Affirmative action in higher education was designed to expand access for underrepresented minority students, particularly Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous populations. These policies addressed systemic inequalities rooted in segregation, discrimination, and socioeconomic disparities, allowing universities to consider race as one factor in admissions. Race-conscious admissions provided historically marginalized students access to selective institutions, increasing campus diversity and long-term social mobility through networks, academic resources, and post-graduate opportunities. This study asks whether institutional resources-financial aid, endowment size, and tuition discount rates-can offset enrollment declines for Black students following affirmative action bans.
Following the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling ending race-conscious admissions, concerns have arisen about a "cascade effect," where students who might attend highly selective universities enroll at less selective institutions or forgo college entirely. Earlier state-level bans, such as California's Proposition 209, suggest removal of race-conscious admissions reduces Black student representation at selective universities while redistributing students to less selective campuses.
This study examines whether institutional financial capacity-financial aid, endowment size, and discount rates-can mitigate these outcomes. Using IPEDS data, the analysis compares Black student enrollment across public, private, and liberal arts colleges. Independent variables include institutional endowment, total enrollment, first-year enrollment, and financial aid indicators by race. California Proposition 209 universities serve as a comparative case to evaluate whether the nationwide ban produces similar patterns.
Research shows affirmative action bans reduce Black representation at selective institutions while redistributing students to less selective ones. Institutional resources, including endowment wealth, financial aid, and discount rates, may influence universities' ability to maintain diversity. Counterarguments, such as the minority mismatch hypothesis, suggest academic mismatch could explain declines; however, evidence indicates structural barriers-like limited financial resources and support-play a larger role.