Real #diversity should focus on class — not race

New York Post - Mar 15th, 2025

Center-left thinker Richard D. Kahlenberg joined a conservative group in legal battles against Harvard and UNC, challenging racial preferences in college admissions. He advocated for an approach favoring economically disadvantaged students to maintain diversity. Despite predictions, racial diversity didn't suffer drastically post-Supreme Court ruling, with colleges like Harvard and others preserving or even increasing diversity through economic-based admissions strategies.

The Supreme Court's decision to end racial preferences sparked debate, with many Americans supporting the ruling despite fears of backlash. Universities adapted by expanding financial aid and partnering with schools to support economically disadvantaged students, reflecting a shift in policy focus. This story highlights a significant transition in how U.S. colleges address diversity, with implications for admissions practices and public opinion on race and class in higher education.

Supreme Court College Admissions Public Opinion Harvard University Racial Preferences Richard D. Kahlenberg Students For Fair Admissions University Of North Carolina Economic Diversity

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a compelling argument for shifting the focus from racial to economic diversity in university admissions, backed by the author's expertise and involvement in relevant legal cases. It effectively engages with a timely and significant public interest topic, offering insights into recent policy changes and their implications. However, the article's reliance on a singular perspective limits its balance and source quality, as it lacks diverse viewpoints and independent verification of some claims. While the narrative is clear and accessible, greater transparency and engagement with opposing views would enhance its credibility and impact. Overall, the article contributes to the ongoing debate on diversity in higher education, with the potential to influence public opinion and policy discussions.

Accuracy

The article presents several claims regarding university admissions and the impact of ending racial preferences, which are generally supported by data. For instance, it accurately describes the involvement of Richard D. Kahlenberg in the lawsuits against Harvard and UNC and his arguments for focusing on economic rather than racial diversity. However, some claims, such as the exact percentage of Black and Hispanic students from wealthy backgrounds at Harvard, require independent verification. Additionally, the article's assertion that public opinion largely supports the Supreme Court's decision and that universities have maintained diversity levels needs more substantiated evidence and context.

Balance

The article primarily presents a viewpoint that supports economic-based diversity over racial preferences, aligning with the author's perspective. While it acknowledges the predictions of some higher education scholars and universities about potential negative impacts on diversity, it does not explore these perspectives in depth. The article could benefit from a more balanced representation of opposing views, such as those of advocates for racial preferences, to provide a fuller picture of the debate.

Clarity

The article is generally well-written, with a clear structure and logical flow that guides the reader through the author's argument. It effectively uses specific examples, such as changes in student demographics at Harvard, to illustrate key points. However, some complex issues, like the legal nuances of the Supreme Court's decision, could be explained more clearly for readers unfamiliar with the topic.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on the author's expertise and personal involvement in the lawsuits and his observations of university admissions processes. While this insider perspective offers valuable insights, the lack of diverse sources or independent data limits the article's reliability. Incorporating viewpoints from other experts, educational institutions, or public opinion polls would enhance the credibility and depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article discloses the author's background and potential biases, such as his previous work with political figures and his role in the lawsuits. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the methodology used to gather data or assess the impact of the Supreme Court's decision. Greater transparency regarding the sources of admissions data and the basis for public opinion claims would improve the article's trustworthiness.