Black enrollment shifts, not shrinks, after affirmative action ban: report

While black student enrollment fell significantly at highly selective colleges following the Supreme Court’s ban on race-conscious admissions, total black enrollment at four-year institutions held steady due to increased participation at less selective schools, according to a new report from Class Action.

The report, authored by higher education writer James Murphy, defines “highly selective” schools as those admitting fewer than 25 percent of applicants in 2024. It found black enrollment rose at many public universities, state flagships, and less selective colleges following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

The Fix attempted to connect with Murphy for an interview, but was unable as he was on vacation. Class Action, a student-led organization that critiques elite universities, did not respond to requests for comment. 

Using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Murphy found that enrollment of students of color at Ivy League and Ivy-equivalent schools dropped by more than two percentage points— roughly 25 percent below pre-SFFA levels.

There was also a slight increase in Asian American enrollment at Ivy and Ivy-equivalent schools, while white enrollment remained largely the same. Across most institutional categories, white and Asian enrollment remained relatively stable. 

Meanwhile, more than four of five state flagship universities had increases in enrollment of underrepresented students of color in 2024.

However, Murphy noted in the report enrollment data alone cannot determine institutional intent or compliance with the ruling since admissions outcomes are indicative of applicant pools, admissions decisions, financial aid offers, and student choice. 

Murphy described this redistribution as a “cascade effect,” where highly qualified students of color who may previously have been admitted to more selective institutions enrolled instead at less selective institutions. He claims this displaces applicants downward in the admissions hierarchy. 

“The key point, not so well understood even by some researchers, is that the highly qualified students of color who lost an advantage in the admissions process due to SFFA were not going to opt out of higher education altogether as a result of being rejected by the most selective institutions,” Murphy wrote in the report. 

A University of California Los Angeles professor ​​reached similar conclusions in a separate analysis of post-affirmative action enrollment trends in legal education.

In a January 2026 report, Professor Richard Sander found that while racial preferences in law school admissions declined substantially following the ruling, overall black and Hispanic enrollment did not decrease. Instead, enrollment patterns simply shifted. 

According to the report, black enrollment fell at some of the most selective law schools but increased or held steady at many less selective institutions. Applications from black and Hispanic students also rose during this period. 

Specifically, the report estimates that preferences for black applicants at the top four tiers of law schools were roughly cut in half by the 2024-25 admissions cycle. Preferences for Hispanic applicants also declined significantly, and in some elite tiers fell to levels too small to be statistically detected.

Sander argues the reduction in admissions preferences narrowed academic credential gaps between students, which he said could improve academic outcomes. The median credential gap between black students and their white and Asian peers dropped dramatically over a five-year period, from more than 90 index points to less than 40.

This argument builds on what he and University of Arkansas Professor Robert Steinbuch call the “mismatch hypothesis.” This is the theory that students admitted with significantly weaker academic credentials than their peers may face worse academic outcomes than similar students at less selective institutions. 

In a 2022 Journal of Legal Education study, Sander and Steinbuch found law students’ relative credential gaps within schools were strongly associated with bar passage outcomes. That means, according to the data, there should be improved relative GPAs, graduation rates, and bar passage rates for black law students in the coming years.

Like Murphy, Sander describes a “cascade” dynamic: students who might have previously enrolled at the most elite institutions instead attend somewhat less selective schools, redistributing enrollment rather than eliminating participation in higher education. 

Steinbuch told The College Fix via email he believes the mismatch hypothesis continues to apply in the post-SFFA landscape, though the scope of the problem has narrowed.

“We are seeing some real correction of mismatch post SFFA.  So we should see less harm,” the Federalist Society contributor wrote in an email to The Fix. “[S]o far, it looks like that there’s a real reduction as a function of the SFFA case and other efforts to eliminate affirmative action.” 

Steinbuch described increased enrollment at less selective institutions as a positive development. He said critics of efforts to reduce admissions preferences had warned minority enrollment would significantly decline, but that has not happened. 

“It’s clearly positive to see a reordering of admissions to place students where they will best thrive,” he said. “Indeed, the reordering will produce more minorities who graduate from law schools and pass the bar exam. That’s an unmitigated gain.” 

Steinbuch also said success for underrepresented students means attending institutions aligned with their academic preparation, graduating, passing the bar, and building successful legal careers. 

Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks, two Yale University scholars who previously coauthored a paper objecting to the mismatch hypothesis, did not respond to multiple requests for information over the past weeks about long-term outcomes, selectivity tiers, social mobility, and enrollment trends.