Implications of the 2023 Supreme Court Decision to Ban Race-Conscious Admissions at Colleges and Universities for Educational Attainment and Economic Mobility

Overview

The Russell Sage Foundation, in collaboration with the Hewlett, Spencer, and William T. Grant foundations, seeks to support innovative research on the effects of the Supreme Court decision on a diversity of outcomes—from who attends college and where and the extent to which alternatives to race-conscious policies contribute to educational attainment and economic mobility among different groups in the population. Our interests extend beyond the effects on applications, admissions, enrollment, and degree completion and include the downstream effects, including whether and how the decision alters the college-to-career pipeline that many employers rely on to diversify their workforce, and the factors associated with public opposition to and support for race-conscious policies.

We are especially interested in proposals that will advance social science research on the social, political, and economic effects of the Supreme Court decision and the future of race-conscious policies more generally. Examples of the kinds of topics and questions that are of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

• What are the short- and long-run effects of the June 2023 Supreme Court ruling that restricts race-conscious policies in university and college admissions on who attends college and where?
• What has experience with the direct admissions or percentage plans of California, Texas, and other states revealed about what happens to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity in enrollment and degree completion when race-conscious admission policies are no longer permissible for undergraduates or graduate students?
• Which alternatives to race-conscious policies, whether independently or in tandem, generate socioeconomic and racial and ethnic diversity in applications, admissions, enrollment, debt-free degree completion, and social mobility?
• To what extent are the beneficiaries of race-conscious admissions policies, who enroll in selective colleges and universities, more or less likely to graduate relative to those attending less-selective institutions?
• To what extent do race-neutral or alternative admissions policies contribute to the promotion of educational attainment and economic mobility among racially, ethnically, and economically diverse groups following the Supreme Court decision?
• What are the racial and socioeconomic composition effects of eliminating other admission practices such as early admissions, the use of standardized test scores, or the preferential treatment of the children of donors, alumni, faculty, and recruited athletes?
• To what extent will the race-conscious admissions ban impact the effort that high school students put into their studies, their educational aspirations, and their subsequent enrollment in higher education?
• What are the educational, social, and civic engagement benefits that derive from students’ interactions with classmates whose backgrounds, race and ethnicity, experiences, and political views differ from their own?
• What can we learn from historically Black colleges and universities (HBCU’s) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSI’s) on how to support retention, recruitment, and degree completion for students from marginalized groups?
•  What program or policy changes might provide the basis for addressing historical racial harm in the context of higher education access and economic mobility?
• To what extent might improvements in college affordability lead to the promotion of educational attainment and economic mobility among racially, ethnically, and economically diverse groups?
• To what extent will the Supreme Court decision alter the college-to-career pipeline that many employers rely on to diversify their workforce?
• To what extent is the Supreme Court decision affecting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D.E.I) initiatives in the recruitment, hiring, retention, promotion, and advancement of workers of color and or/other groups in higher education and in the private and public sectors?
• How are attitudes towards the use of race, ethnicity, or gender criteria in admissions, hiring, or contracting preferences formed? What factors are associated with opposition to and support for race-conscious policies? How might the framing of diversity, bias, opportunity, and/or mobility affect opposition or support for race-conscious policies?

We are particularly interested in analyses that make use of newly available data or demonstrate novel uses of existing data. We also support original data collection, such as surveys, field or survey experiments, in-depth qualitative interviews, and ethnographies. This initiative encourages methodological variety and inter-disciplinary collaboration. Proposals must have well-developed conceptual frameworks and research designs. Plans for analyses must be specified, and research questions and hypotheses (where applicable) must be clearly stated.

Funds can support research assistance, data acquisition, data analysis, and investigator time. Trustee grants are capped at $200,000, including 15 percent indirect costs, over a two-year period. Presidential awards, over a two-year period, are capped at $50,000 (no indirect costs), but at $75,000 (no indirect costs) when the proposed project involves original data collection or gaining access to restricted-use data.