Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which banned affirmative action in college admissions, many experts, university officials, civil rights advocates, and government leaders warned about sharp declines in black and Hispanic enrollment. Yet a new report suggests that these predictions were overly pessimistic and failed to reflect the full scope of the situation.
Unlike early analyses that concentrated solely on underrepresented minority (URM) enrollment at a handful of prestigious institutions like Harvard and MIT, James Murphy’s January 2026 report for Class Action — a nonprofit advocating equity in higher education — examined 2024 freshman enrollment at more than 3,000 colleges and universities using federal data, offering a more balanced view of the enrollment landscape after the Supreme Court decision.
Before anyone accuses the report of being influenced by right-wing bias, it is important to note that Murphy professes his leftist views at the beginning of the report. He believes that race-conscious admissions are necessary for URM students and that the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ban harms long-term well-being of URM students. Despite his ideological stance, Murphy deserves credit for not omitting results that contradict his views, even if he attempts to rationalize them.
The report highlights a significant trend: Highly selective colleges in the U.S. (which admit only 8 percent of the student population across all four-year institutions) have experienced a decline in enrollment of URM students — particularly black students. But many less-selective institutions (which account for more than 90 percent of four-year colleges and universities) are welcoming more URM students, leading to a remarkable increase in their enrollment.
Flagship state universities especially experienced standout gains: Enrollment of black freshmen climbed 30 percent at LSU and 50 percent at the University of Mississippi; Hispanic freshmen were up more than 33 percent at Tennessee and South Carolina. Less-selective private colleges like Syracuse University also experienced 17 percent growth in black first-year students, and Hispanic freshmen increased 45 percent at the University of Miami. The only exception to this growing trend is a puzzling small dip in black enrollment at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
The overall increase of URMs at most colleges and universities suggests that the ban on affirmative action did not discourage URMs from seeking and obtaining higher education, as many critics of the ruling warned. Additionally, white and Asian enrollment remained stable during this period, indicating that the rise in URM enrollment resulted in organic growth rather than a zero-sum shift. Even Murphy had to acknowledge that colleges and universities have become more racially diverse than many anticipated after the Supreme Court’s decision.
Instead of celebrating this trend, Murphy expressed concern about the cascading effect: The ban on affirmative action has resulted in more URMs attending less-selective schools instead of highly competitive ones. This shift could negatively affect their graduation rates and lifetime earnings. His argument is based on the observation that, historically, highly selective institutions have higher graduation rates than other schools, and graduates from these institutions tend to earn more over their lifetimes compared to graduates from less-selective schools. However, the data from California’s experience with the affirmative action ban suggests a corrective for this perspective.
After California voters in 1996 passed Proposition 209, which prohibited affirmative action in public institutions (including public universities), black and Hispanic enrollment initially fell at highly selective University of California campuses, that is, UC Berkeley and UCLA. Over time, however, UC system-wide Hispanic representation rose from 15 percent to 23 percent by 2014, Asian from 28 percent to 37 percent, and blacks held steady — boosting overall diversity.
More strikingly, URM four-year graduation rates jumped from 31 percent pre-Prop 209 to 55 percent, and six-year graduation rates surged to 75 percent. Research by Peter Arcidiacono and his fellow authors attributes much of the improvement to better “student-college matching.” The researchers argue that the past race-based college admission approach inadvertently harmed some of the very URM students it aimed to assist by placing them in highly selective institutions where they might struggle to keep pace with the academic rigor.
Such a mismatch often led to URMs’ lower grades and higher dropout rates. In contrast, race-neutral policies placed URMs in environments matching their preparation, reducing frustration, major switches, and dropouts while enhancing learning and completion. Essentially, race-neutral admissions foster better fits, prioritizing success over symbolic diversity on college campuses.
Murphy’s snapshot is early and only focuses on enrollment data alone. Over time, as more data emerges on persistence, graduation, and careers, patterns like California’s suggest positive long-term effects for URMs from better matching nationwide.
In 2023, the NAACP condemned the Supreme Court’s decision, predicting it would “turn back the clock” on racial progress. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris accused the court of ignoring history and data, and denying opportunities to URM. However, the broader enrollment data now offers a compelling counterargument. Instead of hindering diversity, the end of race-based preferences appears to enhance racial diversity within the higher education system, without disadvantage to any racial group.
This evidence shows that the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action is not a setback; instead, it facilitates improved outcomes for all. It is clear that a meritocracy-based approach benefits every student. We must shift our focus from ideological conflicts to what truly matters: empowering every student to thrive through preparation, opportunity, and fair competition.
