Candid Conversations: Experts Weigh Affirmative Action Decision for 2024

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that race-based admissions programs at two universities were unconstitutional, experts are still grappling with the ramifications of the decision. In a new Q&A feature, we speak to Wentworth Institute of Technology faculty and staff members—experts in the area—on how the decision is likely to impact higher education in the years to come. 

Panelists include: 

• Nicole Price, J.D.—Vice President of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—As a practicing attorney, she conducted employment work in affirmative action, but has always been involved in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) matters while working in higher education, and also had a brief stint in law school admissions.  
• Kristin Tichenor, Ed.D.—Senior Vice President for Enrollment—With 30 years of higher ed enrollment experience, she is focused on broadening access to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) degree programs for underrepresented populations.  
• Allen Wong, PhD—Associate Professor, Humanities and Social Sciences—With degrees in sociology and history, he has long taught classes on socioeconomics related to groups including college students. 
• Adam Payne, EdD—Assistant Professor, Humanities and Social Sciences— A professor of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology and psychology of leadership, he also spent time as an administrator for the multicultural center at another school in the area, focusing mainly on retention-oriented work for students of color. 

In the feature, these experts discuss a range of topics, including: 

• The potential impact of the decision on the diversity of student bodies at colleges and universities across the country 
• The role of affirmative action in promoting equity and opportunity in higher education 
• The implications of the decision for students of color, low-income students, and other underrepresented groups 
• The future of race-conscious admissions policies in the United States 

Greg Abazorius: What does the Supreme Court’s decision mean in the short term? 

Kristin Tichenor: At the very least, we are going to have to get more creative about how we do our work and how we live out our mission as educators and as advocates. I have participated in many conversations with colleagues at Wentworth and at other institutions who share our values and who share our commitment to Inclusive Excellence. Based on those conversations, I am confident there is a path forward for us to continue doing this important work. At the same time, we may need to change practices in some cases, and we will need to think about how to avoid the misperception of focusing on one population versus another. The work can still be done. It's just going to take more time and effort. 

Nicole Price: I think we have an opportunity to communicate more effectively. I think that this particular decision, for us, makes work harder. And for those of us who are in the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion, we were not surprised by the decision. As someone who is also a lawyer, I am troubled by the decision from a legal perspective, specifically how the Court reached their decision, but I was not surprised by the actual decision.  

This is an opportunity for folks to be very intentional about how we think about DEI...what are the reasons for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and then how do we go about actually coming to the goals that we're trying to establish, which is really around access and opportunity for everyone. I'm not talking about quotas, which I think is a misperception for many folks. Inclusive Excellence is really about trying to open the doors. 

Allen Wong: At UC Berkeley, after California instituted a statewide ban on race-based admissions decisions, there was an immediate and significant drop in applications from students of color, specifically African American students. And it wasn't just that they thought that they were not competitive enough, or they don't have assistance anymore, there are also folks who don't want to be in this sort of spotlight. There are multiple short-term immediate effects that we can see that have already happened on a state level.  

Kristin: There are a couple of things that can counterbalance those developments. One of them is the test optional movement, which has had an immediate and positive impact on diversifying pools, especially at places like Wentworth with a STEM focus. Schools have successfully signaled to students of all backgrounds that they will be given serious consideration for admission regardless of their standardized test scores, which we know favor students with a specific demographic and socioeconomic profile. 

States' Rights and Geographic Reach 

Greg: I think the idea of states' rights is an interesting one, because a location like Massachusetts often creates safeguards for certain social and civil protections. Does Wentworth become an even more attractive place for students that come from other parts of the country that do the opposite? And also knowing that there are programs at Wentworth specifically—like RAMP—that will help underserved populations get that extra step ahead?  

Nicole: I think it’s definitely an opportunity for us. And Kristen and her team, I know, have already been working on expanding our geographic reach. I think that we could be very intentional about looking at some places and spaces where we may be able to draw students that we haven't in the past.  

Kristin: I've spoken with colleagues who work at institutions in states that are perceived to be unwelcoming to certain populations.  They are struggling to attract students from the Northeast. We also have heard students who say, “I’d love to go to a certain college, but it's located in a state where they've passed some very concerning legislation. I'm not sure I really want to go there. Maybe I'll just stay here in New England for college.” 

Impact on Hiring and DEI Initiatives

Greg: How do you think this decision will affect hiring and various DEI initiatives at universities and—by extension—how it affects corporations and businesses? 

Adam Payne: I think with decisions like this one, it's kind of an excuse or a reason for some to not make [DEI] a priority. And I think [the decision] helps justify the people who feel that way. 

Kristin: To your point, Adam, the trustees of UNC (University of North Carolina) have done exactly that. They took a narrow court decision and have now used that as a rationale for a very broad-brush policy that cannot be seen as anything other than reactionary. As a matter of university policy, they have eliminated race, ethnicity, gender, and gender identity from any institutional decisions from hiring to enrollment. 

Allen: I think sometimes missing from the conversation might be, how are these decision makers viewing education as an institution, as a social institution? Do they think it's just an equal playing field for everyone? Or are they turning a blind eye intentionally or unintentionally? Is it possible that these politicians are unfamiliar with that sort of reality for a lot of the student population? 

Adam: It reminds me of a concept called dynamic conservatism where people preach an idea of change, particularly DEI-related efforts. But there's not a lot actually done. It's talked about as an important thing, but it's not prioritized through action.  

Allen: In our courses here, my sociology students will discuss hypothetical scenarios where you have two given students. One, let's say, is a legacy student, and the other is first generation from a low socioeconomic status background, et cetera, et cetera. The other is from a more affluent family with connections. They have identical ACT scores or SAT scores, identical level of involvement in extracurriculars and great recommendations, both of them. Who do we predict will excel more when they enter the same institution? 

[The Supreme Court decision] is asking if education really is such a neutral institution where everyone is playing on the same field? Or does education have the potential to perpetuate inequalities among different populations? Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists believe that the social institution of education can perpetuate inequalities. For instance, they point to Pierre Bordeaux’s concept of social capital—currency that can help us navigate a given environment. The decision seems to neglect studies that test the conflict theorists’ hypothesis on inequality in education.  

How to Lead After the Supreme Court Decision 

Greg: When we think about our current and future students, what are some ways that all of you are thinking about better educating young people on the importance of DEI, and to the significance of policy like affirmative action and why it existed? 

Nicole: History is actually a great place to start. But if you don't teach history at certain institutions, then I'm not sure where you go from there. 

Allen: They’re selectively teaching history. 

Nicole: Yes. 

The Role of Academic Freedom and Critical Thinking 

Greg: As a private institution, what are ways that we can ensure that we are teaching a true history and not picking and choosing what gets put in front of students? 

Allen: So, this one sounds self-serving, but academic freedom. I think if we have the academic freedom to follow the evidence, to follow research evidence where it goes, that may be one step. 

Adam: I would say from a classroom management standpoint, being a faculty member can be interesting. Sometimes you feel like you're running for office, right? I think it gets tricky when we think about being willing to lean into conversations that are going to be controversial. Being willing to have those conversations brings about a certain discomfort to students. But I think being able to have the conversation, no matter how it happens, is important for people to be able to walk away and think for themselves about what it really means and connect that back to whatever their values are. 

Allen: The conversations are important. Academic freedom is important, but sometimes you are working against decades of long held beliefs. What is one course in one semester going to do to, against decades of beliefs? So that's a challenge that I've been trying to take on. Say for instance, when we're analyzing the criminal justice system minority over representation phenomenon, I actually have students dig up the data themselves before I even introduce that terminology. They look at the data, look at the imprisonment rates for the states. As educators, we need to equip students with a critical mind, so that they can ask questions. Asking questions is pivotal in students’ journey even beyond their college careers. Understanding data sources, and their importance, can help us ask better and more informed questions.  

Nicole:  Following part of what Alan was saying, we have faculty and staff who come to us with decades of knowledge. And so, in order to effectuate change, it's going to take time. And I think at least for me, that's the harder part, right? Because we're trying to make change, but you're changing a belief that has perhaps been embedded in someone else for many years. 

I think as an institution, one of the big things is we actually keep at it. You can be discouraged and decisions like this can actually cause people to question the point of the work. And I think that's when we get in real trouble, when people stop trying. Now is the time to redouble our efforts and continue at it from different perspectives. These candid conversations are another way to perhaps get a conversation going.  

We continue to try to offer different resources to help people engage in different ways. It's lots of different things and it's lots of different people who are part of the equation. And it's everybody. It's not just people in DEI or sociology professors or the Enrollment team. It's everybody.