The uses and abuses of "personal essays" about race in the college admissions process

If I remember the admissions cycle correctly, most colleges have by now accepted, rejected, or deferred their applicants for early admission. Colleges that have done so must therefore have decided how to treat the personal essays of applicants. In other words, they must have determined the degree, if any, to which they will use these essays to continue preferring black and Hispanic applicants over white and Asian ones based on race and ethnicity.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Harvard case banning racial preferences in admissions leaves open this personal-essay loophole, at least to some degree. To what degree remains uncertain and will remain so pending future litigation. But, as just noted, colleges have, I assume, now decided how vigorously they intend to take advantage of the loophole.

In fairness to the Supreme Court, it had little choice but to make the loophole available. The Constitution does not prohibit applicants from writing about race in their essays; nor does it prohibit colleges from reading applicants’ claims about how race has affected their lives.

Furthermore, the Constitution does not prohibit colleges from concluding, after reading essays, that a black or Hispanic applicant who (for example) came to America at the age of 12 speaking no English, lived in an impoverished single-parent household, experienced racial discrimination, attended a failing public school, got straight A’s, and scored 1450 on the SAT is better qualified for admission than a white upper-middle class applicant who got straight A’s and scored 1480.

The Court might have avoided discussing college essays at all. But this option became unavailable when some Justices, including Justice Barrett, pressed the issue at oral argument and the dissenters stressed it in their opinion.

So here we are.

This Washington Post article describes how, as we all expected, “counselors and colleges are encouraging applicants more than ever to [write about] their racial and ethnic identities and their views on diversity.” Indeed:

This year, in response to the ruling, numerous colleges are asking questions that appear designed to draw applicants out on diversity and identity.

Harvard asks for up to 200 words on this question: “Harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard?”

Dartmouth College offers this prompt for up to 250 words: “ ‘It’s not easy being green …’ was the frequent refrain of Kermit the Frog. How has difference been a part of your life, and how have you embraced it as part of your identity and outlook?"

Good grief, Dartmouth. Why not just write the essay for black and Hispanic applicants?

The Post cautions, however, that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Harvard case told colleges not to attempt to “establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.” What the Court held unlawful was preferring applicants because of their race or ethnicity. And in doing so, it said that preferring applicants to achieve “diversity” is not a “sufficiently coherent” goal to survive the strict scrutiny to which racial preferences must be subjected. (See Opinion at p. 23)

How can courts decide whether colleges are using race/ethnicity-centric essays to prefer applicants because of their race or ethnicity? At the threshold, they can use statistics. If acceptance rates for blacks and Hispanics remain where they have been, it should be clear enough that colleges are using essays to do what the Court said is unlawful.

Suppose, as was the case at Yale before the Supreme Court decision, the likelihood of admission for an Asian-American and a white in the top 10 percent of applicants (measured by objective criteria) is equal to the likelihood of admission for a black who is only in the top 50 percent. On this evidence, it would be obvious that the college is placing an absurd amount of weight on essays — as Harvard was shown to have have done with “personal qualities” ratings — in order to keep preferring blacks because of their race.

But statistical evidence alone may not always be enough to expose unlawful discrimination by colleges that reduce current levels of minority representation. The percentage of blacks accepted by an elite college could be cut in half, and that college might still be using personal essays to grant race-based preferences. Such is the magnitude of the racial achievement gap.

What other evidence of discrimination might be adduced? Statements by colleges is one possible answer. If a college announces, as some have, something like “we intend to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision, but will continue to focus on maintaining a diverse student body,” that should be evidence that the college is basing admissions on an interest the Court said is insufficient under the Constitution to justify preferring blacks and Hispanics.

Compare the questions Harvard and Dartmouth ask applicants to write essays about. Dartmouth’s question is leading and sophomoric (Kermit the Frog, indeed), but at least it calls on applicants to discuss themselves as individuals.

By contrast, Harvard’s question focuses not on the applicant as an individual, but rather on the applicant as an instrument of Harvard’s diversity agenda. It approaches, and in my view crosses, the line established by the Supreme Court on what is impermissible for colleges to consider.

Another form of evidence relevant to determining whether a college has crossed the line is disparate treatment of similar essays. We know that some of the most compelling “rags-to-academic-riches” stories come from Asian Americans. Will colleges give as much credit to an essay by a student about how he came to the U.S. from China at age 12 poor and speaking no English as it does to the same kind of essay by someone who came here from Guatemala or Senegal? If not, it will be obvious that colleges are cheating in order to get around the Supreme Court’s decision.

The same will be true if colleges fail to treat white students who write compellingly about the disadvantages of growing up poor in rural areas of America with drug addicted parents the same way it treats black students who write compellingly about similar disadvantages they faced growing up in the inner-city.

Richard Kahlenberg, a liberal who for decades has advocated preferences based on economic hardship rather than race, told the Post that admissions officers must focus on individual experiences in an evenhanded way. If they are impressed by a student’s story of overcoming racial discrimination, they should also be impressed by stories of overcoming poverty or other disadvantages. We’ll see whether admissions officers follow this advice and, if they don’t, whether courts hold them to account.

A difficult issue arises from the prospect — and I would say the certainty — that a lot of the essays applicants write regarding their race and/or background will be BS. It will be difficult for colleges to determine the authenticity of what’s written on these subjects and perhaps even more difficult for courts to do so. I’m all but certain that courts won’t be willing to try.

What courts can consider is the effort colleges make, if any, to determine authenticity. I expect, for example, that many “diversity” essays will be cookie cutter. If colleges aren’t screening for this, that will be evidence that they’re using essays as an excuse for preferring blacks and Hispanics, rather than as an attempt to judge individual merit in good faith.

The Post quotes a college admission counselor in Jackson, Miss. who says:

Shoehorning your race into the essay [is] not likely to be productive. I would never advise a student to discuss race or any other aspect of their experience in a way that feels inauthentic or is designed to outsmart the process.

But if colleges themselves want to “outsmart the process” implied by the Supreme Court’s decision, then “shoehorning” race into essays might be just the ticket. And because I suspect that many colleges do want — and indeed will try — to outsmart the Supreme Court, courts probably have a lot of hard work ahead of them.