Publication
A Higher Education Blueprint for Equity, Inclusion, and Action: State Higher Education System Leaders
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The Obligation to Protect Equitable Opportunity in Higher Education
- Higher Education System Policies to Ensure Equitable Opportunity in Higher Education
- Policies for College Access
- Policies for College Admissions
- Policies for College Affordability
- Policies to Strengthen Pathways
- Policies for Inclusion
Introduction
Nearly a year into a new federal administration, students have seen their path to college increasingly challenged. When over 50% of America’s K-12 students are of a diverse background, attacks like the defunding of vital student programs and targeting of campus-belonging efforts limit students’ access to opportunity, communities from strengthening, and our nation from thriving as a global powerhouse. If students are our North Star, then we cannot sacrifice the strategies that open the doors to college. The Campaign for College Opportunity’s Higher Education Blueprint for Equity, Inclusion, and Action, part of our Equity, Inclusion, Action national initiative, calls on key policy and college leaders nationwide to resist regression through tailored roadmaps that recenter students at the heart of policy and practice.
The Obligation to Protect Equitable Opportunity in Higher Education
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts among higher education institutions are under attack by many political actors who are seeking to outlaw DEI efforts and the strategies and policies designed to advance those aims. Defunding or otherwise eliminate the ability of higher education institutions to pursue their DEI-related, mission-based goals undermine a critical facet of institutional excellence: the advancement of principles of equal opportunity and inclusion that help assure all students, regardless of background, are provided meaningful opportunities to engage with, challenge, and shape the views of their peers as they learn and grow—and to achieve success academically, professionally, and in civic life.
This challenging landscape should not divert institutional attention from what colleges and universities can do to advance their missions and fulfill their societal roles. If higher education leaders are to actualize the rhetoric of institutional missions that embrace access and inclusion goals for all, how might we think about the strategies and actions that are warranted—particularly as we seek to mitigate the adverse consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on race-conscious college and university admissions (SSFA) in legally appropriate ways?
Higher Education Institutions Can Define Their Missions—Including With Respect to DEI Interests
With respect to the articulation and pursuit of institutional aims, the court reaffirmed a long-standing truth grounded in decades of precedent—that “[u]niversities may define their missions as they see fit.” Nothing in the court’s decision should affect higher education’s central role in society as an engine of social mobility and its core commitment to educational equity and excellence—including for Latinx, Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NHPI), and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) students.
Students May Describe Their Experiences, Expertise, and Interests With Specific Reference to Their Race
With respect to strategies and the establishment of policies to achieve those goals, the court admonished that “nothing in [its] opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” Favorable consideration in admissions for a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, “must be tied to that student’s courage and determination;” and “a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university.” (emphasis in original). Thus, institutions can and should consider the mission-aligned skills, knowledge, and character qualities central to considerations of student merit, which may include consideration of race-specific factors associated with an individual applicant’s racial identity.
“Inclusive” Race-Related Recruitment and Outreach Policies May Continue to Reach Students from Underrepresented Groups
Perhaps most importantly, as stewards of public investment, it is our duty to address racial and ethnic disparities in higher education directly. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment mandates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” underscoring the legal obligation to ensure that educational opportunities are not denied based on race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics. This requires colleges and universities to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of policies and practices that may have, particularly within institutional and historical contexts, perpetuated racial barriers—some of which originated from deliberate exclusion. This recalibration should begin with a data-driven analysis to determine whether the definitions and measures of merit in admissions policies align with the institution’s mission, have predictive value, and do not result in discrimination. Specifically, it is critical to reassess criteria such as grade thresholds, the use of standardized tests (including the establishment of rigid cut-offs), and the extent to which student context is factored into admissions decisions. This process should also include a thorough evaluation of all qualities valued by the institution when determining admissibility, including a critical examination of policies like legacy admissions and early decision, which often undermine diversity and equity goals.
Inclusive race-related recruitment and outreach policies (that do not involve conferring benefits to individual students based on their racial status) are not subject to strict scrutiny standards, and nothing in the court’s opinion has changed that precedent. Higher education institutions “may continue to pursue targeted outreach, recruitment, and pipeline or pathway programs,” involving “active steps” to reach “students from underrepresented groups.” Nothing in the SFFA decision requires “institutions to ignore race when identifying prospective students for outreach and recruitment,” so long as those efforts do not provide preferences in the admissions process.
We Must Go Bigger
Do more to attract, recruit, and support equity and diversity, including minoritized students. Identify and remove systemic barriers, invest in transfer and articulation opportunities, provide welcoming and supporting campuses and classes, fund institutions of higher education that serve minoritized students well, etc.
Fostering diverse and equitable goals and opportunities is a necessary step in addressing a number of societal trends that reflect racialized disparities in all facets of America’s education systems. Thus, even as one tool to advance those goals, for now, has been eliminated, the SFFA decision sets the stage to think anew—and for all institutions to engage beyond the issues of race in admissions to address the systems, policies, and practices that may be untapped, as well as those that continue to pose barriers to student success. To address this moment, higher education leaders must reinforce their commitment to Latinx, Black, Asian American and NHPI, AIAN, and other marginalized students, and be active leaders in the immediate and long-term advancement of diversity and equity goals for all—with high-impact, evidence-based, and legally appropriate strategies. Indeed, this is a moment for higher education leaders and institutions to demonstrate leadership, not retrenchment, in pursuit of their educational missions and societal role in comprehensive, thoughtful ways that, of course, also satisfy the law.
Higher Education System Policies to Ensure Equitable Opportunity in Higher Education
This resource presents an overview of high-impact and immediately actionable policies that promote equity in college access, admissions, pathways, financial aid, and inclusion, which can be implemented by state higher education systems. Each section links to more detailed briefs on specific policies with case studies, data, and the role of other institutional players.
By implementing the evidence-based strategic policies and practices uplifted in this blueprint, systems and governing boards can affirm equity, ensure inclusion, and empower action to fulfill their obligation to protect the equal opportunity of students to succeed through education.
Equity in Math Opportunity
High school math requirements contribute to inequity in access to college, in particular the value placed on calculus, even though it is not an essential course for students who are seeking non-STEM degrees. The boost earned by students who are fortunate enough to have access to calculus, a benefit unequally distributed across our high schools, is problematic.
If education is the great equalizer in this country, then mathematics might be the great divider. In 2019, only six percent of Black and nine percent of Latinx high school students earned credit in calculus, compared to 18% of white students and 46% of Asian American students. Similarly, students at schools in the highest-income quartile are three times as likely to take the course as those in the bottom half. Yet calculus exerts a big influence on students’ college prospects: selective colleges routinely view it as a gold standard in admission.
As states contend with creating racially inclusive student bodies in a post-affirmative action world, they must address the outsized role that mathematics courses play in restricting access to college. A solid grounding in mathematics is crucial in the 21st century. Calculus is one way to build such a foundation. But so are advanced courses in areas such as statistics and data science, which foster critical thinking skills, are indispensable for achievement in college and beyond, and are often more aligned with students’ interests and the fields they will pursue.
States and education systems must equalize access to calculus and make other rigorous courses more available for students whose aspirations do not rely on proficiency in calculus. No single course should have so much sway over admissions decisions—and certainly not one that is not a required course for most majors, or a course that is out of reach for many historically underrepresented students.
Recommendation
- Analyze AP course enrollment demographics, review eligibility criteria for advanced programs, and develop strategies to address disparities and increase opportunities for all students.
Publication
Greater Equity in College Access Through High School/College Dual Enrollment Programs
Read moreDual Enrollment
What is dual enrollment?
Dual enrollment is a program that allows high school students to take college-level courses and earn college credits while still enrolled in high school. This program provides students with the opportunity to advance their education by experiencing college coursework and gaining college credits before graduating from high school.
Dual enrollment represents a promising lever for increasing educational equity, given its large scale and demonstrated effectiveness for increasing college access and success among its participants. Black, Latinx, and other minoritized students benefit from dual enrollment participation, yet these and other groups underrepresented in higher education often do not have meaningful access to these programs. Strong dual enrollment programs have the potential to raise college enrollment rates among high school graduates and improve college-attainment rates for students who participate.
Dual enrollment programs are widespread nationally, but access to dual enrollment coursework is uneven and replicates existing educational inequities. Compared to the overall composition of secondary school enrollment, students with disabilities, English learners, American Indian, Black, Latinx, multiracial, and Pacific Islander students—and men across all these groups—were underrepresented among dual enrollment participants during the 2017-18 school year.
The scarcity of qualified high school instructors is a major hurdle to broadening access to dual enrollment, particularly in underserved rural and urban Title 1 high schools. Expanding the instructor pool is essential so that students are not excluded from taking dual enrollment courses based on their local high school’s access to qualified instructors.
Recommendations
- Conduct intersegmental audits of existing dual enrollment policies to better understand the dual enrollment structures, where substantial variations in state and local contexts may exist related to access to dual enrollment. Data collection could help inform strategic changes to systematic policies that disproportionately impact students of color.
- Implement alternative methods to high-stakes placement testing, such as Multiple Measures Assessment (MMA), to determine student readiness for college coursework more equitably.
- Develop and implement policies to address transportation challenges, particularly in regions with limited dual enrollment options, to enhance accessibility.
Publication
Greater Equity in College Access Through High School/College Dual Enrollment Programs
Read moreDirect Admissions
Direct admissions (sometimes also referred to as automatic, flipped, guaranteed, or proactive admissions) flips the script on the traditional application process by eliminating the need for students to apply. Rather than asking students to collect and submit an immense amount of information that most colleges and universities do not need and will not use to make admissions decisions, direct admissions practices utilize information that is already available, such as students’ high school GPA, course grades, and/or standardized test scores that are stored in state or district databases.
Direct admissions programs proactively admit students to college, comparing their performance against defined program rules to determine the set of colleges to which they can be admitted. Typically, all students are automatically admitted to open-access institutions, and those who surpass a pre-identified threshold for one or more performance measures are also automatically admitted to more selective institutions.
Without ever applying, students receive an official acceptance letter that guarantees their place in college, alongside personalized college-going information and a fee waiver to submit a simplified form, rather than a full application, to “claim their place” and enroll in college. Direct admissions policies allow students to focus on deciding whether to go to college—and where to go—rather than on completing unnecessary administrative tasks.
Direct admissions programs have spread across the nation. Seven states and hundreds of independent postsecondary institutions currently operate direct admissions through third-party providers, such as the Common App, Concourse, Niche, and Sage Scholars, which connect prospective students from their large databases of applicants who use their systems with partner colleges. Some institutions may also have individual partnerships with school districts to provide direct admissions to eligible students at nearby high schools.
Recommendations
- Combine direct admissions with equity-focused assistance, such as financial aid application support, to improve effectiveness and promote equitable access.
- Implement direct admissions as part of a broader strategy to simplify the college application process, foster equity, streamline enrollment, and enhance efficiency.
Testing
All higher education institutions should value the importance of a diverse and inclusive student body, and test-free policies can help broaden access and opportunity for students from all backgrounds and income levels. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, over 1,700 colleges now use “test-optional” policies, meaning that they have made SAT/ACT score submission optional. Test-free and test-optional policies offer institutions a way to communicate their values and signal that they welcome students from all backgrounds.
The University of California (UC) system and several private institutions (e.g., the California Institute of Technology [Caltech]) are among the prominent universities and systems pioneering test-free policies. These policies facilitate access for traditionally excluded students and eliminate a substantial source of bias from the evaluation of applicants.
In 2020, the UC Regents adopted a test-free admissions policy for the system. Several developments led to the UC’s shift to test-free admissions, the most important of which was a lawsuit challenging the UC’s use of the SAT/ACT for violating California’s anti-discrimination laws.
Colleges with test-optional policies allow, but do not require, students to submit SAT or ACT scores as part of their applications. Test-optional policies are valuable, in some respects, and the most comprehensive study on test-optional policies indicates a modest but significant positive effect on schools’ racial/ethnic diversification. However, these policies can present complications that include the shifting SAT/ACT percentile ranges that colleges report, as colleges receive a disproportionate number of score reports from students with relatively higher scores, and applicants’ confusion over whether to submit scores or not.
The need for shifts in testing policy is a result of equity-related challenges with the SAT/ACT and test preparation. The SAT/ACT presents a significant barrier to accessing higher education, and such norm-referenced tests are troublingly linked to race and class. Analyses of data from the UC system found that about one-third of the variation in students’ SAT scores could be explained by the combination of race and class, with a growing association between race and SAT scores. Much of this dynamic is due to racial disparities in academic preparation in a highly unequal K-12 system. Just as importantly, SAT/ACT scores add little, if any, unique information to predicting academic performance in college.
As of July 2023, 86 institutions around the country had adopted “test-free,” “test-blind,” or “test-elimination” policies, in which admissions professionals do not consider SAT/ACT scores at all in decisions. For some students, test-free policies avoid some of the confusion and uncertainty linked with test-optional policies because they do not have to worry about whether to submit scores. The issue of rising testing percentiles is also averted since institutions no longer report percentiles.
Institutions may see test-free admissions as a way to communicate their values, signaling that students are welcome to apply, regardless of test scores. Going test-free can also send the message that an institution sees limited or no value in standardized tests.
While research on test-free policies is still in the very early stages, a survey of 222 admissions staff members about shifts in testing policy included 17 respondents from test-free institutions, a majority of whom viewed the shift positively. A staff member with over 15 years of admissions experience commented that going test-free made admissions readers “slow down” and read applications more carefully, instead of just using the test score as a “short cut.”
Recommendations
- Eliminate requirements for students to submit SAT or ACT scores as part of their applications to broaden access
- Adopt test-free policies
Holistic Review
Promising policy practices in admissions can promote greater equity and access for students if admission officers and college leaders act decisively and with a commitment to a more thoughtful approach to college admissions.
Colleges can use their own data to examine the disparate racial effects of their current practices and choose different enrollment policies and strategies to mitigate the effects of a ban on race-conscious admissions, in ways that are both legally permissible and more racially equitable.
Holistic review is a strategy in college admissions that assesses an applicant’s unique experiences alongside a range of indicators that include grades, extracurricular activities, and environmental context, among other factors. For admissions officers, holistic review is a powerful tool and a fairer, more thoughtful approach to reviewing student applications to ensure a more diverse student body. The holistic review strategy generally involves evaluating an applicant in light of the opportunities available in that individual’s family, high school, and neighborhood. This model was very much influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s past decisions on affirmative action. The justices repeatedly valorized and lauded higher education institutions that used holistic admissions practices and struck down programs that used quotas or point systems to admit students. Holistic admissions has been an adaptation by institutions to the legal pressures placed on them by the court that simultaneously seeks to provide some measure of fairness for racially minoritized applicants.
The holistic admissions strategy undoubtedly has important implications for racial equity in higher education. A recent study of the UC’s use of holistic admissions, implemented across six UC campuses for the fall 2002 admissions cycle, found that the UC’s implementation of holistic review led to a seven percent increase in underrepresented students of color at those six campuses and was more effective at improving racial representation than Eligibility in the Local Context, an admission program which relies almost solely on class rank.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling in the SFFA case and recent federal challenges have major implications for Latinx, Black, Asian American, NHPI, and AIAN students at our most selective colleges—and for their salaries, career opportunities, and communities—there are significant measures that colleges, enrollment leaders, and admissions offices can adopt to mitigate these impacts. Throughout the holistic review process, there are opportunities to use an equity lens to examine, by focusing on the mission and critical data-based examination of racial impacts, a range of policies and practices that can be reformed or abolished in seeking a more just and humane admissions process.
Recommendations
- Adopt a broader approach to ensure that low-income students are acknowledged for commitments such as after-school employment and caregiving responsibilities for siblings or relatives
- Reform early admissions policies to address their bias towards academically strong and financially advantaged applicants, ensuring fairness and reducing disparities, particularly for low-income candidates
- Admissions should utilize comprehensive data to evaluate candidates, considering factors such as socioeconomic status and educational opportunities
- Identify and modify any racially discriminatory recruitment practices, preventing “recruitment redlining”
Recruitment Practices
Some widely used recruitment strategies and practices at selective universities create barriers to admission for underrepresented minoritized students while unfairly granting an unfair advantage to higher-income white students. In particular, early admission deadlines, legacy admissions policies, and demonstrated interest policies prove problematic.
Legacy admissions favors students who are not first in their family to attend college. Historically, legacy admissions was used at several Ivy League colleges to favor white Christian students and purposely exclude Jewish students and non-white Black, AIAN, and other minoritized students.
Admitting students based on their demonstrated interest in a particular college or early decision admission, which requires an early, binding commitment to a school that is the candidate’s top choice, may seem neutral, but they perpetuate inequities, in practice, by advantaging students who attend well-resourced high schools with sufficient college counseling support, substantial financial resources, and family members with experience navigating the college admissions process.
Recommendations
- University systems should discontinue considering legacy status in admissions to promote equity.
- Consider alternative criteria that prioritize academic excellence, diversity, and potential for success instead of solely relying on demonstrated interest in making admissions decisions.
- Invest in outreach programs and initiatives aimed at reaching first-generation students and those from underserved high schools or communities to increase their participation in the recruitment process.
- Undergo a thorough review of their recruitment, admissions, and enrollment processes, identifying and addressing systemic barriers that hinder access for marginalized students.
- Increase transparency for prospective students about how demonstrated interest works, is calculated, and is considered.
Publication
Ensuring Fairness in College Admissions: Rethinking Recruitment, Demonstrated Interest Strategies, Early Decision, and Legacy Admissions
Read moreUniversal Financial Aid Application
Financial aid opens the door to a college degree and makes higher education a real possibility for students from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Student knowledge about financial aid availability and application processes, however, varies substantially by race, ethnicity, and income. Despite belonging to families with lower-than-average family incomes and higher-than-average rates of poverty, Latinx, Black, underrepresented Asian American and NHPI, and AIAN students are the least likely to know about existing assistance to pay for college (e.g., federal and state financial aid programs) and tend to leave a substantial amount of financial aid untapped.
High school seniors who complete financial aid applications enroll in college at higher rates than their peers who do not; this is especially true for students from low-income backgrounds. When students know they will receive grant aid for college, their college persistence and probability of degree attainment go up.
Universal financial aid application completion policies have the potential to lead to more equitable access to college and a college degree for Latinx, Black, underrepresented Asian American and NHPI, and AIAN students. Universal financial aid application policies require that all high school seniors submit a federal or state financial aid form or sign a waiver to opt out of applying for financial aid before they graduate from high school. The policies vary by state, as either an individual student mandate or a Local Education Agency (LEA; for example, school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools) mandate.
By the 2023-24 school year, eight states (Louisiana, Illinois, Alabama, Colorado, Texas, California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) had a universal financial aid application policy. Three states (Indiana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma) will implement universal financial aid application policies in 2024-25, and Kansas will commence its policy with the 2027-28 school year.
Recommendations
- Develop a monitoring system for community college students’ financial aid applications, offering increased support to enhance their access to financial assistance, similar to the support provided to high school seniors
- Set district-wide goals for financial aid completion rates and specific targets for subgroups
- Design communication campaigns that are multilingual, crafting targeted messages that emphasize the accessibility of college financial aid, and promote support programs for students and families
- Develop a holistic communication plan regarding opt-out guidelines for universal financial aid applications.
Transfer
Every year, hundreds of thousands of students in the U.S. enroll in community colleges, with the vast majority—80%, according to one estimate—aspiring to transfer and complete a bachelor’s degree. Among the 1.4 million students entering a four-year college or university in fall 2022, 38% were doing so as transfer students.
Transfer from a community college to a four-year institution is a distinct component of higher education and has long been envisioned as an accessible and affordable route to a bachelor’s degree and beyond. A robust transfer pathway is also critical to ensuring equity in higher education. Nationwide, community colleges are open-access institutions, enrolling approximately 9 million students annually—nearly 40% of all undergraduates—and providing an entry point to college for millions of students every year. Large numbers of students who are Latinx, Black, underrepresented Asian American and NHPI, and AIAN, as well as students who are low-income, English language learners, and from other minoritized populations, enroll in community college. Community college enrollments nationally represent 39% of all Black undergraduates, 48% of all Latinx undergraduates, 52% of all AIAN undergraduates, and 34% of all NHPI undergraduates.
Community college transfer pathways have immense potential for advancing equity in higher education by providing a route to a four-year degree for Latinx, Black, underrepresented Asian American, NHPI, and AIAN students, but this potential has been squandered. Misaligned policies and practices between postsecondary institutions create barriers for transfer students, with disproportionate impacts on students from minoritized backgrounds.
Too few transfer-intending community college students ever transfer to a four-year institution, and far fewer complete their bachelor’s degrees. Barriers in the transfer process disproportionately thwart students from marginalized groups. Nationally, approximately 80% of new, associate degree-seeking community college entrants intend to transfer, but only 31% ever transfer to a four-year institution, and only 13% complete a bachelor’s degree within six years.
For the community college transfer pathway to realize its potential for advancing equity, federal leaders must support their students by removing major barriers to transfer student success that disproportionately impact students of minoritized backgrounds.
Recommendations
- Encourage collaboration between community colleges and four-year institutions to develop clear, structured transfer pathways. This can include joint curriculum planning, transfer agreements, and seamless credit transfer mechanisms
- Use data to dispel myths about transfer students, implement campaigns to address biases, and mandate data collection on transfer outcomes to evaluate pathway effectiveness
- Create clear transfer guides outlining general education and major courses needed for seamless transfer. Establish transparent procedures for credit evaluation based on agreements between colleges, with resources for students to understand how their coursework transfers to their desired degree program
- Encourage and provide incentives for collaboration between faculty members from community colleges and universities to enhance the transfer process and guarantee the applicability of credits
- Ensure that four-year universities have the capacity to enroll incoming community college transfer students, and monitor disaggregated data on access to limited enrollment majors to promote fair representation of transfer students and racially minoritized transfers across all bachelor’s degree programs
- Strengthen campus environments for transfer students by using an asset-based approach, funding staff at both institutions, increasing visibility, and supporting identity-based groups and programs
Faculty Hiring
Calls to diversify college and university faculties based on race/ethnicity are not new. For many years, college and university leaders have espoused a desire to diversify their faculties. This was particularly evident in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, when institutions across the nation publicly expressed commitments to provide more support to Black students; to engage in initiatives to advance the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; and to increase their faculty diversity. In spite of these calls, institutions face significant challenges in advancing outcomes related to recruiting and retaining diverse faculty. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, more than three out of four (76%) full-time instructional faculty members in colleges and universities nationwide are overwhelmingly white. In contrast, minoritized faculty members continue to be underrepresented. For example, Black, Latinx, and Native American faculty members account for only 5.0%, 5.2%, and 0.4% of the country’s faculty population, respectively (10.6% in all). However, students from these same groups are represented at much higher proportions: 11.9% Black, 18.6% Latinx, and 0.6% Native American (31.1% in all).
Though Latinx, Black, underrepresented Asian American and NHPI, and AIAN students remain underrepresented among our nation’s student bodies, a growing number of institutions have greater representations of diverse students within their student populations, as evidenced by the proliferation of institutions qualifying as Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Asian American-, Native American-, and Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs). Notwithstanding, the lack of faculty members who are Latinx, Black, Asian American, NHPI, or AIAN is often egregious, compared to the racial diversity within student populations.
The benefits of faculty diversity are well-documented in published scholarship on student success in higher education. A diverse faculty is better suited to prepare all students to live in a diverse society and to work in a global marketplace. These faculty members are also more likely to use a broader range of instructional strategies that are more conducive to student learning. Finally, Latinx, Black, Asian American and NHPI, and AIAN faculty members often take on the responsibility of building relationships with diverse students and creating affirming learning environments that lead to persistence, retention, and completion.
To effectively diversify faculty, academic leaders must first communicate the importance of this goal to secure buy-in from existing faculty. Institutions need to align their commitments at both the institutional and departmental levels to ensure that efforts to hire and support faculty of color are genuine. This includes creating a welcoming environment, securing necessary resources, and expanding professional networks to include diverse candidates. During the search process, a diverse and well-trained search committee should be formed, with members educated on implicit bias, racial microaggressions, and inclusive recruitment practices. After hiring, institutions must focus on long-term support for new faculty members, ensuring they are properly onboarded, supported both personally and professionally, and provided with the resources promised. The process emphasizes that the commitment to diversity does not end with hiring but continues with sustained efforts to integrate and support new faculty.
Recommendations
- Mandate a self-assessment for departments prior to hiring to evaluate and enhance support readiness for diverse faculty
Publication
Equity-Minded Faculty Hiring Practices: Promoting Fairness, Inclusion, and Faculty Diversity to Support Student Success in Higher Education
Read moreBlack Student Success
Black student enrollment in postsecondary education has declined by 8.4 percent since fall 2019, one of the steepest declines among all racial and ethnic groups. Significant disparities also persist between Black high school graduates and their white peers in immediate college enrollment rates. For decades, researchers and advocates have highlighted the systemic barriers Black students face in accessing, navigating, and completing college. In response to the heightened racial reckoning of 2020, many institutions publicly committed to advancing racial equity and improving outcomes for Black students. However, these commitments must be matched with concrete policy action. As colleges and universities work to fulfill their missions of equity and inclusion, they must implement policies and practices that center the lived experiences and intersectional identities of Black students. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) continue to lead in educating and graduating Black students despite receiving fewer public resources. State policymakers must ensure equitable investment in HBCUs as part of a broader strategy to advance racial equity. Ultimately, building a student-centered postsecondary system requires that state policies reflect and respond to the needs and realities of Black students across all institution types.
Recommendations
- Ensure job announcements to prioritize candidates with a demonstrated commitment to closing equity gaps for Black students.
- Integrate equity-focused performance metrics into all employee evaluations.
- Support faculty with high D/F/Withdrawal rates among Black students through targeted professional development.
- Waive tuition and fees for undergraduates from households earning below the state median income.
More in the Blueprint
Thank You to Our Funders
We are grateful for the generosity of the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. fund and the Joyce Foundation for making this Blueprint possible.
Back to Top