Reinventing the Meaning of ‘Merit’ in Higher Education
Affirmative action has been effectively banned in higher education after a landmark Supreme Court decision last year. Many universities, including Ohio State, have relied on such policies to increase racial minorities in enrollment. Although almost half of Americans supported the ban of race-conscious admissions practices in the name of preserving true merit, the question remains how Ohio State plans to move forward with its commitment to a diverse student body in the wake of affirmative action.
Amani Bayo
John R. Oller Special Projects Editor
Ohio State’s class of 2027 is the “best prepared, most diverse class ever” — as was every other class since 2010.
The university saw its first major increase in racial minority enrollment during the ’90s and early 2000s, as a result of a diversity initiative that would admit more students belonging to racial minority groups.
By 2010, the number of racial minorities increased every year, reaching its peak last year with racial minorities making up 27% of the school’s 60,046 total enrolled students on Columbus campus.
Even at its most diverse, Ohio State ranked fifth in the 2022 U.S. News and World Report’s comparing Big Ten universities’ ethnic diversity rankings with a diversity index of 0.47. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating a more diverse student population.
These outcomes are a result of policies — including affirmative action — directly intended to do what Ohio State has been reporting for a decade: increasing diversity in higher education.
But now, in the wake of a June 29, 2023, landmark decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that effectively ended the use of race in college admission decisions, race-based affirmative action has ended in higher education.
This decision had the backing of 49% of Americans who believe race and ethnicity make admission processes less fair and take away from true merit qualities, according to a 2023 Pew research survey.
But what exactly is merit?
And why do almost half of Americans believe affirmative action policies stand in the way of qualities that competitive universities rely on to recruit the best prospective students?
These are questions that many institutions, including Ohio State, who have relied on affirmative action to promote diversity in enrollment, must answer.
An examination of archived and current enrollment reports by The Lantern shows universities in states that long ago banned affirmative action, including Michigan, Texas and California, found ways to maintain and increase diversity among students.
Still, many universities, including Ohio State, have been reluctant to be interviewed given this critical period of reform.
Ohio State officials released a statement shortly after the Supreme Court ruling last year expressing a commitment to comply with the law. When asked about how admissions will move forward to pursue their diversity initiative without affirmative action, a spokesperson said university enrollment officials could not “accommodate an interview at this time.”
Although university leaders have chosen not to publicly speak on new policies while undergoing this transition, likely due to the threat of potential lawsuits, the question remains how institutions of higher education can lawfully still pursue diversity in enrollment.
Defining Merit
Webster’s Dictionary defines merit as “character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem.”
Using this definition, the landmark decision concluded that race is not one of these characteristics.
“Many universities have for too long concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in his ruling.
Yet others, like Mayah Lubin, senior higher education equity coordinator for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law — a nonprofit civil rights organization meant to pursue equity for all races and ethnicities under the law — would beg to differ.
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts attends the State of the Union address on Feb. 7, 2023, in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
Credit: Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/Getty Images/TNS
“Many universities have for too long concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin,” Roberts said.
Mayah Lubin is a Higher Education Equity Senior Coordinator for the Educational Opportunities Project, supporting the Higher Education Equity Pledge: REASON development and implementation
Courtesy of Lawyers Committee
“Merit has historically been utilized as a weapon to exclude people of color not just from higher education but from other opportunities like employment,” Lubin said. “Affirmative action was put into place for the government and for our society to act affirmatively to ensure that there was equal opportunity.”
Ohio State students like Alec Tam, a fourth-year and co-president of the Council on Minority Public Affairs, said merit is an American dream ideal that many minorities strive for despite systemic barriers.
“It’s all about just achieving that dream, and there’s inherent pressure that you have to do this and do this to be seen on equal footing as those that you have viewed as the ruling class,” Tam said.
“Merit has historically been utilized as a weapon to exclude people of color not just from higher education but from other opportunities like employment,” Lubin said. “Affirmative action was put into place for the government and for our society to act affirmatively to ensure that there was equal opportunity.”
Similarly, the end of affirmative action raises concern for other students like fourth-year Ariam Gabriel, co-president of the Council on Minority Public Affairs, who worry minority applicants from poorly funded schools will choose not to pursue higher education.
“I think it more makes me wonder what about those people who will now be disheartened to apply,” Gabriel said.
Now, the future of college admissions — and Ohio State’s minority enrollment streak — is uncertain in the absence of affirmative action.
Looking back on how affirmative action has influenced enrollment in higher education and how lead figures are responding to this ban points to a new call to action universities must answer concerning how they will reshape the idea of what merit can be.
Inside the Case
Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group with over 20,000 members, was founded on the basis that “race should not help or hurt someone’s chances to be admitted into a competitive college or university.”
The group sued Harvard University and the University of North Carolina on this principle, specifically arguing that the use of race as a factor in competitive admissions at both schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Supporters of racial preferences in admissions prefer to disguise the practice with the words ‘affirmative action,’ which implies a benign helping hand, rather than the ugly reality of bias based on skin color,” the SFFA newsroom said.
Advocates for affirmative action reject the idea that the policy offers unfair preferences and instead consider it a necessary strategy to remedy systemic barriers to equal opportunity.
“Race had been considered as a factor of a factor of a factor,” Lubin said. “No one was getting into these institutions because they were Black, because they were Latin.”
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of SFFA, citing that Harvard and UNC failed to uphold “strict scrutiny,” where race should only be used for narrowly tailored interests.
The decision was justified with the same Equal Protection Clause implemented during the Civil Rights movement to remedy discrimination against Black Americans. The majority opinion said Harvard and UNC’s policies had given Black and Latinx applicants preference over white and Asian applicants.
This decision did not come without pushback from other justices. Among others, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued the decision was a major drawback to promoting inclusivity in schools.
“Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added in the dissenting opinion.
Additionally, the Lawyers Committee played a role in submitting letters in support of affirmative action from Harvard alumni, commending its policies for removing systemic barriers on their own paths to academic success.
Amicus Curiae brief including personal anecdotes from Harvard alumni in support of affirmative action.
Courtesy of Lawyers Committee
Lubin said despite the final ruling, she believes those stories restrained the justices from making harsher rulings. Specifically, Lubin cited Clarence Thomas’ opinion on how race could still be mentioned indirectly in student applications.
“I think that their stories help the court not go as far as they could have gone with this ruling,” Lubin said. “Thomas made a caveat, saying that nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life.”
Cynthia A. Young is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of African American and African Studies at The Ohio State University.
Courtesy of Ohio State AAAS Department
Opponents of affirmative action criticized its policies for no longer serving its original purpose of rectifying discrimination. However, Cynthia Young, Ohio State’s director of African American and African studies, said its absence should not encourage the notion that such policies are not needed to remedy unequal access to quality education.
“If you have created all of these structural barriers to racial equity, the second you say that those barriers are gone doesn’t mean that everyone is equal. That’s not how structures work,” Young said. “[Some students] are a byproduct of schools in poorer neighborhoods, which historically have been those populated by Latinx people, Black people, et cetera. Their property values are worth less, which means that there’s less income generated from that property to go to their schools.”
“[Some students] are a byproduct of schools in poorer neighborhoods, which historically have been those populated by Latinx people, Black people, et cetera. Their property values are worth less, which means that there’s less income generated from that property to go to their schools.”
History of Affirmative Action
Despite the rapid onboarding of equal opportunity policies during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, affirmative action has seen many days in court. Shortly after it was implemented, a 1978 case determined colleges could use race as a factor but could not use racial quota systems.
Over the years, the scope of affirmative action policies became narrower. In 2003, a case said the use of race in admissions decisions could be used to further “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”
The transition from an urgent need for affirmative action as a remedy to fulfilling the interests of colleges to now being a complete violation of the Fourteenth Amendment also reflects changes in American society, Young said.
Although a post-racist American society is idealized, it’s not yet a reality, Lubin said.
“Data speaks otherwise, our economy speaks otherwise and the percentage of who’s represented and who’s not represented in college says otherwise. Our K-12 systems’ inequities and funding, they all say otherwise,” Lubin said.
Nevertheless, with these changes over the years, universities across the country have made their own decisions as to whether they will use affirmative action.
Like universities in Ohio, other large public state universities have expressed commitments to promoting diversity in their student body. Unlike Ohio, some states have had to pursue this initiative without the support of affirmative action policies before the recent ruling.
U.S. states that banned the use of affirmative action prior to June 2023 ruling.
Credit: Molly Goheen | Managing Editor for Digital Content
Bar graph of diversity statistics at Michigan State University, 2016-2023.
Credit: Molly Goheen | Managing Editor for Digital Content
Michigan banned affirmative action in 2006. Ten years later, Michigan State University’s total racial minority undergraduate enrollment was 20%. Of this, about 7% of students identified as Black, 4% Hispanic and 5% Asian.
Today, that figure has jumped to 25.4%. Of this, Black students make up 6.51%, Hispanics 6.24% and Asians 8%, according to an MSU statistical enrollment report.
Although the state of Texas banned affirmative action in 1996, the University of Texas at Austin was the only public university to still consider race in admissions, according to the Texas Tribune.
According to public records, 5% of the enrolled student population at UT Austin identified as Black, Asian and Hispanic in 1973.
Today, out of the 53,082 undergraduate students enrolled, about 53% identify as Black and Hispanic.
Bar graph of diversity statistics at University of Texas at Austin, 1973-2023.
Credit: Molly Goheen | Managing Editor for Digital Content
“Affirmative action was a tool for our nation to act affirmatively to right systemic wrong. However, it was never meant to be a silver bullet,” Lubin said. “There is a plethora of things that institutions can do to ensure equitable access, starting with recruitment.”
Many other factors play a role in promoting racial diversity in higher education such as state demographics. Lubin said affirmative action was not supposed to be the only solution to increasing racial minority enrollment. She also said the differences in the student body point to systemic disparities in education rather than minorities cyclically lacking qualifiable merit.
“Affirmative action was a tool for our nation to act affirmatively to right systemic wrong. However, it was never meant to be a silver bullet,” Lubin said. “There is a plethora of things that institutions can do to ensure equitable access, starting with recruitment.”
California also outlawed affirmative action in 1996, yet the UC Davis School of Medicine adopted a unique way to fulfill the interests of a diverse student body without the direct use of affirmative action.
Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri, chair of the UC Davis School of Medicine Admissions Committee, said in an email that in addition to academic talent, the UC Davis scale — famously known as adversity scores — contains factors for student applications including parental income, education and growing up in a medically underserved area. She said this strategy is crucial to recruiting the best talent.
“We believe the ability to overcome such obstacles is a reflection of grit, resilience, and commitment — as well as the ability to connect with patients from all walks of life — important qualities for the medical workforce needed in California and elsewhere,” Dr. Shakeri said.
UC Davis School of Medicine had decades to come up with a program that has earned them the title of most diverse and competitive medical school in the country, according to U.S. News & World Report.
“It requires a huge investment. It’s taken our team well over a decade to achieve these results,” Dr. Shakeri said. “This process has taken a large-scale institutional commitment, and it’s been a slow but gradual undertaking after affirmative action was banned in California.”
Chair of UC Davis School of Medicine Admissions Committee and Chief Director of Breast Radiology.
Courtesy of UC Davis School of Medicine
Ohio State’s Diversity
Hours after the Supreme Court’s decision, Ohio State officials released a statement expressing the university’s commitment to make immediate changes to comply with the law such as reviewing programs involved in race-conscious admissions.
“Any application question or line item requesting an applicant’s race or ethnicity was removed from all materials provided to application readers or other individuals participating in admissions decisions,” the university statement said.
Scholarships and programs intended to promote diversity and minority enrollment have now been put under strategic review to ensure there is no violation of the law.
“To allow programs to begin admitting applicants, work is ongoing to train admissions staff, finalize evaluation criteria and review scholarship awards,” the statement said. “Revised evaluation tools, including evaluation rubrics, are being developed and must be approved before use in the admissions process.”
The programs intended to fulfill this commitment face structural changes as a result of the ruling. For instance, the Morrill Scholarship Program, known for offering students paid tuition for their advocacy in diversity, is said to be undergoing a critical period of reform following the ruling, according to program director Robert Decatur.
Pie chart of Ohio State diversity statistics in 1975 and 2023.
Credit: Molly Goheen | Managing Editor for Digital Content
In 1975, minority student enrollment was 6.3% on Columbus’ campus. Specifically, Black students made up 5.44% and Hispanics made up roughly 0.3% of the population, Asians 0.5%.
A 2023 statistical report shows that of the 27% of students of color on Columbus campus, Black students, Hispanic students and Asian American students make up roughly 8%, 6% and 9% of the student body, respectively.
For years, Ohio State has proudly reported its annual student minority population increase in enrollment announcements. With the absence of race-conscious policies, many wonder if the same news will be announced next autumn.
Other smaller, more private universities like Otterbein University relied on a different approach to promote diversity in enrollment.
Mark Moffitt, executive director of the admission enrollment division at Otterbein, said they can intentionally target minority demographics that are heavily populated in urban areas by reaching prospective students at underserved high schools to prepare them for the rigor and qualities needed to succeed.
“Over the years we have really worked with building relationships with our school counselors in urban districts in letting those schools have an understanding of the opportunities that students have in our mind, whether they’re traditional students that look to go off to college or they’re coming from an underserved population,” Moffitt said.
Mark Moffitt is the Executive Director of the Admission Enrollment Management Division at Otterbein University.
Courtesy of Otterbein University
Moffit said despite the absence of affirmative action, the competition of retaining a diverse student body should be a central focus for universities in Ohio.
“We also live in a state that has 52 private four-year colleges and 14 public institutions, not including all their branch campuses,” Moffit said. “We have 88 counties in Ohio. Competition is very tough and institutions look at every possible advantage they may have to secure their incoming class.”
Dr. Shakeri said policies taking barriers to higher education into account should not be misconstrued as lowering standards to give less qualified students a chance.
“Some people erroneously assume that we admit students who are somehow ‘less than’ the usual standards,” she said. “In fact, diversity improves the impact of scientific teams and clinical care, so we admit individuals who bring more to the table, above and beyond being competent physicians.”
Dr. Shakeri said universities that have relied on affirmative action, like Ohio State, should look to those that have found alternative ways to improve both diversity and excellence of the institution.
“No single measure can tell the full story of a person and their capabilities,” Dr. Shakeri said.
“No single measure can tell the full story of a person and their capabilities,” Shakeri said.
A Look to the Future
Many are looking forward to the changes to come in the wake of affirmative action. Whether minority demographics will drop dramatically or increase is based on the qualities colleges and universities decide applicants should possess to make them deserving of admission. Young said this kind of reflection has always been the process for all admissions.
“I think if you actually thought about how admissions work, you would realize that the term merit is meaningless, or at least it is very open-ended because it sort of depends upon what values you have, right? Do you value having a campus where there are competitive athletes?” Young asked.
Regardless of the arguments made for and against race-based admissions, affirmative action was established to expire once America has rectified disproportionate access to higher education that hindered diverse enrollment. Yet many can make the argument that this goal hasn’t been achieved today.
“Wouldn’t that be everybody’s dream that there were no need for additional policies? I think we all want that. However, a multiracial, equitable democracy is realized — work for it. It does not just evolve,” Lubin said.
Lubin also said standardized test scores in themselves can not be fully reflective of student talent and potential contributions to a university.
“We’ve learned state tests are better predictors in many cases of socioeconomic status than it is of how you can contribute to a college community,” Lubin said.
Young said when factoring in housing segregation, unequal funding of schools and the failure of standardized tests to reflect actual student ability, it is impossible to measure an applicant’s ability solely based on the numbers they present.
“You cannot talk about income inequality without talking about race and gender and sexuality, et cetera, because of the structures of discrimination and the histories that go with those identities,” Young said.
“I think if you actually thought about how admissions work, you would realize that the term merit is meaningless, or at least it is very open-ended because it sort of depends upon what values you have, right?” Young asked.
However, that does not mean all hope is lost. Lubin said in light of many issues that pose a threat to diversity, equity and inclusion, there is no better time to fight hard for inclusivity.
Lubin said universities have a golden opportunity to prove how committed they are to maintaining a diverse student body. In the wake of affirmative action, universities must be intentional about recruitment, retention and pursuing opportunity for all.
The first step is reinventing merit.
Gabriel said the notion of no longer needing affirmative action policies is due to a lack of understanding that discrimination still exists heavily today.
“I think that in every space of our country, we do a very poor job of utilizing hindsight, and to look back as to why these things are in place,” Gabriel said. “When you don’t have to think about race or when that’s not something that is part of your training of thought on a day-to-day basis, of course you would say, why does it matter?”
Regardless of the arguments made for and against race-based admissions, affirmative action was established to expire once America has rectified disproportionate access to higher education that hindered diverse enrollment. Yet many can make the argument that this goal has yet to be achieved today.
“Wouldn’t that be everybody’s dream that there were no need for additional policies? I think we all want that. However, a multiracial, equitable democracy is realized, work for it, it does not just evolve,” Lubin said.
“When you don’t have to think about race or when that’s not something that is part of your training of thought on a day-to-day basis, of course you would say, why does it matter?” Gabriel asked.
Words by Amani Bayo
Cover Art by Abby Fricke
Web Design by Gaurav Law