The long-run effects of affirmative action bans
Recent national affirmative action ban could worsen earnings inequality across racial and ethnic groups among women, while having relatively little impact on men
In the 2023 US Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Court ruled that affirmative action – defined as explicit racial and ethnic preferences in college admissions – is unconstitutional. This decision overturned decades of affirmative action practices at selective higher education institutions across the United States. Before this national ban, several states already had prohibited affirmative action in public university admissions. In our recent IZA Discussion Paper, we focus on four such states – Texas, California, Washington, and Florida – to examine how long-run educational attainment and labor market outcomes of exposed cohorts are affected by affirmative action bans.
Predicting the effects of banning affirmative action is complex. These bans have reduced the representation of underrepresented minority students, such as Black and Hispanic students, at more selective universities, while increasing the presence of White students, who are the majority group. If attending a high-quality college significantly boosts future success, then the bans could worsen long-run outcomes for Black and Hispanic students compared to White students. However, students admitted under affirmative action policies might have lower academic achievement before college compared to their peers. If there’s a trade-off between the quality of the college and how well a student’s academic background matches the school’s standards, the bans could lead to better outcomes for both minority and majority students by ensuring a better academic fit. Additionally, the effects could vary by gender, as men and women often differ in academic preparation, choice of college major, and may also differ in the level of preference they receive during admissions.
Using data from the American Community Survey, we analyzed the impact of affirmative action bans in Texas (1997), California (1998), Washington (1999), and Florida (2001). We examined how the outcomes of White, Black, and Hispanic men and women changed based on whether their birth cohort was exposed to these bans. Exposure to the ban was defined as turning 17 after a ban was enacted in their state, and we compared changes across cohorts in states with bans to those in states without bans, separately by race, ethnicity, and gender.
Our findings reveal that affirmative action bans negatively impact the long-run outcomes of Hispanic women, who experience declines in college completion, employment, and earnings. Earnings among Black women also decrease, while earnings for White women increase. For men, we find that the bans have minimal effects on educational attainment, earnings, and employment, however, there is some evidence that the bans lead to higher earnings and employment among Black men, consistent with the “mismatch” hypothesis.
The results of our study suggest that the recent national affirmative action ban could worsen earnings inequality across racial and ethnic groups among women, while having relatively little impact on men. We also observe differences in the effects across states, highlighting the need for further research to understand the mechanisms through which affirmative action influences long-run outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of considering race, ethnicity, and gender when evaluating the impacts of such policies.
© Francisca M. Antman, Brian Duncan, and Michael F. Lovenheim
Francisca M. Antman is Professor in the department of Economics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, faculty affiliate in the Population Program at the CU Population Center, and IZA Research Fellow
Brian Duncan is Professor and Department Chair at the University of Colorado Denver
Michael F. Lovenheim is Professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research
Please note:
We recognize that IZA World of Labor articles may prompt discussion and possibly controversy. Opinion pieces, such as the one above, capture ideas and debates concisely, and anchor them with real-world examples. Opinions stated here do not necessarily reflect those of the IZA.
Related IZA World of Labor content:
Do anti-discrimination policies work? by Marie-Anne Valfort
What is the nature and extent of student–university mismatch? By Gillian Wyness Richard Murphy
Identifying and measuring economic discrimination by Sergio Pinheiro Firpo
Foto by Charles DeLoye on Unsplash