No More Monoliths

Many colleges and universities have now released demographic student data for their first freshman class admitted after the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. As expected, those who have weaponized the decision to thwart progress on civil rights and racial justice quickly pointed to cherry-picked data to support their argument against fair access to educational opportunities. When several colleges reported the predictable decline in Asian American students, SFFA swiftly responded with hand-wringing and legal threats, accusing the colleges of circumventing the court’s decision.

But those who are working to strip away educational opportunities for underresourced communities are deriving narratives based on limited and opaque data that disregards key information about students’ identities, circumstances and strengths. We currently lack meaningful student data to determine the true impact of the Supreme Court’s decision, the barriers students face and the solutions needed to ensure equitable access to education for everyone.

Indeed, no clear trends emerge in the demographic data released to date. For example, the data does not tell us why some groups saw an increase in enrollment, such as Asian Americans at Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Latinos at University of Virginia, nor does it tell us who these Asian American and Latino students are. Are they wealthy or low-income? Are they predominantly from a few countries of origin in Asia or Latin America or a wide array? Are they descendants of immigrants or immigrants themselves? In other cases, data is simply missing; Harvard did not report white enrollees at all, and not all institutions allowed students to self-report as multiracial. Finally, the data also does not explain why some communities saw drastic changes in enrollment at some institutions while other communities saw only modest changes at others.

This is a key moment for higher education institutions to reassess their approach to data collection with a thoughtful understanding of student diversity. We have already seen how the misuse of Asian American student data was used to fuel the fight against race-conscious admissions. Too often, Asian American student and population data is collected and shared to represent a high-achieving monolithic race. It has been intentionally and unintentionally used to tell a skewed story.

Blanket data of Asian American students, without regard to factors like income level, ethnicity, immigration experience or language ability, perpetuates the model minority myth, obscuring the experiences of Asian American students who face barriers and would benefit from support and resources. Further, anti–racial justice advocates have long leveraged the model minority narrative to pit Asian Americans as icons of meritocracy against other communities of color when we are all fighting for fair access and opportunities. This is an old and persistent move from the white supremacist playbook.

Higher education institutions have the responsibility to collect and share demographic data that accurately shows the true impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to end race-conscious admissions in the SFFA cases, especially on Asian American students. We know that racial groups are not monolithic. Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (AANHPIs) are no different: Based on the U.S. Census alone, we comprise more than 26 ethnicities. We also have varying levels of English proficiency, unique immigration histories and the widest socioeconomic gap among any racial group. The enrollment data released by educational institutions does not meaningfully reflect any of this diversity within and across racial groups, including AANHPIs. As Asian Americans Advancing Justice–AAJC has shown through our work representing the student amici of Harvard and our communities across the country, there is no question that diversity benefits all students, and AANHPIs strongly support affirmative action.

Disaggregated data collection can paint a clearer picture of who is benefiting and who is being left behind when it comes to educational opportunities. Colleges and universities must collect and report disaggregated data a) on a set of universal metrics for all institutions (such as race, gender, grades, test scores, etc.), and b) on metrics that are relevant and pertinent to their institution (such as recruitment plans, financial aid availability, housing accessibility, etc.). Only then can we meaningfully assess what an institution is doing well and how it might improve. Without disaggregated race or ethnicity data, we cannot determine whether policies designed to diversify the student body, like need-based financial aid, test-free and -optional admissions policies, and percentage plans, will have sufficient impact.

Critics of race-conscious admissions are capitalizing on this data gap to continue their decades-long attacks on racial equity, diversity and opportunity across the country. Following the Supreme Court decision, SFFA leader Edward Blum sent 150 institutions a letter dissuading admissions offices from collecting student data that justifies the need for diversity on their campuses. This has had a chilling effect on accurate admissions data collection. But collecting detailed data is both permissible and necessary. Even the majority opinion in the Supreme Court decision advocates for more precise data. Detailed data will show each individual institution what is working well and what needs improvement. In an ironic turn of events, Blum and SFFA are asking some institutions why their Asian American enrollment declined—but to understand the impact of their policies and practices, institutions must first collect detailed data.

Diversity is complex, and so must be how we approach this work. A single data point, admissions policy or program is not going to solve our nation’s educational access problems. We need data that accurately reflects the identities and experiences of students. This is not the time to hide who we are and the diverse backgrounds that color our students’ identities, strengths, contributions and potential.