It is now illegal for race to be a factor in U.S. college admissions. What if employment is next?

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the use by U.S. colleges and admissions of a candidate’s race in determining whether they should be admitted as a student. The six-justice conservative supermajority ruled that the admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were unconstitutional, reversing decades of precedent. For the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the nation’s colleges and universities must use colorblind criteria in admissions.

It seems probable that a similar case involving employment will find its way to the Court and I struggle to find any reason why the outcome would be different. At a minimum, it seems likely to me that the use of race by large employers to determine who they will hire is about to end. And by “large”, I mean all employers who are deemed under federal law to be “federal contractors”, which means in practice every employer with more than 50 employees.

There is little doubt that such a ruling would have far-reaching impacts across multiple sectors and industries in the United States and beyond, but the exact consequences will depend on how individuals, businesses, and institutions respond. I see at least six outcomes:

Elimination of Affirmative Action: Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) programs and affirmative action policies have been used as a way to increase diversity and address historical disparities and discrimination in employment. These policies will be effectively eliminated or at least drastically changed.

Potential Increase in Discrimination Lawsuits: Watch for an uptick in lawsuits related to alleged discrimination. Some may argue they were unfairly passed over for a job because the company was not allowed to take race into account. Others might contend they were discriminated against in more covert ways.

Reframing of Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives: Many organizations are deeply invested in promoting diversity and inclusion for ethical, social, and business reasons because study after study demonstrates that the more diverse a workplace, the more productive is that workplace. A ruling prohibiting consideration of race in hiring decisions would necessitate a reframing of these initiatives, perhaps focusing more on socioeconomic status, geographic location, or the first in family (“first generation”) to attend college, among other potential criteria.

Potential Decrease in Workplace Diversity: Realistically, such a ruling will decrease diversity in certain industries. Without DEIB policies, some employers might revert to predominantly hiring from historically over-represented demographic groups. This will vary employer-to-employer. Those who revert to a 1950s model of recruiting by favoring white, males will see their talent pool massively shrink, and that will put them at a competitive disadvantage. I won’t shed a tear for those organizations.

Focus on Objective Hiring Criteria: Employers might put an increased emphasis on objective hiring criteria to avoid any accusations of discrimination. This could mean a heavier reliance on things like education, work experience, assessments that predict workplace productivity, and specific skills.

Increased Emphasis on Education Equality: If universities and workplaces can’t consider race, leading employers will likely lobby and invest in primary and secondary education opportunities for underrepresented candidates with the goal of improving the workforce readiness of these students. I doubt this will happen on a widespread basis, as there will be too many of these candidates choosing to work for employers who invested little to nothing. This is what economists often call the “free rider” problem.

To be clear, I do not see the use of race in hiring as becoming illegal anytime soon. There’s no case pending before the Court, and so the earliest that the Court would likely hear and then decide on such as case would be a year from now, and more likely two or even three years from now. Still, from a workforce planning perspective for enterprise-level employers, that’s a very short period of time. They have time to adapt if they begin to do so now. They won’t if they wait for this part of their world to be turned upside down as happened with education.