoma | Yes | 13 | 0 | 0% | |
| Oregon | No | 7 | 2 | 28.6% | |
| Pennsylvania | No | 41 | 10 | 24.4% | |
| Rhode Island | No | 2 | 1 | 50% | |
| South Carolina | No | 12 | 2 | 16.7% | |
| South Dakota | No | 7 | 1 | 14.3% | |
| Tennessee | No | 9 | 2 | 22.2% | |
| Texas | No | 36 | 2 | 5.6% | |
| Utah | No | 6 | 1 | 16.7% | |
| Vermont | No | 5 | 1 | 20% | |
| Virginia | No | 15 | 8 | 53.3% | |
| Washington | Yes | 8 | 0 | 0% | |
| West Virginia | No | 10 | 1 | 10% | |
| Wisconsin | No | 13 | 12 | 92.3% | |
| Wyoming | No | 1 | 0 | 0% | |
| U.S. total* | N/A | 577 | 109 | 18.9% | |
| *Note: Totals may not be exhaustive. Ballotpedia was unable to find data for all 650+ four-year public colleges nationwide. Sources:The College Board, "Big Future," accessed March 30, 2015. Reproduced with permission. CollegeData, "College 411," accessed March 30, 2015 | |||||
See also
- State affirmative action information
- Consideration of race in private college admissions
- Affirmative action
- Affirmative action ballot measures
- Higher education in the United States
- Higher education by state
External links
- National Conference of State Legislatures, Affirmative Action Overview
- The Century Foundation
- Project on Fair Representation
- By Any Means Necessary
- The College Board, Big Future
Additional reading
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action"
- Richard Sander & Stuart S. Taylor,Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It
- William G Bowen & Derek Curtis Bok,The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions
Footnotes
- ↑1.01.1Miller Center of Public Affairs, "Affirmative Action: Race or Class?" accessed February 10, 2015
- ↑National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action | Overview," February 7, 2015
- ↑Higher Ed Jobs, "Facts and Myths of Affirmative Action," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑PBS, "Challenging Race Sensitive Admissions Policies," May 19, 2015
- ↑Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
- ↑Sander, R. & Taylor S. (2012).Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It. Basic Books.
- ↑AP News, "Divided Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action in college admissions, says race can’t be used," accessed June 29, 2023
- ↑Supreme Court of the United States, "Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College," accessed June 29, 2023
- ↑National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action: State Action," accessed April 21, 2015
