“Race should be considered in admissions.”

In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious college admissions, ruling that weighing race as a factor in individual decisions violates equal protection. The dissenting justices didn't dispute that the ruling would shrink Black and Hispanic enrollment at selective schools — and in the years since, that's largely borne out, with many high-achieving students of color shifting toward less selective institutions.

The core disagreement isn't about whether Black Americans have historically faced systemic barriers to opportunity — both sides broadly agree on that history. It's about whether the right response is to weigh race directly in admissions decisions today, or whether doing so is itself a form of discrimination the Constitution forbids, however well-intentioned. One side argues that historical and ongoing racial disparities are the reason race-conscious remedies remain necessary. The other argues that classifying people by race — even to help them — treats individuals as representatives of a group rather than as individuals, which is exactly what equal protection was meant to prevent.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (a leg up is justified): argued that admissions programs accounting for race are inseparable from the race-linked gaps in wealth and opportunity that still shape American life, and warned that banning race-conscious admissions would extend, not shorten, the need for such policies by leaving the underlying inequities unaddressed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor (colorblindness ignores reality): wrote that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees racial equality that "can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind" — meaning treating everyone identically today, after generations of unequal treatment, isn't the same as treating them equally. Justice Clarence Thomas (any racial classification is discrimination): concurred to "clarify that all forms of discrimination based on race — including so-called affirmative action — are prohibited under the Constitution," building on his longstanding view that government "benign discrimination" meant to help a group "thought to be disadvantaged" is still "racial discrimination, plain and simple." Richard Kahlenberg, class-based affirmative action researcher (a middle path — address disadvantage without race): argues selective colleges "can get even more diversity without affirmative action than they even could through it — not just racial diversity but class diversity," by weighing income and family circumstance directly instead of race. His caveat: "It's just more expensive. But that's a question of values and priorities, not feasibility."