{shortcode-754e114f8aef96e5ddcef1db2edf6df1ed480e0e}

Harvard’s new admissions data reveal that diversity seems to have been offered a spot on the waitlist, and the chances of admission look bleak.

Last week, the University released demographic data for the Class of 2029. In the two years since the Supreme Court overturned race-conscious undergraduate admissions, Black enrollment dropped by almost 40 percent and Hispanic enrollment by over 20 percent — and those figures may be underestimates. This year’s data concretizes a historic, negative shift away from the principle of diversity of identity in our student body, a trend the University should seek to reverse through any legal means.

Let’s start with the data themselves. Black students make up almost 11.5 percent of this year’s freshman class, down from 14 percent last year and 18 percent before the strikedown of affirmative action. Hispanic enrollment fell five percentage points to 11 percent. That being said, the data itself has become harder to scrutinize. Last year, Harvard introduced a new calculation method to determine these proportions, using as the denominator the number of students who self-identified their race in lieu of the number of total students.

Simultaneously, the calculation includes students who identified with multiple racial backgrounds in the percentages for each individual race with which they identify, growing the numerator. And as we argued last year, such changes render the calculation abstruse and impede our ability to draw comparative conclusions year over year. Eight percent of the Class of 2029 admits declined to report race altogether. Assuming overrepresented groups make up the bulk of those students, the percentage of underrepresented groups may be even lower.

It’s hard not to read the data as anything but a drop in minority enrollment. The shifts have occurred amid a wide crackdown on DEI at the University, as displayed by Harvard has shuttering or renaming of longstanding DEI programs designed to support the shrinking number of underrepresented students it does admit. Amid an institutional deprioritization of student identity, the drop in demographics spells trouble for both our student experience and the diversity of America’s future leaders.

The news isn’t all bad: Harvard also announced that 45 percent of the Class of 2029 is attending tuition-free. This class is the first admitted after the school expanded its financial aid program to offer free tuition to students whose families earn less than $200,000 a year. If fewer than half of the students receive free tuition, it is a reasonable inference that the median income of an admitted ’29 is above $200,000. The median household income of the country, meanwhile, is less than half of that: around $83,000. Harvard might be affordable, but it still isn’t accessible. There is still work to be done.

In a post-affirmative-action world where the University is facing unprecedented public scrutiny, now is the time for Harvard to double down on programs that promote diversity legally.

Joining QuestBridge and reinstating standardized testing requirements, both of which help identify talented students from low-income backgrounds, was a good start. But the University can do more.

Student-led outreach is another obvious lever: committing to diversity begins with encouraging underrepresented students to apply. Instead, Harvard did the opposite, shuttering its Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program in a shroud of secrecy. But outreach means little if the gate itself doesn’t move.

There are a litany of actions Harvard can take to address these issues. It could end legacy admissions and its favoritism of feeder schools, both of which disproportionately benefit wealthy applicants. It could institute forms of socioeconomic affirmative action, directly assisting those with fewer resources to artificially plump up applications. Gallup polling shows that 61 percent of Americans support factoring economic circumstances into admissions — the move is backed by the country.

Household wealth plays an enormous role in applicants’ lived experiences; considering it will create a less homogenous campus and contribute to a more enriching college experience for all — all while turning Harvard into a more equitable engine of social mobility.

Harvard once promised to open doors. It’s time to hold them open.

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.