OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE Oppression Perpetrated by the Most Rejective U.S. Postsecondary Institutions by Gary P. Duran, he/him/his A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 28, 2023 Approved Dustin M. Grote, Ph.D. Andrea Garavito Martinez, Ph.D. Louise R. Moulding, Ph.D. © 2023 Gary Patrick Duran 1 OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 2 Abstract Racially and ethnically minoritized students encounter constricted access when applying to the most rejective postsecondary institutions in the United States. Mechanisms that constrict access, reflect systemic oppression, and perpetuate institutionalized oppression are standardized test scores. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person testing centers closed in 2020. Subsequently, many postsecondary institutions that previously required test scores with admission applications moved away from test-required admissions policies. This study set out to determine which U.S. postsecondary institutions with an admit rate of 15% or less implemented a test-optional admissions policy during the pandemic. Further, the study set out to determine the impacts of test-optional admissions policies on the enrollment of some racially and ethnically minoritized students at the most rejective U.S. postsecondary institutions. The study employed an exploratory descriptive and comparative statistical analysis using the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Of the 28 institutions considered to be the most rejective, 25 implemented a test-optional admissions policy for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2021 semester. One year prior, 10 institutions had implemented a test-optional admissions policy. Test-optional admissions policies may have increased access for racially and ethnically minoritized students only 1.6% of the time. Therefore, test-optional policies do not, at least in the context of this study, substantially expand access for racially and ethnically minoritized students. Further research should include a qualitative study of enrollment leaders at the most rejective institutions and students' thoughts on test score admissions policies. Keywords: college admission, educational policy, enrollment, higher education, minoritized students, selective admission, rejective admission, standardized tests, test-optional OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 3 Acknowledgments There are many people to thank for the evolution of my thesis. First, thank you to all who attended my defense and are reading this work. I wanted to make this work public because this is not about me. It is about illuminating, disrupting, and dismantling systemic injustices. Next, I must thank the faculty in the program who deliberately developed curriculum and lesson plans that helped me grow as an individual. Weber State University is special because of its emphasis on creating community. I must thank all my classmates over the years who shared wisdom, insights, and personal stories with me before and after class. Your support and sharing helped me more than you know. Thank you to my incredible committee, Dra. Andrea Garavito Martinez y Dr. Louise Moulding, helped me evolve every step of the way. You’ve encouraged and strengthened me as a scholar and a human being. A special thank you to my wife, Tina, because without her, I could not have dedicated the amount of energy, time, or effort to this project that I did. She is my MVP. Thank you to my parents for scheduling that campus tour over a decade ago and encouraging me to stick with college; I think it’s working. Finally, my chair, Dustin, gets special acknowledgment and shared gratitude for being a rock for me over the last two and a half years. Right after I met Dustin, life threw me a few curveballs, and I disappeared one day, not intending to finish my degree, and then I came back to finish my master’s degree a few months later, and Dustin took me in once again and supported me all the way through. I couldn’t have done it without you, my friend. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 4 Table of Contents Oppression Perpetrated by the Most Rejective U.S. Postsecondary Institutions ............................ 6 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 8 Theoretical Framework - Critical Social Justice ......................................................................... 8 Defining Key Terms Using a Critical Social Justice Lens .................................................... 10 Growing Diversity in the U.S. ................................................................................................... 13 Representation of Minoritized Students at the Most Rejective Institutions .............................. 13 Benefits of Attending a Most Rejective Institution ................................................................... 15 Standardized Test Scores .......................................................................................................... 16 The Inherent Inequity of Standardized Tests ......................................................................... 18 Test-optional Admissions Policies ........................................................................................ 19 Effects of Test-optional Admissions Policies During the Pandemic ..................................... 21 The Inherent Inequity of Test-optional Admissions Policies ................................................ 22 Study Purpose & Research Questions........................................................................................... 23 Reflexivity/Positionality ............................................................................................................... 24 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 25 Institution Type & Control ........................................................................................................ 25 Most Rejective Institutions List ................................................................................................ 26 Admissions Test Policy ............................................................................................................. 26 Table 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 27 OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 5 Fall Enrollment Data, Racial and Ethnic Classifications .......................................................... 28 Racial and Ethnic Proportion of Enrollments at Most Rejective Institutions ........................... 28 Table 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 29 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 30 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 31 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Discussion & Implications ............................................................................................................ 39 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 43 References ..................................................................................................................................... 45 Appendix A. Proportion of Minoritized Demographics at the Most Rejective U.S. Postsecondary Institutions Figures........................................................................................................................ 51 Appendix B. IRB Approval Letter ................................................................................................ 77 OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 6 Oppression Perpetrated by the Most Rejective U.S. Postsecondary Institutions Minoritized student populations encounter systemic oppression when applying to the most rejective institutions in the United States (e.g., Adam, 2014; Alon & Tienda, 2007; Astin & Oseguera, 2004; Attewell & Domina, 2008; Au, 2018; Baker et al., 2018; Barshay, 2021). Historically, colleges and universities labeled as the “most selective” have propagated the myth that they enroll the most meritorious students. In other words, the “most selective” institutions claim to enroll students who have earned a seat in the classroom of their institution. However, when an institution admits fifteen percent or less of applicants, they reject most students (College Transitions, 2020). Contrary to the words “most selective,” the institutions are, in actuality, the “most rejective” because they are rejecting the majority of students who apply to their institution (Jump, 2021). Data shows that racially and ethnically minoritized peoples from the Black, Latiné, Indigenous, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Multiracial populations enroll at the most rejective institutions at rates below representation in society (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). This is of critical importance due to the upward socioeconomic mobility (Bowen et al., 2009), lower probability of a loan default (Jones et al., 2020), greater graduation rates (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011; Bowen et al., 2009; Long, 2008; Ruiz Alvarado et al., 2020), greater economic returns (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011; Dale & Krueger, 2011; Hoekstra, 2009; Long, 2008; Witteveen & Attewell, 2017), expansive social networks (Jones et al., 2020; Tholen et al., 2013; Wai, 2014), and other forms of capital that result from attending the most rejective institutions. Policies continue to perpetuate White supremacy and act as barriers to minoritized students who attempt to gain admission to the most rejective institutions. Admissions policies OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 7 that are implemented to support greater access to racially and ethnically minoritized students, such as race-conscious affirmative action (Espinosa et al., 2015), are often met with contention from those in dominant groups who outcry reverse discrimination, which is non-existent and, therefore a misnomer (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). However, the COVID-19 pandemic instigated more radical shifts in college admission policies across the United States (Barshay, 2021; Godwin, 2021; Nierenberg, 2021; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022; Selingo, 2021), necessitated, perhaps, by a lack of access to in-person services. One salient example is the swift movement to the implementation of test-optional admissions policies since prospective students in Spring 2020 may not have had access to testing centers to sit for an exam in person or may not have felt safe to visit testing centers to complete standardized tests, which were typically required for admission applications (Barshay, 2021). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the most rejective institutions did not enact test-optional admissions policies, though test-optional admissions policies were growing incrementally among colleges and universities (Godwin, 2021; Hoover, 2021). At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the most rejective colleges and universities enacted some form of test-optional admissions policies (Barshay, 2021; Nierenberg, 2021; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022; Selingo, 2021). Some institutions reasoned that test-optional admissions policies were enacted due to the closure of testing centers and a lack of student access to standardized tests. Others reasoned the shift to test-optional admissions policies resulted from the fear of losing tuition revenue (Hoover, 2021; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022). The rapid proliferation of test-optional admission policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic provides a rare opportunity to review the effects these changes may have on the enrollment of racially and ethnically minoritized students at the most rejective institutions (Godwin, 2021). OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 8 Regardless of the reasons behind the decisions to enact test-optional admissions policies, there is an opportunity to review the effects, if any, of test-optional admissions policies on the enrollment of racially and ethnically minoritized student populations at the most rejective institutions. If test-optional admissions policies result in greater access to the most rejective institutions for racially and ethnically minoritized students, test-optional admissions policies might be a critical tool for increasing access for minoritized students to the most rejective postsecondary institutions. Literature Review The literature review serves as the foundation and guide for this research. The beginning of the literature review covers the critical social justice theoretical framework used for this study. Following the framework is a description of the growing diversity in the United States, a section that describes the representation of racially and ethnically minoritized students at the most rejective institutions, and the benefits of attending a most rejective institution. The final sections of the literature review focus on types of test-optional admissions policies, the effects of testoptional admissions policies, and the inherent inequity of test-optional admissions policies. The literature review concludes by identifying the gap in the current literature and summarizes the purpose of this study. Theoretical Framework - Critical Social Justice This study is informed by research from many scholars. In an effort to recognize and honor the prior work of critical social justice scholars that inform and guide this study, a review of the literature is provided, beginning with the language, positionality, and key terms utilized in the study. Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017) describe a critical social justice framework as recognizing the deeply embedded inequalities throughout society. A critical social justice OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 9 framework recognizes the stratification of society through social group lines such as race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and others (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). The critical social justice framework is complemented by an equity-literate lens used to guide this study (Gorski, 2017). A commitment to an equity literate lens is a commitment to justice (Gorski, 2017). A commitment to justice is a commitment to a fair distribution of opportunity and access (Gorski, 2017). The equity literate requires four fundamental abilities: 1) recognize inequities; 2) respond to biases and inequities; 3) redress biases and inequities; and 4) create a sustainable, bias-free, and equitable learning environment for every student (Gorski, 2017). In addition to these abilities, Gorski (2017) outlined twelve principles of an equity literate lens: ● People experiencing poverty are the experts of their own experiences. ● The right to equitable educational opportunity is universal. ● Poverty and class are intersectional. ● People experiencing poverty are diverse. ● What we believe about people experiencing poverty informs how we teach, interact with, and advocate (or fail to advocate) for them. ● We cannot understand the relationship between poverty and education without understanding the barriers and inequities people experiencing poverty face in and out of schools. ● Test scores are inadequate measures of equity. ● Educational outcome disparities are the result of inequities, of unjust distribution of access and opportunity, not the result of deficiencies in the mindsets, cultures, or grittiness of people experiencing poverty. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 10 ● Equitable educators adopt a structural view rather than a deficit view of students and families experiencing poverty. ● Strategies for creating and sustaining equitable classrooms, schools, and school systems must be based on evidence of what works. ● Simplistic instructional strategies, absent a commitment to more robust institutional change, are no threat to inequities. ● There is no path to educational equity that does not involve a redistribution of access and opportunity. This study is grounded in a critical social justice framework and an equity-literate lens. Through these theoretical constructs, I contextualize and define several relevant terms for this study, beginning with the “most rejective” postsecondary institutions. Defining Key Terms Using a Critical Social Justice Lens Historically, college selectivity research and indexes have labeled institutions that accept fewer than 15% of all applicants as the most selective or highly selective institutions (College Transitions, 2020). The labels of “most selective” or “highly selective,” in addition to indicating the low admit rate of these institutions, also reflect the internalized supremacy that many of the institutions labeled in this category propagate and perpetuate. A less ambiguous and equity literate label was first coined as “the most rejective” by Akil Bello on Twitter in 2021 (Jump, 2021). In many ways, the most rejective label is a more accurate description of the institutions that reject most students who apply to their institutions. The term most selective could be misleading, describing the institution as selecting the most students. Another interpretation of the term most selective could be that those institutions select the most college-worthy students when in reality, every student is college worthy. This study will embrace and utilize the term most OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 11 rejective instead of most selective or highly selective to slice through the ambiguity perpetuated by institutions that reject most students. Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017) describe a minoritized group as: “a social group that is devalued in society. This devaluing encompasses how the group is represented, what degree of access to resources it is granted, and how unequal access is rationalized. Traditionally, a group in this position has been called a minority group. However, this language has been replaced with the term minoritized to capture the active dynamics that create the lower status in society and signal that a group's status is not necessarily related to how many or few of them there are in the population at large.” (p. 226) Using the critical social justice lens, the term minoritized groups is more accurate than underrepresented groups for this study because underrepresented could be interpreted solely as a number or quantity of a group in a population. Whereas the term minoritized in addition to a quantity of a group, acknowledges the devaluation of some groups in society. Here it is critical to note that a social group can be devalued and oppressed and, at the same time, recognize that no social group is of lower status in society and that any racial hierarchy of status is inherently racist (Kendi, 2019). The term minoritized is used to recognize the social devaluation and oppression of racial and ethnic minority groups without the purportedly lower status that is a product of racist hierarchies. Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017) describe oppression as: Discrimination of one social group against another, backed by institutional power. Oppression occurs when one group is able to enforce its prejudice throughout society because it controls the institutions. Oppression occurs at the group or macro level and OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 12 goes well beyond individuals. Sexism, racism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism are forms of oppression. (p. 226) This definition is integral to this study because it describes the discriminatory action towards racially and ethnically minoritized students throughout current times and the history of U.S. postsecondary education admissions processes and decision-making. As mentioned in the definition of oppression, discrimination can come in many forms (i.e., sexism, racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, etc.). It is essential to note that many students face multiple forms of oppression based on the intersectionality of their identities. Intersectionality, as described by Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017), is “the understanding that we simultaneously occupy multiple social positions and that these positions do not cancel each other out; they interact in complex ways that must be explored and understood” (p. 225). This study will focus on one form of oppression: institutional racism. The minoritized student populations considered in this study include Black, Latiné, Indigenous, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Multiracial students. Some data and literature will interchangeably define some of these minoritized student populations. Black students may be described as African American. Latiné students may be described as Hispanic, Latinx, or Latino. Indigenous students may be described as Native American or American Indian. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander students are often combined into one group. Multiracial students may be described as more than one race or more than one race but not Hispanic. These labels do not indicate or reflect all ethnicities, cultures, categories, or peoples. Instead, these categories are a considerable limitation and reflection of the oppressive White supremacist system and the way data are collected and reported, falling short of an equity-literate lens. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 13 Growing Diversity in the U.S. The United States of America (USA) is growing more diverse, a direct result of the growth of racially minoritized communities (USA Facts, 2022). According to data from USA Facts (2022), the Black (non-Hispanic) population accounted for 12.6% of the entire US population in 2021, growing from 12.3% of the population in 2010. In 2021, the Hispanic population accounted for 18.9% population increasing from 16.4% of the population in 2010. In 2021, the non-Hispanic Multiracial population accounted for 2.3% population, more than the 1.8% of the population in 2010. Although not growing, other minoritized communities have remained relatively consistent. In 2021, the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander populations accounted for 0.2% population, similar to the 0.2% of the population in 2010. In 2021, the Indigenous population accounted for 0.7% population, also similar to the 0.7% of the population in 2010. This data provides a quantitative view of some racially minoritized populations in the United States. Representation of Minoritized Students at the Most Rejective Institutions A report published the rates of minoritized students enrolled in the 2015-2016 academic year at very selective institutions (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In this context, very selective is a categorical descriptor from the Carnegie Classification. System for Undergraduate Profiles at institutions where admitted students are in the 80th to 100th percentile for admission test scores. In the 2015 to 2016 academic year, of all Black college students enrolled in U.S. postsecondary education, 12.9% enrolled at very selective institutions (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Ten percent of the 12.9% of Black students who enrolled at very selective institutions were from low socioeconomic status (lowSES) backgrounds (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In the 2015 to OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 14 2016 academic year, of all Latiné college students enrolled in U.S. postsecondary education, 17.2% enrolled at very selective institutions (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Eighteen percent of the 17.2% of Latiné students who enrolled at very selective institutions were from low-SES backgrounds (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In the 2015 to 2016 academic year, of all Indigenous students enrolled in U.S. postsecondary education, 7.6% enrolled at very selective institutions (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Socioeconomic status data were unavailable on Indigenous students who enrolled at very selective institutions from low-SES backgrounds (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In the 2015 to 2016 academic year, of all Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander college students enrolled in U.S. postsecondary education, 9.7% enrolled at very selective institutions (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Socioeconomic status data were unavailable on Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander students who enrolled at very selective institutions from low-SES backgrounds (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Finally, in the 2015 to 2016 academic year, of all Multiracial college students enrolled in U.S. postsecondary education, 22.5% enrolled at very selective institutions (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Just over twenty and a half percent of the 22.5% of Multiracial students who enrolled at very selective institutions were from low-SES backgrounds (Espinosa et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). The statistics above display important data regarding race, low-SES, and the intersection of the two, which may prove helpful for future research. To maintain a narrow aperture, the sole focus of this study will OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 15 examine the racial and ethnic representation of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking minoritized student groups at the most rejective institutions. Benefits of Attending a Most Rejective Institution Access to the most rejective colleges and universities is important because it comes with many benefits (Dale & Krueger, 2011; Hoekstra, 2009; Jones et al., 2020; Long, 2008; Ruiz Alvarado et al., 2020; Spence, 1974; Tholen et al., 2013; Witteveen & Attewell, 2017). Jones et al. (2020) reported that the most rejective public and private colleges and universities have the greatest financial resources, student support services, and the best outcomes for the students they serve. The most rejective colleges and universities in the United States produce a disproportionate number of powerful individuals in sectors ranging from politics, business, education, and other domains of society (Jones et al., 2020; Wai, 2014). Ruiz Alvarado et al. (2020) found that institutional rejectivity matters in support of completion rates. Other literature supports the importance of attending a most rejective college and university as degrees from rejective institutions function as educational signals to employers who would only hire students from the most rejective institutions due to the belief that individuals of low ability will not be able to earn a degree from those institutions (Spence, 1974). Perceived college quality has been linked with labor market outcomes (Black & Smith, 2004; Witteveen & Attewell, 2017). Graduates from the most rejective institutions earn more, on average than students who graduate from less rejective institutions (Witteveen & Attewell, 2017). The most rejective institutions also give access to social networks through alumni and fellow students that support students and graduates' ability to access desirable internships and jobs (Tholen et al., 2013). Historically the most rejective institutions have disproportionately oppressed minoritized students from accessing OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 16 these benefits, resources, and opportunities at both an equal and equitable level resulting in centuries of unjust outcomes. Students who attend more accessible colleges are less likely to complete a four-year degree than students who attend rejective colleges (Bowen et al., 2009). Students who graduate from the most rejective institutions earn higher incomes (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011). Dale and Krueger (2011) found positive economic returns for attending a more rejective college, especially for Black and Latiné students. The networking opportunities available from attending rejective postsecondary institutions of higher education may be more valuable for Black and Hispanic students from families with less education (Dale & Krueger, 2011). Students who attend rejective colleges from disadvantaged families experience a greater return than students from more advantaged family backgrounds (Dale & Krueger, 2011). Hoekstra (2009) found that there are significant economic returns for students who attend the most rejective flagship state university than the more accessible colleges within their state. Standardized Test Scores In 1926, Carl C. Brigham was put in charge of a committee to develop the SAT for the College Board (PBS, 2014). Prior to the development of the SAT, Brigham was known as an enthusiastic eugenicist who believed intelligence was genetic and different among races and ethnicities (Au, 2018). Brigham developed an IQ test for the Army, which would later influence his work on the SAT (Au, 2018; PBS, 2014). In Brigham’s first version of his book “A Study of American Intelligence,” he summarized that: “The army mental tests had proven beyond any scientific doubt that, like the American Negroes, the Italians and Jews were genetically ineducable. It would be a waste of good money to even attempt to try and give these born morons and imbeciles a good Anglo- OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 17 Saxon education, let alone admit them into our fine medical, law, and engineering graduate schools.” (Au, 2018, para. 5) Since the twentieth century, many colleges and universities throughout the United States have required students to submit test scores from the SAT and ACT with admissions applications (Au, 2018; Manhattan Review, 2022; PBS, 2014). The SAT was created to standardize college admissions and increase access to higher education (Manhattan Review, 2022). However, the literature demonstrates that standardized tests are a barrier to low-SES, and racially and ethnically minoritized students (Au, 2018; Barshay, 2021; Belasco et al., 2015; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022; Rubin & Canché, 2019). Low-SES, and racially and ethnically minoritized students continue to be underrepresented at the most rejective institutions throughout the U.S. (Barshay, 2021; Belasco et al., 2015; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022; Rubin & Canché, 2019). Proponents of standardized tests argue that the tests provide a trifold of benefits for each party directly involved in college admissions: the student, the college, and the test company. In theory, the benefit for the students is that standardized tests level the playing field among students, provide greater access to underrepresented students, and provide an equal opportunity for students to demonstrate their intelligence and academic abilities (Manhattan Review, 2022). Purportedly, the institutional benefit is that admissions offices can learn which students are most likely to succeed in college based on their test scores and GPAs. The test companies benefit financially from administering the tests to students through fees to students, colleges, and universities. Without the need for standardized tests, the billion-dollar test industry would cease to exist (Adams, 2020). Contrary to these arguments about the benefits of standardized exams, others argue that standardized exams perpetuate the inequities faced by low-SES students and OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 18 racially minoritized students (Barshay, 2021; Belasco et al., 2015; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022; Rubin & Canché, 2019). The Inherent Inequity of Standardized Tests Extant literature has demonstrated that students of color and low-SES students are less likely to have access to preparatory courses, private tutors, college coaches, multiple test attempts, and the time to study for the exam (Au, 2018; Barshay, 2021; Belasco et al., 2015). Low-income students, and students of color, are more likely to work after-school jobs and use their paychecks to support their families, leaving little to no money for spending choices. Further studies show that standardized test scores do not predict college-going success, contradicting statements from the most rejective postsecondary institutions (Au, 2018). In 2015 it was reported that continued patterns indicate that, on average, Black, Indigenous, and Latiné students receive lower SAT scores than White and Asian students (Jaschik, 2015). Although minoritized students have increased their academic preparation and test scores over the years, their representation at the most rejective colleges has not increased (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011). Rothstein (2004) found that the validity of SAT scores relies primarily in its ability to indicate high school quality rather than predict a student’s ability to succeed in college. Students from minoritized backgrounds are less likely to have access to standardized test preparatory classes and preparatory materials than students from affluent families (Buchmann et al., 2010; Holland, 2014). It is clear that racially and ethnically minoritized students are given less access and opportunities to prepare for standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT. Minoritized students encounter other salient barriers that influence standardized test scores. Forty-seven million people in the United States live in poverty, about fifteen percent of the population (Gorski, OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 19 2017). Another thirty million people in the United States live above the poverty line, meaning seventy-seven million people live in poverty or are one paycheck away from poverty (Gorski, 2017). The U.S. propagates a culture and message: "if you work hard, you will achieve the American dream”. Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that the U.S. is not a meritocracy. A meritocracy assumes that a level playing field exists, and a level playing field is non-existent in many parts of U.S. society, including for Minoritized students who are denied equal educational opportunities. As Gorski (2017) wrote, “if we were living in a society in which financial or other types of success could be predicted by hard work, we’d see a lot more economic upward mobility” (p. 14). Examining test-optional policy through an equity-literate lens makes many inequitable barriers apparent in contemporary college admissions. Test-optional Admissions Policies Many of the most rejective postsecondary institutions began reevaluating their policies that required standardized test scores to be considered for admissions at the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic (Barshay, 2021; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022). Testing centers closed at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (March, 2020), leaving students without the opportunity to take an SAT or ACT test in a secure testing location, leaving testing companies, colleges, and universities, all who depend on those test scores, seeking a solution (Hoover, 2021). The lack of opportunity for students to take the SAT or ACT prompted a swift response from college admissions offices across the U.S. For the first time since the widespread integration of standardized test scores in college admissions policies, most institutions that required the SAT and ACT scores shifted to test-optional policies for admissions. Test-optional admissions policies were primarily prescribed in three different variations at the inception of the pandemic: (1) test-optional for all; (2) test-optional for some; and (3) test- OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 20 optional for admission, but test score required for enrollment and scholarships (College Board, 2020). Test-optional for some, also known as test-flexible policy, refers to postsecondary institutions that maintain a policy that allows students who meet a particular Grade Point Average (GPA) or class rank to decide whether to submit their SAT or ACT scores with their college admissions application (College Board, 2020; Rubin & Canché, 2019). Some testflexible or test-optional policies allow students to submit other test scores that may better reflect their academic abilities, such as Advanced Placement (AP) scores or International Baccalaureate (IB) scores (College Board, 2020; Rubin & Canché, 2019). Another form of the test-optional admissions policy is a test-optional admissions policy for all. Test-optional admissions policy for all allows all students to decide whether to submit their test scores with their admissions applications (College Board, 2020). It is important to note that, for some institutions, the word, all, in the policy title only includes domestic students and excludes international students (Redden, 2019). International students are held to different admissions standards and may be required to submit an SAT or ACT score (Redden, 2019). The final variation of the test-optional admissions policy, as defined by the College Board, is a test-optional policy for admissions consideration, with a requirement of test scores for enrollment placement and scholarship consideration (College Board, 2020). Institutions with this policy propagate that test scores are necessary for college course placement. Using test scores combined with an academic GPA to develop an index score is a common practice for postsecondary institutions to award “merit” based scholarships that rely on scholarship index charts. Opponents of “merit” based scholarships argue that the scholarship aid would better serve students in economic need rather than awarding financial assistance to students who achieve high test scores. This argument is built on the premise that economically advantaged students have OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 21 greater access to resources such as time, tutors, healthy nutrition, adequate sleep, and other resources that positively affect a student's test scores and GPA (Barshay, 2021; Belasco et al., 2015). Following this evidence, a student with greater economic privilege would be more likely to receive a higher scholarship index score and, as a result, a greater amount of scholarship funds. Effects of Test-optional Admissions Policies During the Pandemic Students nationwide applied to more colleges during the year of the pandemic (Selingo, 2021). The total application volume for the high school graduating class of 2021 increased by ten percent nationwide (Selingo, 2021). Some rejective institutions saw even larger application volume increases. Harvard saw an increase of applications in the Fall semester of 2021 of fortytwo percent (Nierenberg, 2021). Colgate University in upstate New York saw a spike of one hundred and three percent more applications for the Fall semester of 2021 (Nierenberg, 2021). From small liberal arts schools to large state schools like the University of California of Los Angeles, increases in applications inundated admissions offices across the nation (Nierenberg, 2021). Vice Provost for Enrollment at Cornell, Jonathan Burdick, explained the spike in admissions applications: “we saw people that thought ‘I would never get into Cornell’ thinking, ‘Oh, if they’re not looking at a test score, maybe I’ve actually got a chance’ (Nierenberg, 2021, para. 2).” It appears that one of the most galvanizing forces for the influx of applications at rejective colleges came from standardized test scores becoming optional (Nierenberg, 2021). While some rejective postsecondary institutions, such as the University of California, Berkeley, saw an increase in applications from students who are typically minoritized at the most rejective institutions, fewer students from minoritized communities overall applied to college during the OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 22 first year of the pandemic (Nierenberg, 2021). According to Common App data, three percent fewer students who would be considered first-generation students, the first in their families to go to college, submitted applications for the Fall 2021 semester (Nierenberg, 2021). Common App data also showed a two percent drop in students who applied to college who qualified for admission fee waivers (Nierenberg, 2021). Emily D. Engelschall, who oversees admissions operations at the University of California, Riverside, stated, “the elimination of that barrier really did drive application increases (Nierenberg, 2021, para. 25).” The Inherent Inequity of Test-optional Admissions Policies Selingo (2021) discusses the widespread implementation of test-optional admissions policies, sharing that test scores do not create inequities; instead, they reflect the inequities in society. Another argument is that standardized test scores both reflect inequity and create inequity. According to Gorski (2017), family income is the best variable that predicts how well people do on the SAT test. Standardized test scores measure prior levels of access and opportunity; therefore, raising test scores is not the same as creating equity (Gorski, 2017). Some argue that test-optional policies perpetuate stratification within colleges and universities (Au, 2018; Belasco et al., 2015; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022). Further, research demonstrates that test-optional admissions policies increase applications from students to the most rejective institutions, bolstering college rankings and revenue, and as a result, increase selectivity and further restrict minoritized students' access to the most rejective institutions in the U.S. (Barshay, 2021; Belasco et al., 2015; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022). Equity-based issues are even more apparent when colleges and universities implement test-optional policies for some rather than expanding access to all; this further constricts access to racially minoritized students (Rubin & Canché, 2019). OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 23 Study Purpose & Research Questions Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a first-of-its-kind national survey of undergraduate admissions and enrollment management leaders was administered in 2014-15 by the American Council on Education (Espinosa et al., 2015). Of those institutions employing test-optional admissions policies, 68% found test-optional admissions policies to be effective supports for racial and ethnic diversity (Espinosa et al., 2015). Still, the majority of the most rejective institutions required the submission of standardized test scores for admissions applications prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the most rejective institutions shifted, at least temporarily, to test-optional admissions policies (Godwin, 2021). Some institutions claimed test-optional admissions policies were enacted because of the lack of fair access to testing centers during the pandemic, and students could not sit for exams in person (Barshay, 2021; Hoover, 2021). Rodriguez & Camacho (2022) reported that colleges implemented test-optional policies during the pandemic because their bottom line was at risk. Regardless of the reasoning, many of the most rejective colleges and universities implemented test-optional admissions policies during the pandemic (Godwin, 2021). This exploratory study investigates the following research questions: 1) Which of the most rejective institutions implemented a test-optional admissions policy during the pandemic? 2) What impacts did the implementation of test-optional admissions policies have on the enrollment of racially and ethnically minoritized students at the most rejective U.S. postsecondary institutions? OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 24 Reflexivity/Positionality It is important to recognize my reflexivity and positionality before continuing. My life’s work is devoted to researching, advocating for, and implementing the (re)humanization of an education system that, since its inception, has structurally deprived and dehumanized minoritized peoples. Focusing on college access, namely, expanding access to historically underrepresented students through policy and practice changes, bolstered and galvanized by research, is of utmost importance to me. I believe that equity-focused research, through a critical lens, is essential to improving and achieving an equitable educational system. The higher education system is one of the most effective mechanisms to dismantle and eliminate systemic forms of oppression. My interest in this research is born out of the intersection of my lived experiences as a Multiracial and Multiethnic first-generation college student, postsecondary researcher, and college professional. These roles have built my foundation and commitment to closing the educational opportunity gap that minoritized students have had to navigate for decades. This research project focuses on understanding the levers that expand or constrict access to racially and ethnically minoritized student populations at the most rejective postsecondary institutions. As a racially and ethnically minoritized first-generation college student, I have spent a great deal of time excavating my identity in my graduate education. I have personal experience navigating the U.S. postsecondary education system as a minoritized student and, as such, can relate to much that has been written about minoritized students’ experiences. I was raised in a predominantly White community where religion continues to influence state-level policies and cultural norms. This brought challenges to my identity. I learned to assimilate, live with a double consciousness, and code-switch in the spaces I navigated. My graduate research and studies, up to this point, taught me to examine how this country’s systems of oppression have acted against OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 25 so many people who, similar to me, are different from those with identities of internalized dominance and supremacy. I seek to galvanize my learned experiences as a first-generation, Multiethnic, Multiracial, Cisgender man who was born to a 14-year-old single mother. These experiences and identities shape my perspective and implicit biases. They also are part of the impetus for my research interests and desire to improve the education system. As a committed researcher and agent for policy change, I present this research with confident and compassionate humility through the unique lens that I call my life. Data Collection Institution Type & Control For this study, all institutions analyzed are considered “very high research doctoral universities” by the Carnegie classification system provided by the American Council on Education (2022). The American Council on Education defines a doctoral university as: Institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees during the update year and also institutions with below 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees that awarded at least 30 professional practice doctoral degrees in at least 2 programs. Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges. (para. 2) The study notes whether the postsecondary education institution is a public or private institution. To maintain a narrow focus, a sample of the most rejective doctoral universities was considered when the institution maintained an admission rate (i.e., admit rate) of 15% or less for first-time, full-time undergraduate students for the 2020 - 2021 application cycle. These admit rate data were collected from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) provided by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 26 Most Rejective Institutions List A list of the most rejective institutions was retrieved by running a data query on the IPEDS website through the compare institutions data tool. Variables to procure the lists of the most rejective institutions included (1) U.S. institutions only, (2) doctoral universities with very high research activity, and (3) the percentage of admitted students total for the Fall of 2021. Institutions that admitted 15% or fewer students were considered the most rejective and were included in this research (College Transitions, 2020). See Table 1 below for a view of the most rejective institutions. Admissions Test Policy The next data collected in this study was the admissions test policy data for each rejective institution. IPEDS was used to procure the test-optional admissions policies for each of the most rejective institutions for each academic year from 2016 to 2021. Variables to procure the lists of the most rejective institutions included (1) institution names, (2) admissions and test score considerations for each academic year from 2016 to 2021, and (3) the admission test score policy. Table 3 demonstrates if and when the most rejective institutions enacted test-optional admissions policies, along with which test policy was implemented. IPEDS provides the following categories of test policy data for each institution: • Required • Considered but not required • Recommended • Neither required nor recommended • Not reported • Not applicable OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 27 Table 1 Most Rejective Institutions -- Fall 2021 Institution Name Percent Admitted Control of Institution California Institute of Technology 4 Private Columbia University in the City of New York 4 Private Harvard University 4 Private Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 Private Princeton University 4 Private Stanford University 4 Private Yale University 5 Private Brown University 6 Private Dartmouth College 6 Private Duke University 6 Private University of Chicago 6 Private University of Pennsylvania 6 Private Northwestern University 7 Private Vanderbilt University 7 Private Johns Hopkins University 8 Private Cornell University 9 Private Rice University 9 Private Tulane University of Louisiana 10 Private Tufts University 11 Private University of California-Los Angeles 11 Public Georgetown University 12 Private Emory University 13 Private New York University 13 Private University of Southern California 13 Private Washington University in St Louis 13 Private Carnegie Mellon University 14 Private University of California-Berkeley 14 Public University of Notre Dame (U.S. Department of Education et al., 2022) 15 Private OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 28 Fall Enrollment Data, Racial and Ethnic Classifications Finally, enrollment data for this exploratory descriptive and comparative statistical analysis were collected from the IPEDS website, a part of the NCES database. The lists were created by running a data query on the IPEDS website through the compare institutions data tool for each Fall application cycle for each institution from the Fall semesters of 2016 to 2021. The variables used to procure the enrollment data of racially and ethnically minoritized included: full-time, undergraduate, degree/certificate seeking, and first-time students enrolled at the most rejective institutions. The racial and ethnic categories retrieved and analyzed included Indigenous students, Black students, Latiné students, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander students, and Multiracial students. It is important to note that some institutions and IPEDS use different titles for racial and ethnic peoples. To provide uniformity in the terminology across data sets and with this study, please see Table 2 below, where terminology is matched across institutions and datasets. Racial and Ethnic Proportion of Enrollments at Most Rejective Institutions The most rejective institution list was utilized to procure the racial and ethnic demographic data for each institution from IPEDS for the application cycles from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021 (i.e., admit Fall semesters of 2016 – 2021). Variables to procure the lists of institutions included (1) institution name, (2) total number of enrolled students, (3) total number of enrolled Black or African American students, (4) total number of enrolled American Indian or Alaska Native students, (5) total number of enrolled Hispanic students, (6) total number of enrolled Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, and (7) total number of enrolled Two or more races students. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 29 Table 2 Racial and Ethnic Titles of Peoples Titles used in this study Other titles across data sets American Indian Indigenous Alaska Native Alaskan Native Native American AK Native only African American Black Black only Hispanic Hispanic of any race Other Hispanic Latino/Latina Latinx Mexican American Chicanx Latiné Pacific Islander only Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multiracial Hawaiian Two or more races Multiracial (excluding Black or Hispanic) Multi-racial Multiple Ethnicities Once the total number of racially and ethnically minoritized student populations was procured for each academic year at each institution, each minoritized group’s enrollment numbers were divided by the total number of enrolled students for each academic year. The results were the percentages of enrolled students for each racially and ethnically minoritized population per academic year. Each institution's enrollment percentages were charted for each minoritized student enrollment population for each academic year from 2016 to 2021 to produce a trend line for examination. The trend line allows a longitudinal examination of whether an OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 30 increase, decrease, or no effect on the proportion of racially and ethnically minoritized students occurred following the implementation of test-optional admissions policies. These figures can be found in Appendix A. Data Analysis A description of the racial and ethnic demographic percentages of minoritized students at the most rejective institutions was compared year-to-year for each institution. After reviewing the data across multiple years and multiple race/ethnic groups, the average increase and decrease for minoritized populations is less than 3% for year-to-year comparisons. As such, I consider a considerable increase to be 3% or more when comparing one Fall semester to the next Fall semester. The descriptive statistics were compared starting with the Fall semester of 2016, comparing the enrollment ratios for each race/ethnic category to each subsequent Fall semester (Fall 2017; Fall 2018; etc.). In addition to comparing year-year, I developed trend line graphs between the Fall semesters of 2016 to 2021 to gain a longitudinal analysis of minoritized enrollment percentages. The application cycle of 2020 to 2021 (i.e., the Fall semester of 2021) was the first complete application cycle to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also the first application cycle that test-optional admissions policies were widely implemented at many, but not all, of the most rejective postsecondary institutions. It is important to note that college admissions applications for first-time, degree-seeking undergraduates are completed in the Fall and early Winter, one year prior to enrolling in their first semester. This is important because while test-optional admissions policies may have been implemented in the year 2020, most students were not impacted by the policy change until the application cycle of 2020 to 2021. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 31 Limitations One limitation of this research is that the sample of the most rejective postsecondary education institutions is not generalizable to the population of all rejective postsecondary education institutions. Another limitation is that options for a student’s race and ethnicity may not be available to choose from, or some students may not know which option to choose as they continue to develop their racial, ethnic, and cultural identity. Due to the narrow categorization of racial and ethnic groups by the federal government, some students’ identities are erased on paper. Therefore, students may select the option to not report. Another limitation is the exchange of data. Data are first reported by students and then reported by their institution. Once students indicate their race and ethnicity, institutions report this data to the National Center for Education Statistics. NCES then shares this data with the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which prepares and publishes the data on its platform. It is not improbable that through the exchange of data from the student to a postsecondary education institution to NCES and published by IPEDS, that data is lost, miscalculated, misrepresented, or any other limiting data factor that may not be considered here. Further, a percentage increase in the racial and ethnic composition does not necessarily mean that more racially and ethnically minoritized students enrolled in greater numbers at the most rejective institutions. While the composition may have increased, the total number of students enrolled at the most rejective institution may have decreased. In this scenario, while racially minoritized students may reflect a greater percentage in the composition of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students, there is a chance that, given an overall enrollment decline, the total number of racially minoritized students stayed the same or decreased. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 32 The result of racially and ethnically minoritized students’ composition increasing considerably in the enrollment of students for the Fall semester of 2021 could result from many variables that do not include test-optional admissions policies. Demonstrable shifts of racially and ethnically minoritized students’ composition for the Fall semester of 2021 could be a result from many variables in conjunction with or beyond the advent of test-optional admissions policies. It is important to consider that other structural barriers, hurdles, and forms of capital may result in an increase, decrease, or the same amount of racially minoritized student enrollment at the most rejective postsecondary institutions. Minoritized students may have decided to stay close to home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Minoritized students and their families affected by the economy may have decided to enter the workforce instead of pursuing postsecondary education. Lastly, I have no working professional experience in the admissions office of a most rejective postsecondary institution. With the current political climate and pervasive White supremacist interpretations of the law, postsecondary educational institution leaders may feel less inclined to admit minoritized students in considerably more numbers for fear of being noticed by the internalized White supremacist institutions. It is possible that given the volume of applications at the most rejective postsecondary institutions, institutional leaders are bound to restrict the number of minoritized students so that they do not call attention to themselves. An incremental increase in minoritized students may be more palatable to internalized White supremacist leaders and institutions. It is conceivable that other variables are being considered and given greater weight than racial and ethnic diversity at the most rejective postsecondary institutions. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 33 Results This section will share the findings of the research questions beginning with the findings of the first research question: Which of the most rejective institutions implemented a testoptional admissions policy during the pandemic? Of the 28 most rejective institutions examined, 25 (89.2%) implemented a test-optional admissions policy in some form for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2021 semester. The three (10.8%) most rejective institutions that required standardized test scores for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2021 semester included the California Institute of Technology, Duke University, and Georgetown University. Figure 1 demonstrates this below. Figure 1 Most Rejective Implementation of Test-optional Policy - Fall Semester 2021 10.8% 89.2% Test-required Test-optional Further, findings show that of the 25 institutions that implemented test-optional admissions policies, 21 were “considered but not required” policies. Three of the most rejective institutions, the University of California – Los Angeles, University of California – Berkeley, and John Hopkins University, implemented “neither encourage nor recommended” test-optional OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 34 admissions policies for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2021 semester. Furthermore, one of the most rejective institutions, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, implemented a “recommended” test-optional admissions policy for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the fall 2021 semester. Figure 2 demonstrates the percentages of the types of testoptional policies at the most rejective institutions that implemented the policies below. Figure 2 Test-optional Types Implemented at Most Rejective Institutions 4% 12% 84% Considered but not required Neither encouraged nor recommended Recommended More findings show that of the 25 most rejective institutions that implemented testoptional admissions policies for 2021, only ten had implemented test-optional admissions policies for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2020 semester. Moreover, two of the most rejective institutions, the University of Chicago and New York University, implemented test-optional admissions policies for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2019 semester, and only one of the most rejective institutions, the University of Chicago, implemented a test-optional admissions policy for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2018 semester. None of the most rejective institutions analyzed in this study implemented a test- OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 35 optional admissions policy for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2016 or the Fall 2017 semesters. See Table 3 below. Table 3 Institutional Test Policy by Institution Institution name California Institute of Technology Admissions Test Score Policies 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Required Required Required Required Required Required Columbia University in the City of New York Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Harvard University Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Recommended Required Required Required Required Required Princeton University Stanford University Considered* Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Yale University Considered* Considered* Required Required Required Required Brown University Considered* Considered* Required Required Required Required Dartmouth College Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Duke University University of Chicago Required Considered* Required Considered* Required Considered* Required Considered* Required Required Required Required University of Pennsylvania Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Northwestern University Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Vanderbilt University Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Johns Hopkins University Cornell University Neither** Considered* Required Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Rice University Considered* Considered* Required Required Required Required Tulane University of Louisiana Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Tufts University Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Neither** Required Neither** Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of California-Los Angeles Georgetown University Emory University Considered* Required Required Required Required Required New York University Considered* Considered* Considered* Required Required Required University of Southern California Washington University in St Louis Considered* Considered* Required Considered* Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Carnegie Mellon University Considered* Considered* Required Required Required Required Neither** Required Required Required Required Required Considered* Required Required Required Required University of California-Berkeley University of Notre Dame Considered* (U.S. Department of Education et al., 2022) Note. Labels: Recommended | *Considered but not required | **Neither required nor recommended These findings demonstrate the incrementalism and slow diffusion of test-optional admissions policies prior to the pandemic. At the same time, these findings demonstrate the rapid proliferation of test-optional admission policies at institutions that did not implement testoptional admissions policies prior to the pandemic. It is also critical to note that not all OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 36 institutions plan to maintain test-optional admission policies returning instead to test-required admissions policies again if they have not already. The next part of this section will share the findings of the second research question: What impacts did the implementation of test-optional admissions policies have on the enrollment of racially and ethnically minoritized students at the most rejective U.S. postsecondary institutions? Three of the most rejective institutions, the California Institute of Technology, Duke University, and Georgetown University, did not implement test-optional admissions policies for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2021 semester. Therefore, the California Institute of Technology, Duke University, and Georgetown University were not considered for research question two. However, the enrollment rates of racially and ethnically minoritized students can be viewed in Appendix A, Figure 7, Figure 12, and Figure 14. Of the 125 comparisons of the Fall 2020 semester to Fall 2021 semester of racially and ethnically minoritized groups at the 25 most rejective institutions that met the criteria for analysis, only two comparisons met the standard of a considerable increase of 3% or more. Thus, only 1.6% of comparisons in this study indicate that test-optional admissions policies lead to a considerable increase in access for racially and ethnically minoritized students. Conversely, 98.4% of the comparisons indicate that test-optional admissions policies did not lead to a considerable increase in access for racially and ethnically minoritized students. Figure 3 demonstrates these findings below. Of the 25 most rejective institutions that implemented test-optional admissions policies for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2021 semester, there were only two institutions, the University of Notre Dame and the University of Southern California, in which a single minoritized group at each institution increased its percentage of enrolled first-time, full- OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 37 time, degree-seeking undergraduate students for the Fall 2021 semester by more than 3%. The following two paragraphs will detail the considerable increases in minoritized student enrollments of Latiné students at the University of Notre Dame and Black students at the University of Southern California. Figure 3 Test-optional Policies Coincide with Considerable Increase of Minoritized Student Enrollment Composition 1.6% 98.4% Considerable Increase Non-considerable Increase From Fall 2020 to Fall 2021, 3.71% more first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students identified as Latiné in the Fall 2021 semester compared to the Fall 2020 semester. This indicates a considerable shift in the percentage of enrollment for the composition of Latiné students from Fall 2020 to Fall 2021. However, when the test-optional admissions policy was first implemented for applicants aspiring to gain admission to the Fall 2020 semester, Notre Dame saw a 3.23% decrease in Latiné first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students who enrolled in the Fall 2020 semester. This decrease was followed by a 3.71% increase from Fall 2020 to Fall 2021. When comparing the enrollment composition percentage of first-time, full-time, degreeseeking Latiné students from the Fall 2019 semester, when the test-optional policy was not OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 38 implemented, with the Fall 2021 semester, the Latiné student enrollment composition increases by a mere 0.48%. Therefore, it is challenging to determine if the increase in Latiné student enrollment is a result of enrollment incrementalism or an effect of the test-optional admissions policy. See Figure 4 below for the longitudinal results described. Figure 4 University of Notre Dame University of Notre Dame First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 2,193) 0.36% 3.65% 10.67% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 2,059) 0.00% 4.81% 14.38% 2016 Required (n = 2,046) 2017 Required (n = 2,051) 2018 Required (n = 2,070) 2019 Required (n = 2,051) Latiné 0.00% 4.50% 10.65% 0.24% 3.51% 11.31% 0.43% 3.96% 11.59% 0.20% 3.22% 13.90% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.24% 0.23% 0.05% 5.43% 5.70% 5.07% 6.29% 5.06% 6.46% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial When comparing the Fall 2020 semester with the Fall 2021 semester, 3.04% more firsttime, full-time, degree-seeking students identified as Black at the University of Southern California. However, when comparing the enrollment composition percentage of first-time, fulltime, degree-seeking Black students from the Fall 2019 semester with the Fall 2021 semester, the Black student enrollment composition increases by 2.7%. Therefore, the increase in Black OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 39 student enrollment could be a result of enrollment incrementalism rather than an effect of the test-optional admissions policy. See Figure 5 below for the longitudinal results described. Figure 5 University of Southern California University of Southern California First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2016 Required (n = 3,066) 2017 Required (n = 3,358) 2018 Required (n = 3,399) 2019 Required (n = 3,165) 2020 Required (n = 3,436) 0.10% 0.21% 0.06% 0.03% 0.12% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 3,664) 0.22% Latiné 5.28% 13.31% 4.76% 14.80% 5.15% 16.15% 6.22% 15.01% 5.88% 17.26% 8.92% 20.01% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.29% 0.24% 0.18% 0.32% 0.20% 0.14% 5.97% 6.97% 6.56% 6.22% 5.68% 6.20% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial Discussion & Implications Nearly 90% of the most rejective U.S. postsecondary institutions included in this study implemented some form of test-optional admissions policy during the pandemic, with the other 10% of the most rejective institutions analyzed in this study requiring test scores for admissions consideration for the Fall 2021 semester. For comparison, prior to the Fall semester of 2021, only 35% of the most rejective U.S. postsecondary institutions implemented some form of testoptional admissions policy. This aligns with the literature demonstrating that test-optional admissions policies were one of the least widely used diversity strategies in college admissions prior to the pandemic (Espinosa et al., 2015). OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 40 Further, this study investigated the potential that the widespread implementation of testoptional admissions policies at the most rejective institutions would remove a barrier to entry for admissions and thus lead to increased access for minoritized students to gain admission to the postsecondary institution. By examining the proportion of admits from minoritized groups, this study investigated if the test-optional approach led to increased admits, at least initially, for minoritized students, which some prior research and admissions experts claim test-optional admissions policies are effective in supporting diversity (Espinosa & Gaertner, 2015). The results from my study indicate, at least with initial enrollment data as these policies manifested at the most rejective institutions, that test-optional admissions policies may not expand access to racially and ethnically minoritized students. Inversely, it is possible that testoptional admissions policies increase admissions applications, resulting in greater rejectivity, through lower admission rates. The results of this study align with other studies showing that test-optional policies do not increase access for minoritized students and instead support the rejectivity and rankings of postsecondary institutions (Au, 2018; Barshay, 2021; Belasco et al., 2015; Rodriguez & Camacho, 2022; Rubin & Canché, 2019). If test-optional admissions policies aim to expand access for racially and ethnically minoritized students, based on the metrics developed and operationalized in this study, the initial results are not promising. The seeming failure of test-optional admissions policies to increase minoritized enrollment, at least in this initial data and within the most rejective institutions, is critical to note as these institutions provide access to 15% or less of all applicants (College Transitions, 2020). The same institutions then enroll students from racially and ethnically minoritized groups at rates lower than their representation in society (Espinosa et al., 2019; USA Facts, 2022; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 41 IPEDS does not report the racial and ethnic demographics of applicants for any institution, which is an important limitation of the data when thinking about research that investigates access for minoritized students. While this study compared enrollment rates, the heart of this injustice would be better understood by the comparison of applicants and enrollment rates. By not providing the racial and ethnic demographics of applicants, a critical piece of information is veiled from the public. The Souls of Black Folk, written by W.E.B. Du Bois in 1903, describes the Veil symbol as a metaphor that aptly describes aspects that contribute to racism, namely problems that contribute to the color line barrier separating Blacks from Whites (Savory, 1972). Building with the metaphor of the Veil described by Du Bois (1903), I title the obfuscation of the racial and ethnic demographics of applicants as a Veil of Oppression. The Veil of Oppression that covers the admissions processes at the most rejective institutions is purposefully opaque until race and ethnicity are considered. Then lawsuits are filed for explanations of the metrics used in admissions decisions; to see behind the Veil. The Veil of Oppression, which in the case of this study I consider the obfuscation of the racial and ethnic demographic data of applicants, is commonly devised by White-centered, White-supremacist, euro-centric, patriarchal, and neo-liberal institutions in the United States and around the globe. When supremacist powers in society are asked to redistribute access, opportunities, support, or resources to those subject to their oppression, only enough is given to placate the group. In most instances, Veils of Oppression are enacted, as their ambiguity, opacity, and obfuscation can be interpreted as negligence. In a land of good faith clauses constructed on a foundation of lies, negligence is enough to continue to get by. Still, I recognize there are times when good faith should apply and that any punitive system can result in the abused becoming the abuser (J. Cole, 2017). Therefore, accountability, acknowledgment, OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 42 support, and action to sustainably redress these wrongs with equitable solutions and outcomes is the way forward. As the Supreme Court of the United States prepares to strike down race-conscious affirmative action, it is important to determine what other policies could be used to expand access to racially and ethnically minoritized students who are oppressed by dominant institutions that continue to perpetuate and propagate inequitable internalized White supremacist institutionalization (Quilantan & Gerstein, 2022). The purpose of this study was not to target, punish, or shame the most rejective institutions into policy changes. Instead, the study is descriptive and draws attention to U.S. postsecondary institutions that play a part in a larger system of oppression. The U.S. postsecondary education system's oppressive nature and hierarchal structure are created by the hyper-competitiveness of a neo-liberal, White-centered, White-supremacist, eurocentric, patriarchal, and racist society, which benefits from exploiting those in oppressed roles. The lie propagated by institutions that use test scores as indicators of college readiness and gatekeepers to resources, services, and opportunities demonstrates the oppressive nature of the system in which U.S. postsecondary education finds itself. The truth is that the most collegeready student is the student who wants to attend college and desires to earn a credential or degree. Postsecondary institutions have the opportunity to create equitable change in both directions, toward students, and towards society. Still, I recognize how challenging this will be for institutions with economic ties to political powers in a climate that uses inequality, injustice, and oppression as divisive wedges to maintain power, political leverage, and political points. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 43 Conclusion At the advent of the pandemic, test-optional admissions policies were widely implemented at the most rejective U.S. postsecondary institutions. Some of the most rejective U.S. postsecondary education institutions continued to implement test-required admissions policies or enacted policies encouraging students to submit test scores without requiring test scores. The ambiguous nature of test-optional admissions policies, in combination with an already veiled system of admission, creates more conundrums, barriers, hurdles, and ways to veil oppression toward racially and ethnically minoritized students. Test-optional policies do not, at least in the context of this study, expand access for racially and ethnically minoritized students. Future research should include a qualitative study of the enrollment and admissions professionals at the most rejective institutions included in this study. This will provide the opportunity to better understand why test-optional policies were implemented during the pandemic. The qualitative study would provide the opportunity to ask enrollment and admissions leaders about the plans for future implementation of test-optional admissions policies at the most rejective institutions. More future research could include a qualitative study to gather the perspectives of students on whether they believe that test scores are accurate reflections of their college preparedness. Further, this qualitative study could investigate what students think about test-required, test-optional, and test-not-considered policies. The final recommendation, in an effort to (re)humanize the U.S. postsecondary education system, is to abolish test-required and test-optional admissions policies. Administrators, practitioners, and policymakers who work at institutions with equity, diversity, and inclusion built into the foundation of the mission, vision, or values of their institution must advocate for the abolishment the inequitable and oppressing test-optional policies. Test scores continue to OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE reflect systemic oppression and, when employed by institutions for admission gatekeeping purposes, become self-perpetuating mechanisms of institutionalized oppression. 44 OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 45 References Adam, M. (2014). Report examines inequities in california Latinos’ choice of college. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 24(12), 8. Adams, S. (2020). The forbes investigation: how the SAT failed America. Forbes. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2020/09/30/the-forbes-investigation-howthe-sat-failed-america/?sh=7a631b4253b5 Alon, S., & Tienda, M. (2007). Diversity, opportunity, and the shifting meritocracy in higher education. American Sociological Review, 72, 487–511. American Council on Education. (2022). Carnegie Classifications | Definitions. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/definitions.php Astin, A. W., & Oseguera. L. (2004). The declining “equity” of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27, 321–41. Attewell, P., & Domina, T. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707313409 Au, W. (2018). The socialist case against the SAT. Jacobin. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://jacobin.com/2018/04/against-the-sat-testing-meritocracy-race-class Baker, R., Klasik, D., & Reardon, S. F. (2018). Race and stratification in college enrollment over time. AERA Open, 4(1), 233285841775189. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417751896 Barshay, J. (2021). Proof points: Test-optional policies didn’t do much to diversify college student populations. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-test-optional-policies-didnt-do-much-to-diversifycollege-student-populations/ OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 46 Bastedo, M. N., & Jaquette, O. (2011). Running in place: Low-income students and the dynamics of higher education stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 318-339. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711406718 Belasco, A. S., Rosinger, K. O., & Hearn, J. C. (2015). The test-optional movement at America's selective liberal arts colleges: A boon for equity or something else? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714537350 Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Buchmann, C., Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2010). Shadow education, American style: Test preparation, the SAT, and college enrollment. Social Forces, 89(2), 435-461 College Board. (2020). What is a test-optional college? Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://blog.collegeboard.org/what-is-a-test-optional-college College Transitions. (2020). Categories of college selectivity. https://www.collegetransitions.com/college-selectivity/ Dale, S. B., & Krueger, A. B. (2011). Estimating the return to college selectivity over the career using administrative earnings data. Working Paper w17159. Cambridge, MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research. DuBois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of black folk. A. C. McClurg and Co. Espinosa, L. L., & Gaertner, M. N. (2015). A dream undone? The Journal of College Admissions, 229, 13. Espinosa, L. L., Orfield, G., & Gaertner, M. N. (2015. Race, class, and college access: Achieving diversity in a shifting legal landscape. American Council on Education. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 47 https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Race-Class-and-College-Access-Achieving-Diversity-in-aShifting-Legal-Landscape.pdf Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. M. (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report. American Council on Education. Godwin, J. (2021). Using market research to shape the assessment landscape: What we know about COVID-19’s effect on test optional. ACT. https://leadershipblog.act.org/2021/02/marketresearch-covid-19-effect-on-test-optional.html. Gorski, P. C. (2017). Reaching and teaching students in poverty (2nd ed.) Teachers College Press. Hoekstra, M. (2009). The effect of attending the flagship state university on earnings: A discontinuitybased approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 717–24. Holland, M. M. (2014). Navigating the road to college: Race and class variation in the college application process. Sociology Compass, 8(10), 1191-120 J. Cole. (2017). High for hours [Song]. Dreamville, Inc.; Roc Nation Records. Jaschik, S. (2015). SAT scores drop and racial gaps remain large. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/03/sat-scores-drop-and-racial-gaps-remain-large Hoover, E. (2021). The covid effect: Most colleges will keep test-optional policies for good. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-covid-effect-mostcolleges-will-keep-test-optional-policies-for-good. Jump, J. (2021). Ethical college admissions: 'Rejectivity'. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/views/2021/05/03/what-do-terms-rejectivity-andhighly-rejective-mean-admissions-opinion Jones, T., Nichols, A. H., & Education Trust. (2020). Hard truths: Why only race-conscious policies can fix racism in higher education. Education Trust. OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 48 Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World. Long, M. C. (2008). College Quality and Early Adult Outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 27, 588–602. Manhattan Review. (2022). The history of the SAT. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-history/ Nierenberg, A. (2021). Interest surges in top colleges, while struggling ones scrape for applicants. The New York Times. Retrieved March 01, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/20/us/colleges-covid-applicants.html PBS. (2014). Where did the test come from? - History of the SAT - a timeline | secrets of the SAT | frontline. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/where/timeline.html Quilantan, B., & Gerstein, J. (2022). Justices appear poised to curtail affirmative action in college admissions. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/31/justices-appear-poised-tocurtail-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions-00064240 Redden, E. (2019). As colleges go test optional for domestic applicants, they take. Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/07/22/colleges-go-testoptional-domestic-applicants-they-take-different Rodriguez, A., & Camacho, S. (2022). Opinion: Why test-optional admissions policies fall short of their promise. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-why-test-optional-admissions-are-not-a-game-changerfor-equity-after-all/ Rothstein, J. M. (2004). College performance predictions and the SAT. Journal of Econometrics, 121(1), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.003 OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 49 Rubin, P. G., & Canché, M. S. G. (2019). Test-flexible admissions policies and student enrollment demographics: Examining a public research university. Review of Higher Education, 42(4), 1337-1371. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0068 Ruiz Alvarado, A., Stewart-Ambo, T., & Hurtado, S. (2020). High school and college choice factors associated with high-achieving low-income students’ college degree completion. Education Sciences, 10(6), 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060153 Savory, J. J. (1972). The rending of the veil in W. E. B. Du Bois’s “The Souls of Black Folk.” CLA Journal, 15(3), 334–337. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44321574 Selingo, J. J. (2021). Opinion: The new enrollment playbook. https://www.chronicle.com/article/thenew-enrollmentplaybook?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_2211935_nl_ Academe-Today_date_20210413&cid=at&source=&sourceId=. Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal (2nd ed.) Teachers College Press. Spence, M. (1974). Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes (No. 143). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Tholen, G., Brown, P., Power, S., & Allouch, A. (2013). The role of networks and connections in educational elites’ labour market entrance. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 34, 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2013.10.003 U.S. Department of Education. (2016) National postsecondary student aid study. https://www.equityinhighered.org/indicators/enrollment-in-undergraduate-education/enrollmentin-selective-institutions/ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2022). IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 50 System. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on January 30, 2023, from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data on 01/30/2023. USA Facts. (2022). US population by year, race, age, ethnicity, & more. USAFacts. https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changingpopulation?gclid=CjwKCAjwh4ObBhAzEiwAHzZYU0yVHBmmXTwWXJKb6OJmadZ_GInht wvbXmuqNQIIAEyMLp6gUC7QnxoC1-YQAvD_BwE Wai, J. (2014). A shocking number of the world’s rich and powerful attended elite colleges. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-rich-powerful-people-went-to-elitecolleges-2014-6 Witteveen, D. & Attewell, P. (2017). The earnings payoff from attending a selective college. Social Science Research, 66, 154-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.01.005 OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 51 Appendix A. Proportion of Minoritized Demographics at the Most Rejective U.S. Postsecondary Institutions Figures Figure 6 Brown University Brown University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.18% 7.59% 9.82% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,751) 0.46% 7.08% 10.91% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,705) 0.35% 9.50% 13.14% 0.18% 7.11% 0.17% 7.25% 0.12% 7.98% 2016 Required (n = 1,679) 2017 Required (n = 1,637) 2018 Required (n = 1,652) 2019 Required (n = 1,660) Latiné 0.54% 6.49% 12.63% 0.31% 7.15% 10.93% 0.36% 7.02% 12.17% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.30% 5.66% 0.12% 5.07% 0.24% 6.42% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 52 Figure 7 California Institute of Technology California Institute of Technology First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2016 Required (n = 235) 0.00% 2017 Required (n = 235) 0.00% 2018 Required (n = 231) 0.00% 2019 Required (n = 235) 0.00% 2020 Required (n = 225) 0.00% 2021 Required (n = 270) 0.37% 1.70% 12.77% 0.00% 1.28% 12.34% 0.00% 1.73% 18.18% 0.00% 2.55% 24.26% 0.43% 1.78% 16.89% 0.00% 4.44% 29.63% 0.00% 11.91% 7.23% 9.96% 8.09% 9.33% 12.22% Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 53 Figure 8 Carnegie Mellon University Carnegie Mellon University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,632) 0.00% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n =1,896) 0.00% 3.85% 9.46% 3.43% 9.25% 4.54% 10.86% 0.00% 0.06% 0.06% 0.00% 3.63% 4.23% 4.41% 6.75% 2016 Required (n = 1,552) 2017 Required (n = 1,676) 2018 Required (n = 1,572) 2019 Required (n = 1,585) Indigenous Black Latiné 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 4.12% 8.96% 3.82% 9.25% 3.37% 9.35% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.06% 0.00% 4.25% 4.59% Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 54 Figure 9 Columbia University in the City of New York Columbia University in the City of New York First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.52% 0.63% 0.83% 0.35% 0.47% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,592) 0.38% 7.47% 12.81% 0.06% 7.95% 14.02% 0.14% 8.36% 14.10% 0.14% 7.67% 15.76% 0.00% 8.57% 17.34% 0.07% 9.80% 17.34% 0.25% 6.37% 6.42% 6.57% 5.93% 7.42% 6.78% 2017 Required (n = 1,434) 2016 Required (n = 1,553) Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2018 Required (n = 1,447) 2019 Required (n = 1,434) 2020 Required (n = 1,482) Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 55 Figure 10 Cornell University Cornell University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.63% 0.30% 0.27% 0.25% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 3,249) 0.22% 6.73% 13.94% 0.09% 8.00% 14.21% 0.12% 8.04% 15.27% 0.12% 6.55% 15.84% 0.09% 7.94% 16.31% 0.09% 9.09% 15.68% 0.19% 4.80% 5.14% 5.10% 5.55% 4.74% 5.84% 2016 Required (n = 3,314) Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2017 Required (n = 3,349) 2018 Required (n = 3,295) 2019 Required (n = 3,189) Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 3,718) 0.38% OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 56 Figure 11 Dartmouth College Dartmouth College First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné 2017 Required (n = 1,215) 2018 Required (n = 1,167) 2019 Required (n = 1,190) 2020 Required (n = 1,057) 2.24% 7.17% 10.57% 1.32% 5.51% 9.88% 1.37% 4.97% 10.03% 1.43% 5.63% 10.00% 1.32% 5.87% 10.69% 0.36% 0.25% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.38% 5.84% 5.14% 6.13% 6.62% 7.37% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,221) 1.47% 6.06% 10.48% 2016 Required (n = 1,116) Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 57 Figure 12 Duke University Duke University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2016 Required (n = 1,723) 0.75% 2017 Required (n = 1,748) 0.92% 2018 Required (n = 1,745) 0.92% 2019 Required (n = 1,731) 0.23% 2020 Required (n = 1,580) 0.25% 2021 Required (n = 1,744) 0.23% Latiné 10.80% 8.30% 10.35% 12.01% 9.00% 9.28% 8.03% 10.98% 7.91% 11.90% 8.20% 12.96% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.00% 1.51% 0.06% 2.75% 0.23% 1.49% 0.06% 7.57% 0.00% 5.19% 0.00% 7.74% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 58 Figure 13 Emory University Emory University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.15% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,494) 0.00% 7.14% 10.82% 0.00% 6.92% 10.45% 0.07% 7.21% 10.99% 0.00% 8.22% 12.23% 0.07% 7.37% 10.80% 0.00% 9.91% 12.38% 0.00% 5.38% 3.82% 4.34% 4.95% 4.62% 4.82% 2017 Required (n = 1,388) 2016 Required (n = 1,358) Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2018 Required (n = 1,429) 2019 Required (n = 1,374) 2020 Required (n = 1,343) Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 59 Figure 14 Georgetown University Georgetown University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2016 Required (n = 1,573) 0.00% 6.29% 9.03% 2017 Required (n = 1,596) 0.00% 7.27% 15.16% 2018 Required (n = 1,618) 0.06% 7.60% 10.26% 2019 Required (n = 1,579) 0.19% 5.89% 8.36% 2020 Required (n = 1,550) 0.13% 5.74% 7.48% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.06% 0.13% 0.19% 4.70% 4.76% 5.44% 6.14% 7.10% 7.02% Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous 2021 Required (n = 1,581) 0.00% 5.63% 6.33% Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 60 Figure 15 Harvard University Harvard University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,949) 0.26% 9.54% 11.70% 2016 Required (n = 1,659) 2017 Required (n = 1,688) 2018 Required (n = 1,653) 2019 Required (n = 1,646) 2020 Required (n = 1,404) Latiné 0.48% 7.96% 11.27% 0.06% 9.42% 10.90% 0.36% 10.10% 10.65% 0.24% 8.87% 11.85% 0.28% 11.04% 12.82% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.00% 0.12% 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.21% 7.23% 7.29% 7.62% 7.72% 7.05% 7.13% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 61 Figure 16 John Hopkins University Johns Hopkins University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2016 Required (n = 1,368) 2017 Required (n = 1,419) 2018 Required (n = 1,420) 2019 Required (n = 1,475) 2020 Required (n = 1,404) 0.22% 0.00% 0.07% 0.14% 0.00% 2021 Neither Required nor Recommended (n = 1,420) 0.00% Latiné 6.14% 13.89% 7.68% 14.87% 7.39% 14.65% 8.20% 17.63% 8.62% 18.80% 9.65% 21.41% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.37% 0.14% 0.21% 0.07% 0.07% 0.00% 4.61% 6.34% 7.18% 7.53% 6.13% 6.55% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 62 Figure 17 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2016 Required (n = 1,110) 0.09% 2017 Required (n = 1,097) 0.18% 2018 Required (n = 1,114) 0.18% 2019 Required (n = 1,102) 0.18% 2020 Required (n = 1,070) 0.09% 2021 Recommended (n = 1,176) 0.09% 6.31% 14.23% 6.02% 14.04% 6.01% 17.68% 5.99% 14.43% 7.48% 14.30% 10.03% 13.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.09% 0.09% 0.00% 8.11% 7.11% 7.72% 9.26% 7.10% 7.57% Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 63 Figure 18 New York University New York University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.16% 2019 Considered but Not Required (n = 5,739) 0.14% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 6,648) 0.21% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 6,078) 0.23% 9.76% 19.30% 0.13% 9.39% 18.73% 0.09% 8.54% 17.90% 0.08% 8.24% 18.90% 0.16% 3.88% 3.69% 3.56% 4.26% 2016 Required (n = 6,078) 2017 Required (n = 6,004) 2018 Required (n = 6,160) 0.13% 0.20% 5.50% 13.84% 0.20% 7.18% 15.06% 0.17% 4.08% 5.28% Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 64 Figure 19 Northwestern University Northwestern University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2016 Required (n = 1,985) 2017 Required (n = 1,903) 2018 Required (n = 1,931) 2019 Required (n = 2,006) 2020 Required (n = 1,901) 0.10% 0.11% 0.10% 0.10% 0.11% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 2,086) 0.10% Latiné 5.04% 13.60% 6.46% 11.72% 5.90% 13.26% 5.63% 12.91% 5.94% 15.47% 7.38% 16.83% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.00% 7.20% 0.00% 6.41% 0.00% 6.73% 0.05% 7.18% 0.00% 5.63% 0.00% 7.86% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 65 Figure 20 Princeton University Princeton University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2016 Required (n = 1,305) 2017 Required (n = 1,305) 2018 Required (n = 1,338) 2019 Required (n = 1,335) 2020 Required (n = 1,146) 0.08% 0.15% 0.30% 0.30% 0.00% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,288) 0.16% Latiné 7.82% 9.43% 8.12% 10.96% 8.45% 10.09% 7.27% 10.86% 9.95% 8.64% 7.92% 11.34% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.08% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.17% 0.08% 5.06% 4.83% 5.46% 5.84% 7.07% 7.38% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 66 Figure 21 Rice University Rice University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 993) 0.00% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,217) 0.16% 7.49% 16.23% 0.00% 7.75% 14.50% 0.10% 8.38% 15.04% 0.16% 4.79% 5.44% 4.85% 2016 Required (n = 977) 2017 Required (n = 1,046) 2018 Required (n = 956) 2019 Required (n = 961) 0.10% 0.19% 0.10% 7.06% 15.66% 0.10% 7.27% 17.50% 0.19% 8.68% 17.36% 0.10% 3.38% 4.88% 5.13% Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 67 Figure 22 Stanford University Stanford University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2016 Required (n = 1,738) 2017 Required (n = 1,700) 2018 Required (n = 1,696) 2019 Required (n = 1,698) 2020 Required (n = 1,606) 1.09% 1.06% 0.71% 0.94% 0.75% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 2,127) 0.80% 7.48% 16.51% 0.40% 6.88% 14.65% 0.29% 5.78% 16.92% 0.41% 6.83% 17.20% 0.35% 8.28% 17.87% 0.19% 7.76% 18.19% 0.28% 7.88% 8.82% 10.32% 10.01% 9.53% 10.16% Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 68 Figure 23 Tufts University Tufts University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2016 Required (n = 1,336) 2017 Required (n = 1,410) 2018 Required (n = 1,541) 2019 Required (n = 1,613) 2020 Required (n = 1,613) 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.06% 0.00% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,800) 0.11% 4.79% 6.66% 3.62% 7.45% 4.74% 7.59% 4.34% 7.81% 5.58% 10.60% 6.78% 11.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.22% 5.31% 5.32% 5.91% 5.33% 6.82% 8.56% Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 69 Figure 24 Tulane University of Louisiana Tulane University of Louisiana First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné 0.05% 0.26% 0.05% 0.11% 0.06% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 2,027) 0.15% 4.26% 5.82% 3.88% 7.14% 3.72% 8.64% 5.05% 7.08% 5.05% 9.27% 5.87% 8.98% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.16% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.18% 3.83% 3.98% 5.71% 4.33% 5.28% 2016 Required (n = 1,856) 2017 Required (n = 1,905) 2018 Required (n = 1,909) 2019 Required (n = 1,821) 2020 Required (n = 1,801) Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 70 Figure 25 University of California - Berkeley University of California-Berkeley First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné 0.29% 0.13% 0.02% 0.11% 0.03% 2021 Neither Required nor Recommended (n = 6,892) 0.17% 1.74% 13.65% 1.47% 14.85% 1.97% 15.30% 1.59% 15.52% 2.26% 22.28% 1.97% 19.83% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.19% 0.11% 0.15% 0.19% 0.12% 0.16% 1.26% 5.88% 5.72% 5.68% 5.50% 6.04% 2016 Required (n = 6,198) 2017 Required (n = 6,344) 2018 Required (n = 5,980) 2019 Required (n = 6,422) 2020 Required (n = 6,072) Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 71 Figure 26 University of California – Los Angeles University of California-Los Angeles First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné 0.34% 0.18% 0.26% 0.29% 2020 Neither Recommended or Required (n = 6,378) 0.09% 3.38% 23.38% 3.14% 22.58% 3.50% 19.83% 3.61% 21.51% 2.92% 20.74% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.31% 0.22% 0.19% 0.25% 0.06% 0.12% 5.69% 5.99% 6.43% 7.11% 7.24% 7.84% 2016 Required (n = 6,535) 2017 Required (n = 6,022) 2018 Required (n = 6,233) 2019 Required (n = 5,908) Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 2021 Neither Recommended or Required (n = 6,567) 0.15% 3.33% 21.03% OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 72 Figure 27 University of Chicago University of Chicago First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2018 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,809) 0.06% 5.03% 14.76% 2019 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,725) 0.06% 6.26% 16.52% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,848) 0.00% 5.52% 14.56% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 2,053) 0.00% 7.89% 16.17% 2016 Required (n = 1,591) 2017 Required (n = 1,736) Latiné 0.06% 5.66% 13.01% 0.17% 5.07% 14.11% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% 0.00% 5.78% 7.95% 7.24% 6.96% 7.31% 6.87% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 73 Figure 28 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné 0.08% 0.12% 0.04% 0.13% 0.22% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 2,338) 0.09% 8.28% 10.17% 6.84% 10.86% 7.53% 10.18% 8.12% 10.29% 7.13% 10.77% 8.04% 10.74% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.00% 0.08% 0.16% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 4.37% 5.06% 4.80% 5.13% 4.38% 4.75% 2016 Required (n = 2,428) 2017 Required (n = 2,412) 2018 Required (n = 2,457) 2019 Required (n = 2,341) 2020 Required (n = 2,285) Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 74 Figure 29 Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Indigenous Black Latiné 0.63% 0.62% 0.31% 0.37% 0.41% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,624) 0.37% 10.69% 10.44% 12.45% 10.77% 11.87% 10.12% 11.73% 9.73% 11.46% 11.05% 11.88% 12.68% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.31% 0.56% 0.37% 0.25% 0.12% 0.43% 5.25% 5.85% 5.56% 5.05% 5.79% 5.97% 2016 Required (n =1,599) 2017 Required (n = 1,606) 2018 Required (n = 1,601) 2019 Required (n = 1,603) 2020 Required (n = 1,693) Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 75 Figure 30 Washington University in St. Louis Washington University in St Louis First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.12% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,801) 0.28% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,970) 0.15% 7.75% 11.21% 6.39% 11.22% 8.78% 13.05% 2016 Required (n = 1,766) 2017 Required (n = 1,771) 2018 Required (n = 1,785) 2019 Required (n = 1,730) 0.06% 0.06% 0.00% Latiné 10.48% 9.46% 8.24% 10.78% 9.52% 9.41% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.00% 0.06% 0.22% 0.23% 0.06% 0.05% 4.70% 5.70% 4.93% 6.53% 5.83% 6.70% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 76 Figure 31 Yale University Yale University First-time, Full-time, Undergraduate Degree- Seeking Enrollment % 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.52% 2020 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,264) 0.24% 2021 Considered but Not Required (n = 1,786) 0.28% 7.55% 15.03% 8.86% 14.00% 8.57% 15.51% 0.13% 0.13% 0.16% 0.17% 6.10% 7.10% 6.01% 7.05% 2016 Required (n = 1,367) 2017 Required (n = 1,579) 2018 Required (n = 1,573) 2019 Required (n = 1,550) 0.88% 0.32% 0.38% Latiné 7.24% 13.17% 7.73% 13.11% 8.20% 15.00% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial 0.22% 0.00% 5.56% 7.85% Indigenous Black Fall Enrollment Year with Test Policy Indigenous Black Latiné Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Multi-racial OPPRESSION PERPETRATED BY THE MOST REJECTIVE 77 Appendix B. IRB Approval Letter January 4, 2023 Dustin Grote Gary Duran Students, College of Education Re: Exempt - Initial - IRB-AY22-23-184 Oppression Perpetrated by the Most Rejective U.S. Postsecondary Institutions Dear Dustin Grote: The Weber State University Institutional Review Board has rendered the decision below for Oppression Perpetrated by the Most Rejective U.S. Postsecondary Institutions. Decision: Exempt Approval: January 4, 2023 Selected Category: Category 4. Secondary research for which consent is not required: Secondary research uses of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, if at least one of the following criteria is met: (i) The identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens are publicly available; (ii) Information, which may include information about biospecimens, is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, the investigator does not contact the subjects, and the investigator will not re-identify subjects; (iii) The research involves only information collection and analysis involving the investigator’s use of identifiable health information when that use is regulated under 45 CFR parts 160 and 164, subparts A and E, for the purposes of “health care operations” or “research” as those terms are defined at 45 CFR 164.501 or for “public health activities and purposes” as described under 45 CFR 164.512(b); or (iv) The research is conducted by, or on behalf of, a Federal department or agency using government-generated or government-collected information obtained for nonresearch activities, if the research generates identifiable private information that is or will be maintained on information technology that is subject to and in compliance with section 208(b) of the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501 note, if all of the identifiable private information collected, used, or generated as part of the activity will be maintained in systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and, if applicable, the information used in the research was collected subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Findings: Research Notes: Subjects are considered adults, signatures/consent are required, and they may choose not to participate. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not "reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation" (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D). You may proceed at this time; you have one year to complete the study. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. If you have any question please contact your review committee chair or irb@weber.edu. Sincerely, Natalie Williams, Ph.D. Chair, College of Education IRB Sub-committee Weber State Institutional Review Board