EXHIBIT 30 Expert Report of Bridget Terry Long, Ph.D., dated January 12, 2018 Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 154-30 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 75 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO. 1:14-CV-954 STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, ) INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ) CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Expert Report of Bridget Terry Long, Ph.D. Saris Professor of Education and Economics Harvard Graduate School of Education January 12, 2018 i Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 154-30 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 75 Table of Contents I. Scope of Assignment and Statement of Qualifications........................................................1 II. Summary of Opinions ..........................................................................................................3 III. The Admissions Process of Highly-Selective Universities .................................................5 A. Focusing on the Subset of Highly-Selective Institutions ...............................................5 B. The Broader Admissions Context and Mission of Highly-Selective Institutions ..........5 C. UNC-Chapel Hill: Background......................................................................................6 IV. Overview of Race-Neutral Approaches and Factors to Consider in the Evaluation of an Admissions Reform .............................................................................................................8 A. Defining a Race-Neutral Approach ...............................................................................8 B. Types of Race-Neutral Approaches ...............................................................................8 C. Factors that Influence the Impact of Any Race-Neutral Approach: The Role of the Admissions and Local Context ................................................................................9 D. Assessing the Effectiveness of a Race-Neutral Approach in Fostering Racial and Ethnic Diversity ....................................................................................................11 E. Assessing the Broader Effects of a Race-Neutral Approach on Efficiency and Longer-Term Outcomes ...............................................................................................12 F. Factors to Consider when Reviewing the Quality of Research and Evidence .............13 V. The Effects of Eliminating Race-Consciousness in Admissions .......................................14 VI. Place-Based Race-Neutral Approaches: The Percentage Plans .........................................15 A. The Rationale for Using Place-Based Preferences as a Race-Neutral Admissions Approach ..................................................................................................15 B. Percentage Plans: Policy Background and Context .....................................................16 C. The Impact of the Percentage Plans on Applicant Behavior .......................................18 D. The Impact of the Percentage Plans on the Racial and Ethnic Composition of Accepted Applicants and Students...............................................................................21 1. Overall Impact of Percentage Plans on Racial and Ethnic Composition ............ 21 2. Taking into Account Demographic Change in the Interpretation of the Effects of Percentage Plans ......................................................................................................... 22 3. How the Impact of the Percentage Plans varied by Institution ........................... 22 E. The Impact of the Percentage Plans on the Institutional Mission of Academic Excellence ....................................................................................................................24 F. Considerations of the Longer-Term Effects of the Percentage Plans on Student and Family Behavior ....................................................................................................25 G. Summary of Observations about the Effects of Percentage Plans ...............................27 ii Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 154-30 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 75 VII. Place-Based Race Neutral Alternatives: Considering Preferences based on Geographic Location ..........................................................................................................28 A. The Idea of Using Residence to Base Admissions Decisions ......................................28 B. The Predicted Effects of Residence-Based Admissions Preferences ..........................29 C. Conclusions about Residence-Based Admissions Policies ..........................................30 VIII. Race-Neutral Approaches Focused on Family Background as a Proxy for Race .......30 A. Definition of a Socioeconomic-Based Approach ........................................................30 B. Rationale for a Socioeconomic-Based Approach ........................................................31 C. Research on the Effects of Socioeconomics-Based Admissions Approaches on the Composition of Accepted Applicants ....................................................................31 1. The Current Use of Socioeconomics-based Preferences by Institutions............. 31 2. Using Simulation Research to Understand the Potential Impact of Socioeconomics-based Admissions Policies .............................................................. 32 3. Simulations of the Effects of Class-Based Admissions Approaches .................. 33 4. Simulations that Consider the Dynamic Effects of Socioeconomic-Based Approaches on Applicants and Institutions ................................................................ 37 D. Concerns about the Data Feasibility of Socioeconomic-Based Approaches ...............38 E. Concerns about the Application Rates of Low-income, High-Achieving Students of Color .........................................................................................................39 F. Summary of the Effectiveness of Socioeconomic-Based Approaches as a Race-Neutral Approach ...............................................................................................40 IX. Additional Research on Using Proxies as a Race-Neutral Approach ................................41 A. Considering the Overall Potential of Using Proxies as a Race-Neutral Approach ......................................................................................................................41 B. Studies Considering how the General Use of Proxies might Affect Admissions Outcomes .....................................................................................................................41 C. Other Effects from Using Proxies in Admissions Policies ..........................................42 D. The Experience of K-12 Education with using Proxies in Selective Admissions ...................................................................................................................43 E. Conclusions about the Tradeoffs of Policies that Use Proxies for Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................................................43 X. Race-Neutral Approaches Focused on Eliminating Other Admissions Preferences .........44 A. Other Preferences used in Admissions Processes and the Rationale for Eliminating Preferences for Legacy Applicants ..........................................................44 B. The Effects of Eliminating Legacy Preferences ..........................................................45 XI. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................46 iii Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 154-30 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 75 I. Scope of Assignment and Statement of Qualifications 1. My name is Bridget Long. I am the Saris Professor of Education and Economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the former Academic Dean. I have been a member of the faculty at Harvard University since 2000. 2. I have been retained in this matter by Defendants the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and their outside counsel. It is my understanding that UNC-Chapel Hill currently engages in a holistic approach to undergraduate admissions, which is the admissions practice of considering a wide variety of factors in assessing a student’s abilities and strengths to identify the most qualified students. An applicant’s race and ethnicity may be considered as part of that holistic evaluation. I understand that, under the Supreme Court’s precedent, a university that seeks to use a race-conscious admissions program must prove that available and workable race- neutral alternatives do not suffice in achieving the university’s broader educational goals, which may include a diverse student body. 3. In this report, I discuss various race-neutral admissions policies that have been implemented by universities in the United States or hypothesized as possible race-neutral alternatives in academic and secondary source literature. The key question is whether a race- neutral approach can be used in a way to accomplish the goals of a university’s overall mission achieved through a race-conscious approach—namely, to achieve diversity while also maintaining high standards of academic excellence in the incoming student body. 4. Consequently, in considering the race-neutral alternatives that have been implemented by other public universities, hypothesized in academic literature, and even expressly