In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against affirmative action, which prohibits universities from considering race in their admissions processes, elite institutions like MIT are experiencing the tangible effects of this landmark decision. MIT recently announced how the ruling has impacted their undergraduate admissions process. The Class of 2028 saw a significant drop in the percentage of underrepresented minority students, shrinking from 25% in previous years to 16%.

For an institution that has long prided itself on fostering diversity to drive innovation and academic excellence, this decline raises important questions. MIT’s leadership remains steadfast in its commitment to diversity but now faces the challenge of achieving it without relying on race-based considerations. This situation is emblematic of a larger national conversation about the role of merit in education and the workplace, as well as the potential trade-offs between meritocracy and diversity.

Affirmative action policies have long been controversial in higher education. Advocates of the practice argue that race-conscious admissions are necessary to counterbalance centuries of systemic racism and provide equitable access to opportunities for historically marginalized groups. Critics, however, contend that affirmative action undermines meritocracy by prioritizing race over qualifications like academic achievement, standardized test scores, and extracurricular involvement.

A recent Pew Research study revealed that a majority of Americans—about 50%—disapprove of colleges considering race in admissions decisions, preferring a system that evaluates candidates based solely on merit. This sentiment reflects a broader national desire for a return to what many see as a more meritocratic approach to education, where individuals are rewarded based on their abilities, hard work, and accomplishments.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling affirmed this perspective, essentially forcing institutions like MIT to eliminate race as a factor in their admissions processes. As a result, MIT and other selective universities are left searching for new ways to cultivate diverse student bodies without compromising their commitment to fairness and merit.

MIT’s response to the Supreme Court ruling is significant not only because of the drop in racial diversity but also because it underscores the complexity of the meritocracy-versus-diversity debate. While the percentage of underrepresented minorities in the Class of 2028 fell by 9%, the institution has vowed to continue its efforts to promote diversity through race-neutral strategies. These include expanded outreach to underserved communities and bolstering financial aid programs.

Interestingly, the decline in racial diversity at MIT mirrors trends observed in other states that have banned affirmative action in the past. For instance, after California passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibited race-based admissions in public universities, minority enrollment initially fell but later rebounded as schools implemented alternative methods of promoting diversity. Moreover, a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that after the affirmative action ban in California, minority student graduation rates actually improved by 4.4 percentage points. This finding suggests that admitting students based on merit alone may lead to better long-term outcomes for those students, who are better matched with the institutions they attend.

The question of how best to balance diversity and meritocracy is at the heart of the debate surrounding affirmative action. While diversity is undeniably important for fostering creativity, collaboration, and innovation—particularly in fields like science and technology—meritocracy ensures that the most qualified and prepared individuals are given the opportunity to succeed.

Critics of affirmative action often point to the “mismatch hypothesis,” which posits that race-based admissions policies may place some students in academic environments where they are less likely to succeed. The argument is that students admitted under affirmative action may struggle to keep up with their peers in more competitive institutions, leading to lower graduation rates and increased student debt. Proponents of this view believe that a purely meritocratic admissions process would better serve students by placing them in schools that match their academic preparedness.

On the other hand, studies have also shown that students from disadvantaged backgrounds often benefit from attending more selective institutions, even if they face challenges initially. A Brookings Institution report noted that students who attend higher-quality schools are more likely to graduate, regardless of their racial or socioeconomic background. This highlights the importance of ensuring that all students—regardless of race—have access to the resources and support they need to succeed at elite institutions like MIT.

The debate over affirmative action is far from over, but MIT’s experience offers valuable insights into how universities can adapt to a post-affirmative action world. The institution’s focus on outreach, financial aid, and academic support for students from underserved communities is a promising step toward achieving diversity without compromising merit.

One key element of this approach is ensuring that all students, regardless of background, have access to the tools and resources they need to compete on an equal footing. For example, standardized testing has long been criticized as favoring affluent students who can afford test prep services. At Prep Expert, we have long advocated for making high-quality test prep accessible to all students, thereby leveling the playing field and ensuring that college admissions remain merit-based. For example, our test prep books can be purchased for just $10-$20 on Amazon and found in most major public libraries for free.

Additionally, MIT and other universities can continue to promote diversity by considering factors such as socioeconomic status, first-generation status, and geographic location. These criteria, while not directly related to race, can help institutions identify students who have overcome significant challenges to achieve academic success.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action has undoubtedly changed the landscape of college admissions in the United States, but it also presents an opportunity to strengthen our commitment to meritocracy. While the decline in racial diversity at MIT is concerning, it is not necessarily an indictment of merit-based admissions. Instead, it highlights the need for broader reforms that ensure all students, regardless of race or background, have access to the opportunities they deserve.

As we move forward, it is essential that institutions like MIT continue to innovate in their admissions processes, finding new ways to promote diversity while upholding the principles of fairness and merit. By doing so, we can create a more equitable and inclusive educational system—one that truly rewards talent, hard work, and achievement.

Dr. Shaan Patel, MD, MBA is the Founder & CEO of Prep Expert (winner of a Shark Tank deal with Mark Cuban), a #1 bestselling author, and a board-certified dermatologist.