The Supreme Court just shot down the use of race-based admissions in a move that will force many colleges to change the standards by which they admit students. 

The ruling came in response to cases against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), which both released statements that didn’t outline their next steps but emphasized their commitment to diversity on campus. 

The situation is bound to lead to other fights as many are already speculating colleges are going to try to find loopholes in the court’s ruling, with Democrats and supporters of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts forcefully denouncing the move.

“The Court recognized the Constitution guarantees equal treatment for all races, and exceptions to that rule should be rare and fleeting. I do not expect universities to take this decision lightly — DEI has become one of the highest (if not the highest) priority at many schools — and I expect universities to look for loopholes and workarounds,” Brian Fitzpatrick, professor of law at Vanderbilt University, said. 

Fitzpatrick argued schools will try to circumvent the ruling in two ways: making decisions based on discussion of race or ethnicity in an applicant’s essay or implementing preferences to those from certain zip codes and high schools. 

A bevy of colleges Thursday released statements saying they will change their practices in line with the ruling but did not offer concrete steps they will take. Universities will not be in a rush to announce such adjustments since admissions are mostly over for the 2023-2024 school year. 

In the mean time, advocates fear this will lead to detrimental effects on enrollment for underrepresented communities. 

“Without the consideration of race in college admissions, we will see our institutions shift to being even more exclusive than they already are for the benefit of white, male, and wealthy applicants,” Color Of Change president Rashad Robinson said. 

James E. K. Hildreth, the CEO and president of Meharry Medical College, one of the nation’s four medical historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), said he anticipates higher admissions numbers “as Black and Hispanic students avoid applying to predominantly white universities where they may now feel a sense of unease and pursue degrees at HBCUs instead.”

“This is potentially a step toward resegregating college campuses, and thus a problem for all socially aware institutions,” Hildreth said.

Before the ruling, eight states had already banned affirmative action in the pursuit of race-neutral practices, but advocates say the universities in those states have failed to recover the diversity numbers they had before the ban took place. 

“They only have to look to California to know exactly what’s going to happen: You’re going to see a significant decline in African American and Latino admissions in institutions of higher learning,” Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said after the ruling. California banned affirmative action in college admissions in 1996.

President Biden announced Thursday he is calling on schools to “give serious consideration to the adversities students have overcome” in the application process, such as hard financial situations, the location in which an applicant went to high school, and personal experiences of discrimination. 

While the call is likely to inflame those already expecting colleges to try to sidestep the ruling, affirmative action opponents made it clear they feel the law is on their side. 

“The Court today makes clear that, in the future, universities wishing to discriminate based on race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence. Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any will be able to do so,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. 

However, Fitzpatrick said that giving consideration to those who come from less fortunate circumstances is likely to survive legal challenges.

“I don’t think giving preferences to poor people is in any serious legal danger. Now, technically, if the reason you’re giving the preference to poor people is to try to reduce the number of Asian students and increase the number of Black students, technically I think that is illegal,” he said.

“But I think it’s gonna be very hard for anyone to prove that the reason you’re giving preferences to poor people is for the racial effects as opposed to simply helping poor people, helping people that did not have the same advantages and therefore couldn’t compile, perhaps, the same academic records as wealthy students,” he added. 

The decision on affirmative action is likely to lead to another admissions fight that has been brewing in the background: legacies.

Legacy admissions, which are given to students whose family members attended the same school, are seen more at private, prestigious universities and are controversial because they tend to benefit those who are rich and white.

“I think the question is how do you continue to create a culture where education is the goal for every single part of our community? One of the things that Harvard could do to make that even better is to eliminate any legacy programs where they have preferential treatment for legacy kids, not allow for the professors — their kids to come to Harvard as well,” 2024 presidential candidate and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said after Thursday’s ruling.