In this 12-minute video created for high school viewers, you’ll meet Edward Blum (the lawyer who led the case against affirmative action) and Michael Blum (the student who Blum reached out to to begin the lawsuit). You’ll also hear Blum’s key argument: “You cannot remedy past discrimination with new discrimination.”

If you want to read more about Michael Wang and how he feels now, check out this article.

From the good folks at The Daily, this episode gives great historical context for the policy

This article offers an excellent overview of the cases, although it is worth noting that the piece claims that all states that eliminated affirmative experienced a drop in minority enrollment, which Oklahoma disputes.

Check out the website of the organization that brought this lawsuit, along with an interview with Edward Blum, their lawyer.

In a letter posted the day that affirmative action was overturned, Harvard’s president reaffirmed Harvard’s commitment to maintaining and growing a diverse campus community, saying, “Harvard must always be a place of opportunity, a place whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed, a place where many will have the chance to live dreams their parents or grandparents could not have dreamed.”

Read the full response here.

The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), a leading force in the test-optional admissions movement, responded to the overturn of affirmative action by stressing that: “Because they are among the most ‘race conscious’ of all factors and there is no compelling interest for universities to rely upon them for admissions decisions, standardized exam results should not be used to determine access to higher education. Test scores do not measure ‘merit.’”

Read the full response here.

Dartmouth’s President wrote a strong response letter that stated, “This decision in no way changes Dartmouth’s fundamental commitment to building a diverse and welcoming community of faculty, students, and staff, as articulated in our institutional values.”

Read the full response here.

In this letter, Princeton University’s president described the overturn of affirmative action as SCOTUS backing away from “more than fifty years of established case law,” called the decision “unwelcome and disappointing,” and affirmed that Princeton would continue to wholeheartedly pursue diversity, characterizing diversity as “essential to the excellence of this University and to the future of our country and the world.”

Read the full response here.

Writing to the Yale community, Yale’s president said he was “deeply troubled” by SCOTUS’s ruling and reassured the community of the college’s “unwavering commitment to creating and sustaining a diverse and inclusive community.”

Read the full response here.

California eliminated affirmative action in 1996 with Prop 209.

Result: Within two years, Black and Latinx student enrollment decreased by 50% at most selective campuses (UCLA and Berkeley); California still argues that representation of underrepresented groups on the most selective campuses has not recovered.

For more information, you can read this analysis of the amicus briefs Michigan and California submitted to the Court.

Michigan eliminated affirmative action in 2006, choosing instead to focus on low-income recruitment.

Result: Black enrollment at U-M Ann Arbor, the state flagship, has dropped and still has not recovered to 2006 levels (half as much as in 2006—4% vs. 8% of student body). There have also been increases in Black and Latinx enrollment at less selective state schools, which has created a feedback loop — students tend to apply where they feel safe and where their peers apply, which can have long-term effects with marginalized students matriculating to schools with lower graduation rates.

For more information, you can read this analysis of the amicus briefs Michigan and California submitted to the Court.

Oklahoma eliminated affirmative action in 2012.

Result: Oklahoma has reported little statistical difference in class makeup since the change.

Some point to UT Austin’s admissions process, which provides guaranteed admission to the top 7% of graduating high schoolers from every high school in the state. The guaranteed geographic diversity ensures that students from lower-income communities are still admitted, and has led to an increase in racial diversity on campus. This follows a state institutional model—it is likely not replicable for private colleges, which have a different mission and are not designed to serve in-state students.

A very common argument is that admissions offices could use income instead and achieve similar results. Evidence for this is mixed at best; both California and Michigan report that this did not work in their states. Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce released a report that concluded that “selective colleges barred from considering race and ethnicity in their admissions decisions may be able to partially claw back some racial/ethnic diversity using class-conscious admissions practices, but they will be extremely unlikely to enroll student bodies that come close to mirroring the demographic diversity of the high school class.” (This report is worth reading in full to see some different modeling of admissions practices!)