The Supreme Court’s ruling in cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill prohibits race as a factor in admissions, making an equivalent to policies like California Proposition 209 the law of the land. As professors of higher education at the University of Southern California, our research and practice make clear that this is a time to lean in and do all that we can—together—on behalf of racial equity. California’s history adapting to Proposition 209 teaches us that there are at least three concrete ways higher education professionals can collectively take action.

Learn the Law and Talk About It

The first step is developing self-awareness about what typically happens in higher education when people are managing new legal restrictions. Research shows that the swirl of dialogue can create chilling effects far beyond laws’ requirements. We need to be vigilant to this tendency, which colleagues Garces, Johnson, Ambriz and Bradley have studied; they call it repressive legalism.

For example, state bans on race-conscious admissions amplify concerns about legal liability among college and university general counsels. To avoid risks of a lawsuit, admissions decision makers may err on the side of avoiding any discussion of race. State bans on race-conscious admissions may even lead some Black, Latinx, Southeast Asian and Indigenous families to question whether selective universities are worth an application.

We can urge our colleagues and communities to learn the parameters of the decision and resist undue caution in reacting to it. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” We still have more tools for managing racism than constraints in doing so.

Apply Pressure to Address Inequities Baked Into Admissions

Second, it is more urgent than ever that educators and the public collectively push for holistic admissions processes that address the array of biases and injustices baked into typical admissions criteria and decision making, as part of broadening how we define and recognize merit.

Here, there are national lessons from the University of California, whose most selective campuses are still struggling to regain racial diversity that dropped after Proposition 209 passed in 1996. When the University of California and California State University dropped SAT/ACT requirements, it was in part triggered by a lawsuit from a coalition of Compton Unified School District and community groups. They argued test score requirements violated the rights of Black, Latinx and low-income students, especially without affirmative action as a counterbalance. Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic and additional research accelerated the national movement away from standardized tests. The Harvard/UNC decision should motivate many more colleges and universities to refine and make permanent their experiments with test-free and test-optional admissions, which fueled an increase in applications from Black, Latinx and Indigenous students.

Managing decision makers’ biases is equally important. In K-12 and postsecondary education, there is consistent evidence for rubrics as a tool that helps enable test-free and test-optional admissions, put guardrails on racial biases, and capture a fuller view of applicants. In a collaboration of five UC campuses and USC, led by co-author Posselt, 24 PhD programs eliminated GRE score requirements and adopted rubrics as part of an equity-minded approach to holistic admissions. The number and percentage of racially minoritized applicants, admitted students and enrollees all increased. Tools such as rubrics operate best as part of a larger change strategy, however.

Pay Attention to the Big Picture

Even equitable admissions is necessary but insufficient for diversity that enables higher education to serve the needs of this fragile democracy. As a faculty, our own research is a mosaic that reveals critical roles for outreach and recruitment; equitable transfer policies, especially from community colleges; overlooked groups including gang-affiliated youth and skateboarders; as well as professors’ racial literacy and mindsets about equity, which affect the interactions, climate, and sense of belonging that students experience. Systemic change is required to create learning environments where every student thrives and graduates with skills to address 21st century challenges.

The bigger picture also includes today’s political landscape. The SFFA cases and state-level bans that preceded them are part of a strategic, well-funded effort to return our country to a less-inclusive version of itself. That such attacks are happening as the country’s population is poised to become majority Black and Brown is not a coincidence. To retreat from confronting racism now would play into the hands of an organized, politically motivated movement that shows no sign of stopping at college admissions. Those of us who stand for a more just society need to be equally well organized.

We see every day in California the America that we are becoming, including the power and beauty of racial and ethnic diversity. In what may seem like a standoff between national demographics and national politics, we are ready to use every tool the law allows—including solidarity and coalition building—to protect diversity, advance equity, and remain vigilant to further attacks on Black and Brown communities. We invite you to join us in the same.

Signed by USC Higher Education Professors:

• Julie Posselt, associate professor, Rossier School of Education; associate dean, USC Graduate School
• Royel Johnson, associate professor, Rossier School of Education; co-chair, Ph.D. program
• Zoë Corwin, research professor,  Rossier School of Education
• Steve Desir, assistant research professor, Rossier School of Education
• Joseph Kitchen, associate research professor, Rossier School of Education
• Adrianna Kezar, dean’s distinguished professor, Rossier School of Education; director, Pullias Center for Higher Education
• Esther Chihye Kim, assistant teaching professor, Rossier School of Education
• Sheila M. Bañuelos, assistant professor of clinical education, Rossier School of Education
• Jerry Lucido, professor of clinical education, Rossier School of Education
• Adrian H. Huerta, assistant professor of education, Rossier School of Education
• Cory M. Buckner, assistant professor of clinical education, Rossier School of Education
• Robert A. Filback, professor of clinical education, Rossier School of Education; chair, MAT-TESOL Program; co-chair, Rossier Democracy Project
• Emily Chung, interim executive director, Rossier School of Education, Center for Enrollment Research, Policy and Practice
• Tatiana Melguizo, professor, Rossier School of Education
• Patricia Tobey, professor of clinical education, Rossier School of Education
• Dwuana Bradley, assistant professor, Rossier School of Education
• Shafiqa Ahmadi, professor of clinical education, founder and co-director of the Center for Education, Identity and Social Justice, Rossier School of Education
• Darnell Cole, professor of higher education and education psychology, co-director of the Center for Education, Identity and Social Justice, Rossier School of Education
• Mabel E. Hernandez, assistant research professor, Rossier School of Education
• Atheneus C. Ocampo, assistant professor of clinical education, Rossier School of Education
• Shaun Harper, University Professor and Provost Professor of Education and Business