Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
The Review

Harvard Has a Choice on Diversity — and It’s Not About Race

By Richard D. Kahlenberg November 12, 2018
Harvard Has a Choice on Diversity — and It’s Not About Race 1
Stuart Bradford for The Chronicle

How should educators think about affirmative action in the age of Donald Trump? On the one hand, President Trump’s polarizing rhetoric underlines why it is so important to provide educational settings that bring students of different backgrounds together to learn to understand and respect one another. On the other hand, Trump’s rise suggests that the old ways of creating diversity — using large racial preferences that tend to benefit wealthier students of color — come at a considerable price for the nation. Research has long found that the mere mention of “affirmative action” triggers negative racial attitudes. Such policies can feed the idea that white working-class people have been “forgotten.”

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Harvard Has a Choice on Diversity — and It’s Not About Race 1
Stuart Bradford for The Chronicle

How should educators think about affirmative action in the age of Donald Trump? On the one hand, President Trump’s polarizing rhetoric underlines why it is so important to provide educational settings that bring students of different backgrounds together to learn to understand and respect one another. On the other hand, Trump’s rise suggests that the old ways of creating diversity — using large racial preferences that tend to benefit wealthier students of color — come at a considerable price for the nation. Research has long found that the mere mention of “affirmative action” triggers negative racial attitudes. Such policies can feed the idea that white working-class people have been “forgotten.”

At the recent trial examining Harvard’s use of race in admissions, one of the important questions raised was whether there is a better, less divisive way of creating diversity. What would happen if colleges adopted a more robust vision of diversity that resulted in inclusion by both race and socioeconomic status? While the dueling placards of demonstrators suggested the battle was between those defending diversity and those advocating race-neutral admissions, could race-neutral strategies be structured in a way that recognized the impact of discrimination? In my personal capacity, I served as an expert witness for Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiffs in the case, I concluded from the evidence that there are new, better paths to diversity.

Advocates of racial preferences suggested that diversity would plunge if Harvard stopped using race — and if nothing more was done, that would be true. Mark G. Yudof and Rachel F. Moran, writing in The Chronicle, cited a 2013 Harvard Office of Institutional Research study that found that if grades and test scores were the sole basis of admissions, African-American admissions would plummet from 10 percent to 1 percent and Hispanic shares would drop from 9 percent to 2 percent.

Harvard’s expert witness, David Card of the University of California at Berkeley, likewise projected that if Harvard dropped explicit racial preferences and kept its holistic admission process that rates students on academics, extracurricular activities, athletics, and personal characteristics, black admissions in the class of 2019 would drop from 14 percent to 6 percent, and Hispanic admissions would decline from 14 percent to 9 percent.

But what would happen if Harvard took additional race-neutral steps to make the admissions process fairer? Using data from 160,000 Harvard applicants over a six-year period, Students for Fair Admissions modeled the effects of various changes in the admissions process. We began by eliminating the various preferences Harvard currently employs that disproportionately benefit white and wealthy students, such as being a legacy candidate, a child of faculty or staff, or being on a special “dean’s interest” list. We then simulated what would happen if Harvard gave a preference to socioeconomically disadvantaged students of a magnitude that is about half the size of the preference Harvard currently gives to recruited athletes.

The result? Student diversity levels — racial/ethnic and socioeconomic — would rise. For the class of 2019, the share of first-generation college students would increase from 7 percent to 25 percent. This presumably would make classroom conversations more interesting in an institution that Raj Chetty, then at Stanford University, found in a 2017 study has had 23 times as many rich students as poor students. Under the simulation, the shares of underrepresented minorities would also increase from 28 percent currently, to 30 percent. Hispanic student shares would double from 10 percent to 20 percent. African-American shares would drop from 14 percent to 10 percent — a level that was common at Harvard for many years, including as recently as the admitted class of 2016.

And the truth is that Harvard could do even better, if it would consider the wealth or net worth of applicants’ families. Harvard’s failure to do so now effectively penalizes African-American applicants in the aggregate. Professor Dalton Conley, of Princeton, has found that a family’s wealth better reflects the nation’s legacy of slavery and segregation than factors like income because wealth is handed down from generation to generation. African-Americans typically have incomes that are 60 percent of white incomes, but African-American median wealth is just 10 percent of white wealth.

Wealth is important to a student’s life chances, Conley explains, because “educational advantages are acquired through major capital investments and decisions,” such as purchasing a home in a neighborhood with good public schools. Adding wealth data into the simulation would be the fair thing to do and would boost African-American shares.

Notably, Harvard could produce strong levels of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity without compromising academic excellence. The simulated class would have SAT scores at the 98th percentile and high-school grades as high as the current class — even though many more of the students would have had to overcome economic obstacles. And with its $39-billion endowment, Harvard could easily increase the amount of financial-aid dollars it would need to give to the growing number of socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants admitted under such a system.

Some people argue that even if socioeconomic preferences can achieve racial diversity, race should nevertheless be considered as a factor to signal that society believes that race continues to matter. But consideration of socioeconomic indicators does not suggest race is irrelevant; instead, socioeconomic preferences produce racial diversity precisely because race matters.

ADVERTISEMENT

Martin Luther King Jr. clearly recognized this when he suggested that America needed affirmative action as a remedy for its history of discrimination in the form of a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged. The program would disproportionately benefit black victims of discrimination, King said, but would also benefit poor whites as “a simple matter of justice.” That inclusive idea of affirmative action is a far cry from Harvard’s current system.

If Harvard ultimately loses its case, its admirable commitment to racial diversity will almost surely cause it to transition to a more robust vision of affirmative action that results in not only substantial racial diversity but socioeconomic diversity as well. Doing so would move America’s oldest college away from its current lopsided economic profile, in which there are more students from the top 10 percent of the nation’s income distribution than from the bottom 90 percent. Along the way, Harvard would recognize more fully the rich talent that researchers have found exists throughout the socioeconomic and racial distribution of the country.

Richard D. Kahlenberg is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and author of The Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative Action (Basic Books, 1996). The opinions expressed in this essay are his own and not necessarily those of the foundation.

A version of this article appeared in the November 30, 2018, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Admissions & Enrollment Innovation & Transformation Opinion Race
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Richard D. Kahlenberg
Richard D. Kahlenberg is director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute and author of Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Harvard Is Challenged on Whether Socioeconomic Status Should Replace Race as Admissions Factor

More News

Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through a flat black and white university building and a landscape bearing the image of a $100 bill.
Budget Troubles
‘Every Revenue Source Is at Risk’: Under Trump, Research Universities Are Cutting Back
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome topping a jar of money.
Budget Bill
Republicans’ Plan to Tax Higher Ed and Slash Funding Advances in Congress
Allison Pingree, a Cambridge, Mass. resident, joined hundreds at an April 12 rally urging Harvard to resist President Trump's influence on the institution.
International
Trump Administration Revokes Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students
Photo-based illustration of an open book with binary code instead of narrative paragraphs
Culture Shift
The Reading Struggle Meets AI

From The Review

Illustration of a Gold Seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
What Trump’s Accreditation Moves Get Right
By Samuel Negus
Illustration of a torn cold seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
The Weaponization of Accreditation
By Greg D. Pillar, Laurie Shanderson
Protestors gather outside the Pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles on Wednesday, May 1, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Are Colleges Rife With Antisemitism? If So, What Should Be Done?
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin