Affirmative action in College Athletics recruiting.

Recently, I had the opportunity to speak at a high school in Chicago with a student body that was predominantly African American and Latino. After my seminar, during the Q&A session, several students and families asked about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on affirmative action in college admissions and whether this would affect opportunities for prospective student-athletes, particularly those who are African American or Latino. These questions really resonated with me because one of the main reasons I founded PrepSearch in 2007 and created my seminar was to address inequities in college athletics recruiting and help increase access for African American students and other students of color.

I can’t fully address everything I want to say in one or two weeks, so I’ve decided to spend the next four weeks focusing on the impact of the affirmative action decision. I have strong feelings about the 2023 ruling, especially from a perspective that goes beyond athletics. However, I also recognize that the intersection of this decision with college athletics is crucial and needs to be explored in depth.

(Part 1) Affirmative Action and College Athletics Recruiting  

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 to end race-based affirmative action in college admissions has had a significant impact beyond just traditional admissions policies. While the ruling was specifically directed at how colleges consider race when admitting students, it raises important questions about how the shift could affect athletic recruiting. Although the Court’s decision does not directly address athletic recruiting, it is likely to prompt a reevaluation of how colleges approach the balance between diversity and merit, particularly when it comes to the recruitment of student-athletes.

Athletic recruiting in many top universities, especially in non-revenue sports such as crew, fencing, and lacrosse, has long been seen as a way to promote campus diversity. Historically, some schools have used athletic recruitment as a tool for increasing racial diversity on their campuses, seeking athletes from underrepresented groups to fill spots in their programs. In some cases, this has led to athletes being admitted with slightly lower academic qualifications compared to non-athletes, but in exchange, these athletes brought the potential to improve the school’s competitive performance and prestige.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, makes it clear that race can no longer be a factor in the admissions process. For college athletics, this raises important questions about how recruiting will change moving forward. If schools can no longer use race as a factor when recruiting athletes, how will they ensure diversity within their athletic programs? While athletic programs are often separate from the general admissions process, many elite schools have long used athletics as a way to bolster campus diversity. Without the ability to consider race, universities may need to rethink their strategies for maintaining diversity in their athletic rosters.

As the ruling forces schools to abandon race-based preferences in admissions, universities may look for alternative ways to promote diversity in their athletic programs. One approach could be a stronger emphasis on geographic diversity recruiting athletes from regions that are traditionally underserved or have fewer resources for elite sports training. Another possibility is focusing more on socioeconomic factors, such as recruiting athletes from low-income backgrounds or first-generation college students. By expanding recruitment to underserved communities, universities can ensure that their athletic programs remain diverse without explicitly considering race.

The issue of privilege in athletic recruiting is a significant one. Many non-revenue sports, such as crew, fencing, and squash, are disproportionately populated by affluent, predominantly white athletes. These athletes often come from elite private schools or prep schools where access to high-level coaching and training is readily available. This creates a cycle where wealthy students, who can afford expensive sports academies or private coaching, have an advantage in gaining recruitment spots at top-tier universities. As a result, it’s been suggested that these sports programs, rather than serving purely as a meritocratic way to select the best athletes, often act as a form of affirmative action for affluent, white students.

With the end of affirmative action in general admissions, athletic programs could come under scrutiny for inadvertently reinforcing these patterns of privilege. If universities are no longer able to use race in their admissions decisions, they may face pressure to address the socioeconomic and racial inequalities inherent in their recruiting practices. This could involve expanding access to non-revenue sports by investing in outreach programs that encourage participation from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups or lower-income families. By broadening recruitment efforts and providing more financial support to athletes from diverse backgrounds, schools may better align with the broader goals of equity and fairness in admissions.

Another important consideration is how the elimination of race-based policies might affect the recruitment of athletes in high-profile sports, such as football and basketball. These sports already have high levels of Black and Latino athletes, but with the loss of race-based admissions preferences, universities may need to find new ways to ensure these athletes are admitted without relying on race. Schools may need to look more at factors like academic performance, socioeconomic status, or regional diversity to maintain a balanced and diverse roster. While these sports are generally seen as a way to bring in significant revenue, the broader diversity goals of universities may now have to be pursued through different means.

In the wake of the Court’s ruling, athletic programs will likely face increased pressure to ensure they are both fair and merit-based, while also promoting diversity in their rosters. This will likely require universities to rethink their current approach to recruiting athletes. Instead of relying on race-based preferences, they may need to adopt more holistic strategies that emphasize access, opportunity, and talent regardless of a student’s racial background. This could involve a greater emphasis on socioeconomic factors such as recruiting athletes who are first-generation college students or those from lower-income backgrounds—or seeking out athletes from regions where there is a lack of access to elite sports training.

The Court’s decision is also likely to spark debates about the role of class in college athletic recruitment. For example, while affluent students may have greater access to expensive training and sports opportunities, universities might focus more on providing opportunities for athletes from underserved communities who may not have the financial resources to attend elite academies or travel to national competitions. Financial aid packages for athletes from underrepresented backgrounds could play a larger role in ensuring that these athletes have equal access to recruitment opportunities.

Ultimately, as universities move forward without race-based policies in admissions, they will need to develop new strategies to balance athletic performance with diversity goals. While this may present challenges, it also offers an opportunity to create a more equitable recruitment system that ensures athletic programs reflect the diversity of the broader student population. By focusing on factors like socioeconomic background, geographic diversity, and merit, schools can continue to build competitive and diverse athletic programs without relying on race as a factor.

As this shift unfolds, the future of college athletics recruiting will likely see significant changes. Universities will need to remain transparent about their recruitment processes and ensure they continue to offer opportunities for all student-athletes, regardless of their background. The end of affirmative action in college admissions presents both challenges and opportunities for college athletic programs. But with thoughtful, inclusive recruiting strategies, universities can continue to build athletic teams that are diverse, equitable, and competitive.

An Overview of Affirmative Action and College Admissions

For decades, colleges and universities in the United States utilized affirmative action as a tool in their holistic admissions process, where race and ethnicity were considered among several factors to help foster diversity on campuses. This practice was intended to address historical inequities by promoting access to higher education for students from racially underrepresented groups and by ensuring that academic environments reflected a broader societal demographic. In effect, affirmative action sought to create a more inclusive academic environment that embraced diverse perspectives and backgrounds, enriching the overall learning experience for all students.

Historically, this has been important because students of color, particularly Black, Latino, and Indigenous students, were often underrepresented at many elite colleges and universities, despite their academic qualifications. The purpose of affirmative action was to provide opportunities to these students, so that they were not unfairly disadvantaged by longstanding systemic inequalities in education.

Although affirmative action was primarily associated with admissions to the academic programs of colleges, its principles have also seeped into the domain of college athletics recruiting. While athletic recruiting has generally operated under its own set of rules separate from the general admissions process, many universities have long considered diversity as a part of their recruiting strategies to ensure that their athletic programs were as diverse as the academic body. College athletics programs have historically been viewed as avenues through which universities could not only enhance their competitive standing but also contribute to the overall diversity of their student population.

In this context, race and ethnicity were often factors that colleges considered when selecting athletes for specific sports. For example, Black athletes have played a dominant role in sports like basketball and football, which has helped diversify the student body at many schools that excel in those areas. Similarly, in certain non-revenue sports like crew, fencing, and lacrosse, universities have recruited athletes from diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds to ensure that these programs reflect a broader diversity of students.

In reality, athletic programs often used race-based considerations to help promote diversity in the broader student body. For instance, certain universities may have been more inclined to recruit Black, Latino, or Asian American athletes for non-revenue sports where the teams were predominantly white or lacked racial diversity. This process mirrored the broader goal of affirmative action in admissions by integrating racial diversity into athletic rosters.

While these practices helped boost diversity in athletics and academia, they also led to controversy. Some critics argued that athletic recruitment based on race was an extension of affirmative action that favored some athletes over others, not necessarily on the basis of merit, but rather because of their background. Others, however, maintained that diversity in athletics, much like in the classroom, was important for creating a well-rounded, inclusive environment that reflected the country’s social fabric. The Supreme Court’s ruling against race-based affirmative action has raised new questions about how this plays out in athletic recruitment and whether these practices need to be reassessed in light of the changing admissions landscape.

The intersection between college admissions and athletic recruiting has often been a complex one, with many top schools balancing academic standards with the need to maintain competitive athletic programs. Some elite colleges have granted significant admissions preferences to recruited athletes, especially in non-revenue sports, where recruitment is critical to the university’s reputation and prestige. In some cases, athletes have been admitted with lower academic qualifications than their non-athlete peers, as their athletic talents were seen as adding significant value to the school.

This tension between athletics and academics has long been a topic of debate. While affirmative action policies were initially designed to create more inclusive academic spaces, athletic recruiting has often acted as a mechanism to maintain diversity, not only in terms of race but also socioeconomic background. By recruiting athletes from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, universities could diversify their campuses while also bolstering their athletic teams. For example, schools in the Ivy League, which have traditionally been associated with high academic standards, also use athletic recruitment as a way to bring in talented athletes who help maintain the schools’ competitive athletic profiles while contributing to racial diversity.

However, this system has not been without criticism. Many have argued that athletic recruitment, particularly in elite sports with high participation fees and access barriers, tends to favor wealthier students, who may already benefit from other advantages such as private schooling or exclusive coaching opportunities. This has created a scenario where some believe that athletic recruitment itself may act as a hidden form of affirmative action for privileged groups—namely, white and wealthy students who dominate recruitment in sports such as lacrosse, crew, and fencing. At the same time, many have raised concerns that the practices of athletic recruitment were inadvertently exacerbating racial inequities in admissions by favoring some racial groups over others, especially in the case of underrepresented minority athletes who did not have access to the same athletic training and resources.

The 2023 Supreme Court ruling has created new challenges for both traditional college admissions and athletic recruitment. In a post-affirmative action world, colleges must now reassess how they recruit athletes, particularly as they navigate the new legal framework around diversity and merit-based admissions. For college athletics, this means questioning how much of the recruitment process should prioritize racial diversity and whether race-neutral strategies can be developed to maintain the same level of diversity on athletic teams.

Without the ability to explicitly consider race as a factor in admissions and recruitment, universities may be compelled to look more closely at other factors like socioeconomic status, geographic diversity, or first-generation college status—to continue promoting diversity within their athletic programs. Some schools may focus on broadening recruitment pipelines to historically underserved areas, or work to expand access to sports programs that were once limited to wealthy or private school athletes. Athletic programs may also increase their emphasis on financial aid for athletes from low-income backgrounds to ensure that cost barriers do not limit opportunities for talented athletes from underrepresented racial groups.

The ruling could lead to greater scrutiny of college athletics’ role in promoting diversity. As universities shift away from race-based policies, they may need to develop holistic recruitment strategies that balance athletic performance with the goal of fostering a diverse and inclusive campus. Schools might also begin focusing on merit-based approaches in athletic recruitment, where an athlete’s abilities and achievements are evaluated alongside other factors, such as their ability to bring new perspectives to the campus community.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

In the case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-based admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This landmark decision, delivered in 2023, effectively bans the use of race as a factor in college admissions, ending the long-standing practice of affirmative action in higher education. While the ruling directly impacts the admissions processes for academic programs, it has profound implications for college athletics recruiting as well.

For many years, race was considered a factor in college admissions to help address historical disparities and ensure that campuses were diverse and reflective of society’s demographic makeup. At the same time, some universities used athletic recruitment as a complementary tool to further diversify their student bodies. In sports like basketball, football, and certain non-revenue sports, such as lacrosse and crew, athletes from underrepresented racial or ethnic backgrounds were often recruited to help meet diversity goals.

While the Supreme Court ruling does not directly address athletic recruiting, it raises significant questions about how universities will now balance their desire to maintain competitive sports programs with the goal of fostering a diverse student body. Traditionally, race-conscious recruitment policies have allowed schools to recruit athletes from underrepresented groups, helping to diversify teams and, by extension, campuses. This ruling places athletic departments in a challenging position, as they will now have to rethink how to promote racial diversity without considering race as a factor.

The most immediate concern is whether athletic recruiting practices will continue to be a de facto extension of affirmative action, despite not being directly governed by the admissions process. For instance, universities that were once able to prioritize racial diversity in their athletic programs as part of a broader effort to meet diversity goals may find it harder to maintain that balance. The ruling could lead to more merit-based recruiting strategies, where coaches may focus even more on an athlete’s performance, academic qualifications, and potential for contributing to the team’s success, rather than considering race as one factor in the decision-making process.

However, this shift could have unintended consequences. Historically, some sports have been dominated by athletes from wealthier, predominantly white backgrounds (such as in non-revenue sports like crew and fencing), leading to concerns that these sports programs could become even more exclusive in the absence of race-conscious recruiting. In contrast, sports like basketball and football, where athletes from Black and Latinx communities are more heavily represented, may continue to benefit from more diverse representation. Nevertheless, without race as a consideration, it could become more challenging for athletic departments to maintain diversity in their recruiting classes in these sports as well.

The ruling also places additional pressure on college athletics programs to reevaluate how they recruit from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Without race as a factor, universities may be compelled to look more closely at other factors like socioeconomic status, geographic diversity, or first-generation college status to continue promoting diversity within their athletic programs. Some schools may focus on broadening recruitment pipelines to historically underserved areas or work to expand access to sports programs that were once limited to wealthy or private school athletes. Athletic programs may also increase their emphasis on financial aid for athletes from low-income backgrounds to ensure that cost barriers do not limit opportunities for talented athletes from underrepresented racial groups.

Additionally, the ruling could lead to greater scrutiny of how privilege factors into college athletics recruitment. Some critics have long argued that athletic recruiting, particularly in non-revenue sports, often disproportionately favors wealthier students, who may already benefit from other advantages such as private schooling or exclusive coaching opportunities. This has created a scenario where some believe that athletic recruitment itself may act as a hidden form of affirmative action for privileged groups namely, white and wealthy students, who dominate recruitment in sports such as lacrosse, crew, and fencing. At the same time, many have raised concerns that the practices of athletic recruitment were inadvertently exacerbating racial inequities in admissions by favoring some racial groups over others, especially in the case of underrepresented minority athletes who did not have access to the same athletic training and resources.

The 2023 Supreme Court ruling has created new challenges for both traditional college admissions and athletic recruitment. In a post-affirmative action world, colleges must now reassess how they recruit athletes, particularly as they navigate the new legal framework around diversity and merit-based admissions. For college athletics, this means questioning how much of the recruitment process should prioritize racial diversity and whether race-neutral strategies can be developed to maintain the same level of diversity on athletic teams.

Without the ability to explicitly consider race as a factor in admissions and recruitment, universities may be compelled to look more closely at other factors—like socioeconomic status, geographic diversity, or first-generation college status to continue promoting diversity within their athletic programs. Some schools may focus on broadening recruitment pipelines to historically underserved areas, or work to expand access to sports programs that were once limited to wealthy or private school athletes. Athletic programs may also increase their emphasis on financial aid for athletes from low-income backgrounds to ensure that cost barriers do not limit opportunities for talented athletes from underrepresented racial groups.

Moreover, the ruling could lead to greater scrutiny of college athletics’ role in promoting diversity. As universities shift away from race-based policies, they may need to develop holistic recruitment strategies that balance athletic performance with the goal of fostering a diverse and inclusive campus. Schools might also begin focusing on merit-based approaches in athletic recruitment, where an athlete’s abilities and achievements are evaluated alongside other factors, such as their ability to bring new perspectives to the campus community.

To learn more about PrepSearch and how I’ve helped over 1,700 students attend college through sports since 2007, please explore the rest of my website. For more information about my seminars for high schools and clubs, or to inquire about my recruiting advisory services, feel free to complete the contact form on my website at www.prepsearch.net.

If you know a prospective student-athlete in grades 8-12 who could benefit from additional free exposure to college coaches, have them download the new PrepSearch app today! It’s available in both the Apple App Store and Google Play Stores.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.prepssearchappsapp

https://apps.apple.com/app/prepsearch-app/id6738037970

EM