This fall, colleges are welcoming the third cohort admitted since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling that ended race-conscious admissions. Yet just as the effects of that decision are becoming clearer, a significant part of the picture is becoming harder to see.
New research shows that nationally, the share of first-year students whose race or ethnicity was reported as "unknown" rose from 3.3 percent before the ruling to 4 percent in 2024. The increase was more pronounced at Ivy Plus institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). While the overall uptick is modest, it complicates efforts to assess whether opportunity in higher education is expanding or narrowing.
Much of the public debate has centered on enrollment shifts at a handful of highly selective colleges. Lumina Foundation, in partnership with admissions researcher James Murphy at Class Action, released two reports this year offering a broader view across higher education. The first tracks enrollment changes at more than 3,000 institutions. The second, released in June, examines the rise in first-year students with unknown race/ethnicity and its implications for interpreting those changes.
Murphy analyzed federal data from more than 3,000 institutions and over 3.5 million first-time enrollments, comparing the 2024 entering class with the average of 2022 and 2023. At Ivy Plus institutions, the share of underrepresented students of color fell by 4.33 percentage points—a nearly 19 percent drop. Black enrollment declined by 25 percent, and Hispanic enrollment by about 15 percent. At state flagship universities, enrollment of underrepresented students of color increased by 8 percent. White and Asian American enrollment remained relatively flat across most institutional groups, though Asian American enrollment rose at Ivy Plus schools.
Murphy describes these patterns as a "cascade effect," where declines at the most selective institutions coincide with increases at less selective ones. The data don't reveal where individual students would have enrolled before the ruling, but they raise a critical question: if highly qualified students increasingly attend institutions with lower completion rates or weaker post-graduation earnings than those they might otherwise have attended, what does that mean for their long-term outcomes?
The second report, "Known Unknowns," shifts focus from where students enrolled to how clearly we can understand who enrolled. Across all institutions, the share of first-year students with unknown race rose from 3.3 percent pre-ruling to 4 percent in 2024. More than 95 percent of first-year students still had a reported race or ethnicity, but the increase was uneven. At Ivy Plus institutions, non-reporting rose from 3.2 percent to 5.8 percent. At HBCUs, it rose from 3.2 percent to 4.9 percent. Public four-year institutions and state flagships saw the smallest increases, and only about a quarter of all institutions saw non-reporting rise by more than 1 percentage point.
The report also looks beyond enrollment. Among 115 colleges with data on applications, admissions, and enrollment, non-reporting among applicants increased by 0.7 percentage points—similar to the national enrollment increase. In that smaller, nonrepresentative group, less selective institutions had the highest non-reporting rates both before and after the ruling, and the largest increase afterward. Notably, non-reporters were admitted at somewhat higher rates than the applicant pool overall.
These findings resist simple explanations. Some students may believe that not reporting their race gives them an advantage. Others may be confused about what the ruling permits or uncertain how colleges will use their information. The "unknown" category can also reflect changing identities, limitations of the categories offered, or institutional reporting errors. The report found little to no correlation between increases in non-reporting and changes in enrollment shares for any particular racial or ethnic group, so we cannot assume who these students are or use the unknown category to adjust numbers for another group.
The Hechinger Report's examination of admissions essays after the ruling offers a related glimpse into how students are navigating the change. Some students continued to write about how race shaped their experiences, while others chose not to emphasize that part of their backgrounds. Essays can't explain the rise in unknowns, but they show students interpreting new and sometimes confusing signals about what to disclose.
Additional data will be crucial for understanding whether shifts in access lead to shifts in completion and economic mobility. Who enrolls, where they enroll, and who completes a credential are all critical to assessing the ruling's longer-term effects. Students, institutions, and the professionals who support them are navigating a changed admissions environment. Guidance from the National Association for College Admission Counseling can help counselors and admissions professionals understand evolving practices and help students make informed choices.
We still have only one year of complete national post-ruling enrollment data. Additional federal admissions data are expected and could eventually allow researchers to examine who applies, who is admitted, and who enrolls, though it remains unclear when all of those data will become available. As this school year unfolds, another entering class will add to a still-developing picture. The next several years of data will tell us whether the patterns we're seeing are temporary adjustments or lasting changes—and what they mean for the future of higher education.
Related coverage: Supreme Court returns to bench facing Trump clashes and packed docket and Democrats court rural voters, citing GOP betrayal on healthcare and farms.
