That animals avoid environments which seem unhealthy due to predators or poor conditions is a well-documented ecological phenomenon. Humans are no different. We, too, instinctively avoid environments that look unhealthy or unwelcoming.
It is therefore time to connect the dots among efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities, overturn race-conscious admissions, and bring back standardized tests. These trends are connected in their overtly political origins and in the chilling effect they may create. Universities risk undermining diversity by signaling unwelcoming conditions for the same populations who, for centuries, were formally excluded. By being proactive with admissions, recruitment, and advising, however, we can reduce this risk.
Dr. Julie Posselt
Admissions systems captivate the public because they represent possibility and gateways to status, because they are somewhat opaque, and because unfairness in what we can see often violates deeply rooted values and supports our cynical thoughts. People pointed to the Operation Varsity Blues admissions scandal and said, “See? Elite institutions are corrupt, and the rich are manipulating it.” Similarly, talented students of color have seen MIT reinstate standardized test requirements in the same year that affirmative action was prohibited and said, “See? They don’t really care about diversity. It’s not worth it for me to apply.”
There is much to learn from states that have been subject to bans on affirmative action. Research suggests that we send cues affecting underrepresented students’ aspirations, application, and enrollment decisions through three channels: public policies, admissions requirements, and recruitment and advising interactions.
What happens after affirmative action bans?
