Black Enrollment Drops at UNC Post-Ban

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious admissions, the effects are clear at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The share of Black students in the entering class plummeted from 10.6 percent to 7.8 percent and has not recovered (wunc.org). This sharp decline is more than a statistic. It represents a changing campus environment where Black students feel a growing sense of isolation. Students now describe walking into classes and seeing only one or two other Black classmates (dailytarheel.com).

This situation at UNC, one of the nation’s oldest public universities, is a direct result of a long and complicated legal history. The story behind these numbers is a journey through the Civil Rights Movement, landmark court decisions, and a persistent debate over the meaning of equality in America. Understanding this history is crucial to grasping the full weight of the current moment. The drop in enrollment and the feelings of students on the ground are the latest chapters in a struggle for access and belonging that began generations ago.

The Roots of Affirmative Action

The concept of affirmative action grew directly from the soil of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s (britannica.com). It was created as a tool to counteract centuries of systemic discrimination. Systemic discrimination refers to policies and practices embedded within institutions that perpetuate disadvantages for certain racial groups (edtrust.org). This can manifest as standardized tests with cultural biases or huge funding gaps between K-12 schools in different communities (edtrust.org). These systems created deep-seated disadvantages that affirmative action was designed to address.

The federal policy began with President John F. Kennedy. In 1961, he signed Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to take “affirmative action” to ensure employees were treated fairly, regardless of race (britannica.com). President Lyndon B. Johnson expanded this with Executive Order 11246 in 1965. This order explicitly prohibited employment discrimination by federal contractors and mandated they take proactive steps to promote equal opportunity (wikipedia.org). These executive orders laid the foundation for applying similar principles to higher education, aiming to open doors that had long been closed.

A Shifting Legal Battlefield

As colleges began using affirmative action, legal challenges quickly followed. The first major test came in 1978 with *Regents of the University of California v. Bakke* (oyez.org). In this case, the Supreme Court delivered a split decision. It ruled that strict racial quotas were unconstitutional. However, the Court also said that race could be considered as one of several factors in admissions (britannica.com). This established the “diversity rationale,” arguing that a diverse student body was a compelling interest for universities.

For decades, the *Bakke* decision shaped college admissions. Universities developed “holistic review” processes to evaluate applicants (edtrust.org). A holistic review considers many factors beyond grades and test scores, such as essays, extracurricular activities, and life experiences (scholarshipproviders.org). This framework was affirmed in 2003 in *Grutter v. Bollinger*. The Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s policy, reiterating that race could be one factor among many in an individualized review (oyez.org). These rulings created a legal balancing act for universities. They were consequently allowed to pursue diversity without using rigid, unconstitutional quotas.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision

The legal landscape changed entirely in 2023 with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard* and its companion case against UNC (scotusblog.com). This ruling effectively ended race-conscious affirmative action programs in college admissions across the country. The Court declared that these programs violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (apnews.com). The Equal Protection Clause mandates that state governments must apply laws fairly to everyone, preventing arbitrary discrimination (constitutioncenter.org).

The Court’s majority argued that treating students differently based on race was unconstitutional. They contended that such programs promoted harmful stereotypes by assuming a person’s race dictates their experiences or perspective (naacpldf.org). Justice Gorsuch wrote that sorting applicants by race “reinforces the harmful stereotype that students’ color, not their talent or hard work, has been responsible for their admission” (slfliberty.org). The Court also argued that these policies lacked a clear end point, risking they would become permanent racial preferences instead of temporary measures (naacpldf.org). While the ruling allows universities to consider how race has affected an applicant’s life, this consideration must be tied to an individual’s unique story, not their race itself (scotusblog.com).

The Immediate Aftermath at UNC

As a defendant in one of the landmark cases, UNC-Chapel Hill moved immediately to comply with the ruling (wunc.org). The impact was swift. The percentage of Black students in the incoming class dropped from 10.5 percent in the fall of 2023 to 7.8 percent in the fall of 2024 (wunc.org). That figure remained at 7.8 percent for the fall 2025 class. The Fall 2024 class was the first to be admitted entirely under the new race-neutral rules, as the Supreme Court’s decision came in June 2023, after most admissions for the Fall 2023 class were finalized ((wunc.org), (thirteen.org)).

This drop was not limited to Black students. The share of Hispanic or Latino students fell from 10.8 percent to 10.1 percent, and American Indian enrollment decreased from 1.6 percent to 1.1 percent (wunc.org). In contrast, the shares of white and Asian students saw slight increases (wunc.org). For current Black students, this demographic shift has made the campus feel less welcoming. Julian Taylor, a senior at UNC, noted a “shared sentiment in the Black community that just by being on campus, you can feel that there are far fewer Black first-years” (dailytarheel.com). This feeling of isolation is a direct consequence of the enrollment decline.

Navigating a New Reality

In response to the ban, UNC administrators modified their admissions process. They introduced new essay prompts and increased their focus on other aspects of a student’s background, like socioeconomic status (wunc.org). These are examples of “race-neutral policies,” which are strategies designed to promote diversity without directly considering race (bestcolleges.com). Other examples include giving preference to first-generation college students or applicants from lower-income families (bestcolleges.com).

However, the Supreme Court explicitly prohibited universities from using these policies as “proxies for race” (wunc.org). A proxy is a seemingly neutral factor, like a zip code or socioeconomic status, that is used with the primary intent of achieving a certain racial makeup (thenewcom.com). Many students and experts believe these race-neutral policies are not enough to address the scale of diversity loss (wunc.org). Critics argue they cannot fully capture the unique challenges and experiences tied to racial identity and systemic disadvantage that affirmative action was created to address (ncan.org). The results at UNC therefore seem to confirm these concerns.

A Pattern of Decline

The decline in Black enrollment at UNC is not an isolated event. It mirrors trends seen in other states that banned affirmative action years ago. For example, after California passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibited racial preferences, the state saw a significant drop in enrollment for students of color at its top universities (ballotpedia.org). Proposition 209 was a state constitutional amendment that banned the state from considering race in public education, employment, and contracting (uci.edu). Similarly, the University of Michigan experienced a decline in Black enrollment after its state banned affirmative action (wunc.org).

While UNC and other public universities have seen declines, some highly selective private institutions like Yale and Princeton have appeared to maintain racial diversity (washingtonpost.com). Highly selective institutions are universities with very low admission rates and exceptionally high academic standards (bestcolleges.com). Their ability to maintain diversity may be due to several factors. They often have huge endowments that allow for generous financial aid, attracting a broad applicant pool (bestcolleges.com). Furthermore, their global reputations and deep recruitment networks may give them access to a more diverse group of highly qualified applicants, even without considering race as a direct factor (harvard.edu).

Beyond the Campus Gates

The decline in Black enrollment at a flagship university has consequences that reach far beyond the institution itself (voanews.com). A “flagship university” is typically a state’s oldest and most prominent public university, playing a key role in educating future leaders (wikipedia.org). When fewer Black students graduate from these top universities, it can lead to reduced representation in critical professional fields like medicine, law, and engineering (epi.org).

This trend affects the pipeline for future Black leaders in business and government. Higher education is a major driver of economic mobility. Consequently, reduced access to flagship institutions can worsen existing wealth and income gaps in the Black community (epi.org). A lack of diverse perspectives in classrooms and workplaces also diminishes innovation and problem-solving for the state as a whole. This is not just an educational issue; it is a social justice issue with broad societal implications (voanews.com).

A New Battle Over “Equality”

The challenge to diversity at UNC extends beyond admissions. The UNC System Board of Governors recently voted to repeal its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy (dailytarheel.com). DEI initiatives are programs designed to recruit and retain diverse students and faculty, and to foster an inclusive campus climate for everyone (ebsco.com). The Board of Governors is the powerful policy-making body for all 17 public universities in the state, and its decisions are binding (ballotpedia.org).

Arguments for repealing the policy claimed that DEI initiatives promote “divisive ideologies” and that resources could be better used elsewhere (newsobserver.com). The board plans to replace the DEI policy with a new one focused on “Equality Within the University of North Carolina” (dailytarheel.com). This new policy is expected to focus on equal opportunity without the targeted programs for specific groups that were common under DEI (ebsco.com). Some faculty view this move as a “structural effort” to diminish diversity initiatives, creating yet another hurdle for inclusivity on campus (dailytarheel.com).

About the Author

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.