JURIST Guest Columnist Evan Jaffe of St. John’s University School of Law Class of 2016, is the fourth author in a twelve-part series from the staffers of the Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development. Jaffe discusses whether economic and social class can replace race in the university admission process to increase diversity in the universities…

Universities want diversity, that much is clear. You see it in their mission statements. But how do they get it? For decades, colleges used race as a primary plus factor in a holistic review of applicants in the admissions process. At the same time, colleges could not employ racial quotas to achieve racial diversity. Now, it appears using race to achieve diversity has run out of steam. Racial diversity has plateaued or fallen at many universities. With the court’s recent holding in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, eight states now have broad bans on the use of race in higher education admissions. Furthermore, modern attitudes towards the use of race in college admissions have changed. Today, people understand that where you go to college matters and they do not like the idea of race counting in who gets ahead. So what if there was something else that could increase diversity? Or even supplement the use of race as an important plus factor? The answer is class.

In order for colleges to achieve more economic and racial diversity, class should be given more weight as a plus factor in the holistic application process. Class-based affirmative action is better for the future because it will not only increase enrollment in higher education for low-income students but also increase racial diversity. At the same time, race should still be employed as a plus factor as it is a necessary factor to achieving diversity. While race-based affirmative action has been successful in boosting diversity in higher education, the efforts only go so far.

Racial and economic diversity at selective universities, both public and private, has barely budged as schools are caught in a bind between satisfying the diversity constraint and avoiding harm to the general academic standing of the school. As these universities search for the “well-rounded” applicant they are equally constrained by limited financial aid, public relations campaigns to maintain relevance and most of all, the need to sustain elite rankings due to high SAT and GPA scores. In addition, for states that have banned the use of race in admissions, there has been a noticeable drop in minority representation at public undergraduate institutions; therefore, removing race from the equation is detrimental to maintaining racial diversity.

This is where class comes in. Class-based policies are designed to give a boost to applicants who have faced obstacles in college admissions. Since demographic factors like parental income and education directly correlate to a student’s school performance, proponents of class-conscious affirmative action support this boost as a means to level the playing field. Schools that target class status as a plus factor can capture not only low-income candidates but also those minorities that overlap in this category. Focusing on class serves the dual-purpose of bringing in more economic and racial diversity while providing an opportunity for these students to increase future professional and economic prospects.

Recent research from states that have banned, supplemented or replaced race-based affirmative action with class-based policies shows effective, targeted and wide-ranging class-based policies increased admission rates for low-income students and minorities. Several factors played a role in maintaining or enhancing racial diversity in light of a shift to class-based preferences: use of percentage plans which are race/class neutral; expansion of Pell grants; among others. In fact, a 2010 study at the University of Colorado, Boulder suggests that some universities may be able to equal, or even exceed, the racial diversity they previously had if they provide a sufficiently large boost to socioeconomically disadvantaged students.

Considering the enormous impact college education has on future earnings schools must invest more resources to reach these students. Colleges already employ substantial resources to reach students. Universities should expand the scope by using targeted outreach programs such as local recruiting fairs, free college tours, and mailings for low-income students. By reaching students who may not know they are qualified for admission, schools provide opportunities to those who need it most.

Although class-based affirmative action offers promise to disadvantaged groups, critics offer several counter-arguments to using class instead of race. Chief among the complaints is class is not a suitable proxy for race. While various scholars may debate the exact correlation between class and race, the fact remains we should still use race as a plus factor. A more comprehensive solution employs both class and race, with class being a more pronounced plus factor to achieve a broader range of diversity.

According to some scholars, fighting discrimination with discrimination made sense in the past because racial disparities in higher education and employment could not be corrected through prospective anti-discriminatory laws and policies. But other scholars stress that the economic and professional landscape has changed dramatically since the 1960s, providing ammunition to the notion that using race to counteract structural racism is not necessary in 21st Century America.

With the court’s recent affirmation in Fisher v. University of Texas about the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education, an exciting opportunity exists for colleges to look at a shift to a class-based system. Colleges should still employ race as a significant plus factor to ensure racial diversity; at the same time, more focus on class brings into the fray more low-income students as well as low-income minority applicants. Providing more college opportunities to low-income students creates hope for upward economic and social mobility for this once forgotten segment of the admissions landscape.

Evan Jaffe is a third-year law student at St. John’s University School of Law. Evan is Senior Staff of the Journal for Civil Rights and Economic Development. He currently works as an intern with the Queens County District Attorney’s Office in the Domestic Violence Bureau.

Suggested citation: Evan Jaffe, Class is Where it’s at: Affirmative Action and College Admissions in the 21st Century , JURIST – Dateline, Nov. 4, 2015, http://jurist.org/dateline/2015/11/evan-jaffe-affirmative-action.php.