Opening the ‘Black Box’ of College Admissions

By Marvin Krislov

Many elements of admissions remain a “black box” to our alumni, prospective students, legislative audiences and other constituents. Today, we in higher education have a golden opportunity to articulate our core values, and we should not shrink from that task.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s rulings last year in two Michigan cases, we have learned a great deal about how to design an admissions system that appropriately considers race. But reviewing University procedures—and revising them if necessary—represents only a portion of the work ahead of us.

In fashioning and adjusting our admissions policies, we continue to answer the commonly heard critique: “We share your goals, but isn’t there a better way?” Our answer: “Not at this time, with our current pool of highly qualified students, and when race and ethnicity still remain such a salient feature of American life.”

Despite many key areas of clarity in the decisions, opponents of affirmative action call them confusing and have predicted years of additional litigation, as well as a wide range of challenges in state legislatures and at ballot boxes.

The temptation to avoid those debates will be great, particularly for colleges and universities that fear legal and/or political challenges. Especially at a time when budgets are strained, some institutions, perceiving some areas of uncertainty in the court’s landmark ruling, may wish to avoid any controversy.

That is just what we cannot afford to do. We all manage risk on a daily basis, and active leadership on this critical issue can actually minimize that risk. Opinion polls have shown that Americans support inclusion and opportunity for members of minority groups, but remain ambivalent about affirmative action: A Chronicle of Higher Education poll this year showed Americans generally supportive of the goals of affirmative action in higher education but concerned about the methods used to achieve them.

A CBS poll indicated that in the last five years a growing percentage—a majority—of Americans has come to favor programs that help members of minority groups overcome past discrimination. Yet other polls indicate that a majority opposes consideration of race and/or legacy in admissions decisions.

We need to confront such uncertainty with clear arguments. The Supreme Court left open a number of avenues for universities to pursue affirmative action in accordance with the Constitution, and we must understand them. Then we must explain what we do and why it is important.

As the court indicated, it will defer to academic judgments that have been made thoughtfully and are substantiated. The guidelines we can take away from the court’s rulings include:

Use individualized, holistic candidate reviews. Procedures may need to be revised to include, for example, more faculty involvement in establishing admissions policies and evaluating candidates, or more candidate interviews.

Regularly review admissions policies. The court has stressed monitoring affirmative-action programs to gauge when they are needed.

Pay attention to achieving more than token numbers of minority students. So long as the structure and process of the admissions system look at individual applicants and ensure competition among all, then admissions officers may aspire to having significant numbers of minority students in a class.

Analyze financial-aid and outreach programs that focus on members of specific minority and racial groups. Department of Education guidance issued in 1994 embraces the diversity rationale as one basis for race-specific programs. It emphasizes the need for narrow tailoring and, among other factors, the consideration of alternative methods, the duration of programs, and their burden on noneligible students. The court’s ruling does not affect targeted financial aid to remedy past discrimination, but some aspects of the 1994 guidance on narrow tailoring may be revisited in light of the court's ruling.

Ensure that race and ethnicity, if considered, are evaluated flexibly as a plus factor for each applicant. The court cautioned that race and ethnicity should not be used as the “defining feature” of an application.
Hitherto unexplored issues such as legacy admissions received front-page attention, making the point that admissions offices typically consider a variety of factors, not simply grades and test scores.

History suggests that Supreme Court decisions, over time, may shape public opinion. A Gallup poll conducted in May 1954 asked respondents whether they approved or disapproved of the Supreme Court's holding in Brown v. Board of Education, which found segregated schools illegal. In the poll, 55 percent approved and 40 percent disapproved. Five years later, the approval rate had increased to 60 percent; today, it is unlikely that any but a small minority would disapprove of Brown’s conclusion.

Let us hope that the Michigan cases give us the courage to have a similar conversation about diversity and how we can best achieve it.

Marvin Krislov is vice president and general counsel of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. We have adapted this essay from one he published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, 8/1/2003.