{shortcode-f47a03b479d0ec77531686debf68deccd14e949b}

The release yesterday of the demographic data for Harvard’s first class admitted post-affirmative action was as opaque as it was concerning.

Totally without explanation, the College changed how it calculates the racial demographics of the admitted class, frustrating any attempt at close scrutiny. Still, what we can piece together from the scrambled numbers appears to confirm what we feared: The Supreme Court’s backward, badly reasoned decision on affirmative action has done real harm to the diversity of our campus.

The data released yesterday shows a four percent year-over-year drop in the proportion of the class that identifies as Black, from 18 percent to 14 percent. That’s a decrease of more than a fifth and, to the extent that the figures obtained by the new methodology are comparable to those obtained by the old one, the lowest proportion of Black admits in nearly a decade.

The consequences, should this dip continue or steepen, will be many. A sustained decrease in Harvard’s Black population will intensify race-based educational inequity in a nation where education is already highly inequitable; shut out talented students who face far higher obstacles in their path to Cambridge; increase the isolation some Black students already feel on Harvard’s campus; and deprive the entire student population of the many well-documented benefits of a diverse learning environment.

And, as the experience of MIT and Amherst College make clear, in the new age of college admissions, things can still get much, much worse. The two schools saw the Black proportion of their newest classes drop by 10 and eight percentage points, respectively.

Don’t celebrate that Harvard didn’t see such a precipitous decline yet, though — its entirely opaque new method for calculating demographic data makes it hard to say anything for sure.

The College has for years calculated racial demographics as a proportion of total admitted students, but this year, coincidentally, it’s decided to switch to measuring them as a proportion of students who report their racial background. (After it, coincidentally, delayed the release of its admissions statistics months beyond its usual timeline.)

Now, we understand the need for caution. The past year makes amply clear that any sensitive information Harvard discloses can and will be used against it. But in this instance, it’s more dangerous by far to withhold it. It’s essential for the nation to know just how much damage the Court has done and whether its foremost university has been able to blunt the effect.

That should begin with properly explaining the methodological shift, but it must go beyond it. To truly understand the University’s response to this sea change in how it conducts its admissions would require it finally disclose information long missing from its releases about each incoming class.

Its two proxies for the socioeconomic status of its incoming class — the proportion of first-generation students and the proportion of Pell Grant-qualifying students — conflate a wide range of income levels and aren’t broken down by racial group. And the College does not collect information about the proportion of Black students who are generationally African-American — in other words, who are the descendants of American enslaved people. Without these indicators, it’s difficult to truly understand the kinds of diversity Harvard achieves and, just as important, those we may not realize it leaves out.

Fortunately, it doesn’t take data to see how Harvard can improve. To start, it can finally abolish legacy admissions — an antiquated, inequitable policy that grows harder to justify by the day — and reconsider the extent of athlete and donor preferences, which also disproportionately benefit wealthy, white applicants. And it can give applicants more than a tepid boost for coming from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background.

It’s the Supreme Court that put our College’s diversity at risk, but the responsibility to respond lies with Harvard. It can begin by telling the truth.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.