In recent times, the methods by which colleges select students for their incoming classes have faced heightened scrutiny, particularly from the current administration. This scrutiny has manifested through various means, including settlements, a memo, and executive actions aimed at prompting institutions to reevaluate their admissions strategies.
These directives underscore a commitment to what the administration terms merit-based admissions, alongside an effort to extend the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-conscious admissions to encompass all forms of race-based initiatives.
One significant aspect of this discussion is the use of geographic targeting in recruitment. A recent memo from the Attorney General explicitly cautioned colleges against focusing their recruitment efforts on specific geographic areas, such as particular cities, neighborhoods, or high schools.
The memo states that any federally funded organization implementing recruitment strategies that target specific geographic locations based primarily on racial or ethnic composition, rather than legitimate factors, would be deemed unlawful and discriminatory.
Engaging in such potentially illegal practices could jeopardize grant funding, as highlighted by the Attorney General.
To further intensify the pressure on colleges, an executive action was issued last week, mandating that institutions provide additional admissions data to the Education Department.
This increased scrutiny of geographic targeting coincides with the commencement of the admissions season for many colleges, potentially complicating their recruitment efforts this fall. Many institutions have already begun their recruitment travels, but there are growing concerns that traditional high school visits may attract unwanted attention from the administration.
The administration’s focus on recruitment strategies can be traced back to the aftermath of the Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which prohibited race-conscious admissions policies. Some education equity experts and legal scholars suggested that enhancing geographic recruitment of low-income and historically underserved students could serve as an alternative means to promote racial diversity in incoming classes. However, some conservatives criticized these efforts as attempts to circumvent the law.
The court’s ruling seemed to imply that such strategies could be legally permissible. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. referenced a brief from SFFA’s lawyers, which proposed that institutions could adopt strategies to maintain racial diversity in states where affirmative action is banned, including policies that promote geographic diversity and partnerships with disadvantaged high schools. These strategies, such as percentage plans, have been shown to enhance both racial and socioeconomic diversity.
Geographic Recruitment: A Complex Landscape
Experts in admissions and college access argue that many institutions have not significantly altered their recruitment strategies to prioritize primarily Black and Hispanic areas.
Geographic recruitment has long been one of many tools available to admissions offices, aimed at attracting students who align with the institution’s goals.
“It’s a combination of historical student demographics and the need to serve those communities,” explained Angel B. Pérez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. “Additionally, it’s about identifying areas with students who can afford tuition, as most colleges rely heavily on tuition revenue.”
Geographic recruitment may also involve coaches reaching out to high schools with strong athletic programs or universities with renowned music programs recruiting in communities with successful bands.
As the number of high school graduates entering college has begun to decline in many regions, colleges have shifted their focus to areas with growing high school populations, such as California and Texas, Pérez noted.
“Institutions find themselves in a challenging position. Does this memo imply that recruiting in Harlem, New York, or Washington, D.C., is off-limits due to the presence of students of color? It’s important to recognize that there are also white students in these areas,” he remarked.
Edward Blum, who played a pivotal role in the affirmative action ban, expressed his view that geographic targeting is unconstitutional if colleges are recruiting from predominantly minority areas without also considering rural regions.
Many colleges engage in rural recruitment initiatives, and it is common for institutions to target wealthier areas that tend to be predominantly white, seeking students who can afford full tuition. A study indicated that colleges are more likely to visit high schools in affluent areas while overlooking those in lower-income brackets.
Moreover, most college access initiatives are situated in underprivileged areas or high schools, often with majority student bodies of color. According to Catherine Brown, senior director for policy and advocacy at the National College Attainment Network, the aim is not solely to increase the number of students of color in college but to enhance the lives and outcomes of students and their communities.
“Place-based college access programs are often designed as economic development initiatives for communities, aiming to better educate local high school graduates and encourage them to stay, create jobs, and invest in their communities,” Brown stated. “It’s hard to imagine that this is the type of approach the administration intends to target. What would be the alternative? Should every scholarship program adopt a national recruitment strategy?”
Joshua Wyner, executive director of the Aspen Institute’s College Excellence Program, emphasized that research indicates highly qualified low-income students are less likely to attend top colleges compared to their wealthier counterparts.
“A fair and effective recruitment strategy should actively seek out talent from low- and middle-income communities,” he asserted.
Understanding Intent in Recruitment
Both Brown and Pérez noted that their members have not yet raised concerns about altering recruitment practices in light of the DOJ’s guidance.
“We are still analyzing the implications of this guidance with various legal organizations, and our members are in a similar position. The memo lacks specificity, making it challenging to take actionable steps,” Brown remarked.
Wyner expressed confidence that the memo would not adversely affect the American Talent Initiative, which focuses on recruiting low- and middle-income students to selective universities, as the program has always prioritized socioeconomic status over race.
Jeffrey Metzler, a partner at a law firm specializing in education law, highlighted that one of the main challenges in enforcing this guidance will be demonstrating an institution’s intent—specifically, whether they are recruiting students based on race rather than other criteria.
“This reasoning extends beyond geographic targeting to other race-neutral criteria, such as income. If you are recruiting low-income students, is it because you aim to enhance racial diversity due to the correlation between income and race?” he explained.
He anticipates that institutions may become more cautious about geographic recruitment due to fears of investigations by the Department of Education or the Department of Justice, even if they believe their reasons for such recruitment are unrelated to race.
“Even if institutions are confident that their motivations align with the memo’s requirements, undergoing an investigation by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights or the DOJ can be a burdensome and stressful process, especially given the high stakes involved in such investigations under this administration,” he concluded.