The recent admissions data released by several colleges following the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action has stirred confusion among experts and admissions officials. Prior to the ruling, there was widespread expectation that eliminating race as a consideration would cause the proportion of Black students at highly selective schools to drop, while Asian American students’ representation would rise. In many institutions, this expectation was met. However, some striking exceptions have emerged: Yale saw the proportion of Black students remain the same, Duke experienced an increase, and, most surprisingly, Harvard—one of the primary targets of a lawsuit alleging discrimination against Asian students—reported no change in the percentage of Asian students admitted. These results have left many puzzled, but for those examining this through a Christian conservative lens, the confusion is not so unexpected.

The Problem of Inconsistent Narratives

Universities like Harvard and others had previously insisted that without the latitude to consider race as a significant factor, they would be unable to meet their “diversity” goals. This line of reasoning was presented to the Supreme Court during the recent hearings. Yet now, these same institutions are claiming success in achieving diversity without affirmative action, casting serious doubt on their earlier arguments. As Steven Hayward pointed out, universities are either lying to the Court or circumventing the law through some other means.

This inconsistency speaks to a deeper issue: the obsession with race in college admissions and the ways it has become a manipulative tool rather than a genuine pursuit of equality. If universities were truly concerned with fairness and merit, they would embrace a colorblind admissions process. Instead, the constant focus on racial quotas and achieving diversity for its own sake only continues to breed inequality.

The Racism of Low Expectations

The obsession with racial composition in college admissions reveals an underlying, often unspoken assumption—that Black students cannot succeed without some form of preferential treatment. This belief is, in itself, a subtle form of racism, sometimes referred to as the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” When institutions admit students based on lowered standards, they send the message that these students cannot compete on the same level as their peers from other racial backgrounds. This approach does not promote equality but perpetuates a harmful stereotype that suggests some races are inherently less capable of academic achievement.

When affirmative action policies were ended in California, Black graduation rates saw a notable increase. This wasn’t because the students themselves had changed, but because they were no longer being funneled into elite schools where they struggled to meet the academic demands. Instead, students were admitted to institutions where their qualifications more closely aligned with the expectations of the school. As a result, more Black students successfully completed their degrees, demonstrating that setting appropriate academic standards leads to better outcomes for all students.

Setting Students Up for Failure

Admitting students based on factors like race, rather than academic merit, ultimately sets them up for failure. A student who is accepted into a highly selective university because of race-based preferences may find themselves unprepared for the rigors of that institution. Instead of helping students succeed, such policies push them into environments where they are more likely to struggle and drop out, unable to compete academically with their peers.

Rather than admitting students to schools where they may not be equipped to succeed, universities should focus on admitting those whose academic backgrounds have prepared them for the challenges ahead. When race is removed from the equation, the admissions process can prioritize talent and hard work, creating a more equitable and effective system for all students.

The Real Problem Begins Long Before College

Race should never be considered in admissions. Instead, the focus should be on addressing the inequalities that exist in primary and secondary education. The real tragedy of the American education system is that students from certain racial and socioeconomic backgrounds are often left without the foundational skills needed to succeed at higher levels of education. By the time these students reach the college admissions process, it is too late to address these deficiencies.

Efforts to improve the educational opportunities for all students must begin much earlier—at the elementary and secondary levels. Schools should be equitably funded, teachers should be held accountable for performance, and students should be provided with the resources they need to succeed regardless of their background. Only then will we see true equality in educational outcomes.

The current focus on diversity in college admissions is a band-aid solution to a much deeper problem. Until we address the systemic issues that prevent students from receiving a quality education from a young age, attempting to “fix” disparities in higher education is futile. The disparities that affirmative action attempts to address are symptoms of a broken system that fails children long before they apply to college.

Conclusion

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action, many universities are scrambling to maintain their diversity narratives. Yet, as recent admissions data show, achieving racial quotas does little to address the more pressing issue of academic preparedness. The focus should not be on race, but on merit and ensuring all students—regardless of race—are provided with the tools and resources they need from the very start of their education. It is time to abandon the divisive, race-based admissions policies that do more harm than good and work toward building a truly fair and equitable system.