Julie Park: That’s just been this pattern, and we are in one of those heavy pushback moments. Yeah. But seeing how it, you know, things keep going on. Like, people don’t give up, you know? They- Yeah … you know what ancestors have done and what people’s, you know, forefathers and foremothers did- I’m like, oh my goodness, like yeah, like we, we will keep going. And there are other things like, you know, seeing what, I give the example of like the University of, uh, California Davis School of Medicine and what they were able to do following Proposition 209. And um, you know, that shows possibility. Like, it is, uh, just incredible possibility and like what happens when… And I think that story is so interesting because that, those changes did not happen overnight, and there was a long period where UC Davis was just like, school of medicine was the same as any other school of medicine, right? Like, just not very diverse- Yes …, you know. And they came together and they just said like, “We really need to change things,” right?

Mamta Accapadi: Welcome to Student Affairs NOW, the online learning community for student affairs educators. I’m your host, Mamta Accapadi. Student Affairs NOW is the premier podcast and learning community for thousands of us who work in, alongside, or adjacent to the field of higher education and student affairs.

We release new episodes every week on Wednesdays. Find us at Student Affairs NOW, on YouTube, or anywhere you listen to podcasts This episode is sponsored by Evolve. Evolve offers four leadership coaching journeys designed to expand capacity and build capabilities, empowering courageous leadership to transform institutions and reimagine the future of higher education.

Stay tuned to the end of the podcast for more information about Evolve. As I mentioned earlier, my name is Mamta Accapadi. My pronouns are she, her, hers, and I’m broadcasting to you today from Austin, Texas. Austin is situated on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Humanos, Coahuiltecan, Comanche, Lipan Apache, and Tonkawa peoples.

And now to our episode. Friends, I’m really excited about our conversation today. In this episode, it’s truly inspiring to welcome somebody that I’ve deeply admired for a long time, Dr. Julie J. Park a nationally recognized scholar whose work has helped shape how higher education leaders think about success, access, equity, belonging, and opportunity.

Drawing from her book, Race, Class, and Affirmative Action: College Admissions in a New Era, Dr. Park joins us for a timely and thoughtful conversation about the questions that continue to sit at the heart of higher education. Who has access to opportunity? How do race and class influence educational pathways?

And what responsibilities do colleges and universities have in creating environments where all students feel seen, valued, and supported? Building on the foundations of her earlier scholarship, Dr. Park brings both deep research expertise and a genuine commitment to understanding the human stories behind the policies and practices that shape our campuses and impact our students’ journeys For educators who care deeply about student success, this conversation reaches far beyond admission policy.

It really invites us to consider how institutions cultivate belonging, foster inclusion, and demonstrate care for students whose experiences and opportunities are shaped by broader social and historical forces. At a moment when higher education is navigating significant uncertainty, legal challenges, and shifting expectations, Dr.

Park offers a perspective grounded in research, humanity, and most of all, hope. Her intentional approach encourages educators to move beyond simplified narratives and towards a deeper understanding of how opportunity can be created, sustained, and expanded. Together, we’re gonna explore how her hol- how her scholarship can teach us about fostering inclusive communities, supporting student success, and remaining steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that every student has the opportunity to learn, grow, contribute, and thrive.

Oh my gosh, Dr. Park, I’m so excited. Thank you for joining me on this episode of Student Affairs NOW, and welcome again to the podcast.

Julie Park: Yeah. Thank you so much. I’m so glad to be here.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah it’s… I’m just, I’m having chills, so I’m re- I’m really excited. This conversation is so important and continues to be important, right?

It’s not a singular conversation in isolation and I just really value the way that you have allowed us to- Participate in a continuity of a complex conversation in our country around higher education, and you’ve done that for so long. Your research has contributed so significantly along a continuum a- around our understanding of college admissions and campus climate.

So I would just love to open the conversation with what experiences inspired your research priorities? That could be personal, academic, but what was the, the thing that lit your fire?

Julie Park: Yeah. So I’ve been studying college m- admissions for, goodness, over 20 years now, and, it’s been a thread through my research since the beginning.

And really, I came to grad school because I became interested in the role that social science research played in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases that went through the courts in the early 2000s. And over 20 years later, there was Students for Fair Admissions, right? That, almost 20 years after Grutter.

I’m still studying these cases and the fallout and, you might think these, the topic gets kinda old, but for better or for worse it’s always in the news, right? And sometimes for unfortunate reasons, but the, I guess the upside is just that it’s, there’s always something interesting.

There’s always something intriguing to unpack and to study. And it’s been really interesting to study. So in terms of personal experiences, there are a lot. I could go back to I grew up as a child You know, immigrant family. But, I’d say two that pop into mind for my interest in race-conscious admissions from the be- beginning, I think, was really shaped by my undergraduate experience.

I went to undergrad through a explicitly race-conscious scholarship. It was called the Chancellor’s Scholarship for Minority Students, and I still remember, reading that brochure on the college visit from Vanderbilt, which I had never heard of, and I ended up attending, and they had this scholarship say m- minority students.

It was very explicit back then in the ’90s, right? Yeah. And it had the groups. Africa I still remember, and seeing Asian American and being like, “Oh, that’s not very common.” And so that was really the only thing that made me apply. And once I got there, I should have realized, like, why they were trying to basically buy students of co- really get students of color to go there, right?

Yeah. Because it was very historically white very Southern, Upper SES environment, probably even, you know- Yeah … class dynamics I think are even more apparent today, I’ve heard. And it was a really challenging environment as an undergrad. And fortunately I got the language to understand some of it through sociology classes, and just understanding oh it, this isn’t

On one hand there are great things about my educational experience, but I’m also feel like I’m missing out, right? Because this campus climate is so- Yeah … tense, right? And it’s hindering a lot of things. And so that kind of sparked my interest in yeah, just the pathways that influence how people get to college.

And I had other experiences with teaching and other things, different communities. Just learning from communities that were just different from how I grew up. So that shaped a lot of it. And then I’d say, another big thread of personal experience, ’cause the book has a chapter devoted to the debate on standardized testing.

And in it, I argue that, I say, “Whether you’re clear with it or not, we all have a worldview, right?” Yeah. We have a worldview, and we have experiences that influence how we think about issues. And testing, I think, is one of the most, not just loaded ones, but one where it’s like probably your experiences, are gonna shape what, whether you think, how much value you think the test has and, what you think it should be used for, et cetera.

And so I’m just upfront and I say I’ve worked with so many … I do see, there can be value in testing. I don’t discount at all. But I also see that I’ve had the privilege of working with so many just really brilliant- talented people over the years of all different backgrounds who say they didn’t test well, right?

Or they- Yeah … that they are like, “No, I didn’t do well,” or, the SAT is this like almost source of shame or… And I’m like, “No, it shouldn’t be because you’re-” Yeah … “amazing.” And I can’t discount those exper- like, those experiences, encounters. As someone who, I myself I did fine on the test, and I knew a lot of people- Yeah

Who did fine on the test. But, it did make me think differently. I was like, “Wow,” “What would we be missing if we didn’t have these people who, didn’t test as well?” Or, “What could I have learned,” “from, being able to e- experience, college with some of these people,” right?

And so I think those things have also shaped some of my thoughts on I… Maybe I should say I’m a test skeptical, right? Test not totally, or test agnostic, right? So not totally opposed, but I’m just… I think I tend to look with a, a more critical eye. And a lot of that has been shaped with just the people I’ve been able to work with over the years.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah. It was interesting. I always like to understand kind of the, that motivation, the roots academic interest and personal, right? So I really appreciate you sharing that. I know before we started this conversation I was sharing with you, reading your book from the lens of a, a- as a lens of a parent whose- child just went through this journey. All of it was like I was having the conversation from scratch. It felt different because I know this, this might sound cheesy, but I was on parent admissions Facebook groups- … and so I’m also now seeing conversations and seeing how parents are navigating all the different components that you talk about: tests, it factors that are significant in admissions conversations, how students tell their story, all of that.

So when I was reading your book it just felt so much more personal to me and moved me in a probably a very different way than- … my sole lens as an educator. So I really am grateful to you. And it actually leads me again, with all the kind of in the personal kind of social media spaces as I was reading how people interpret higher education or navigating higher education and admissions or any part of the process, all the myths that just seemed prevalent- Right?

So the truths that, the truths in quotes- … that people would enter into these conversations with. And that actually leads me to my first qu- my kind of as we go into the conversation, my first question for you what myths about affirmative action… You write you’ve written about kind of myth-busting before, but what myths about affirmative action or merit-based admissions do you wish people understood better?

Julie Park: Yeah. Two or so come to mind. One would be the idea that there’s some as- there are assumptions that prior to 2023 that somehow admissions was the term I’ve heard is race-based, right? And I put that in quote marks.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah.

Julie Park: And you… And actually, that’s the language that’s used by the Supreme Court majority in the opinion, which should tell you something about what they thought was going on- Yeah

at places like Harvard and UNC, right? Race-based, right? With that, it’s basically this idea that you’re getting in because of your race, ethnicity, when those of us who work in higher ed or admissions know that it’s so much more complex, and what we really have is what we like to say is race conscious admissions, or you could even say sort of race sensitive or race aware- Yeah

right? Where race doesn’t guarantee anything- … but you’re just allowed to know what the student’s race, ethnicity is, even if they don’t talk about it, and you can take that into consideration in thinking- … about how that may have shaped their experiences, opportunities, and, the potential yeah, contributions they may have on campus or society or whatnot.

And- Oh yeah, I’d say, I quote the Chronicle of Higher Ed has a reporter, Eric Hoover, who’s really great, and he was just up front. He said, “Race-based admissions is just this made-up term,” right? It’s just this- Yeah. It’s, but it reflects once again, a worldview, right? An idea of… Like, when I say worldview and I have this backdrop of the planet, right? So this worldview, right? It’s very appropriate. The world- You know. So it reflects a certain lens, but I like to push back and just say, “Hey, it’s not formulas. Those were struck down. It’s not quotas.

It’s not ceilings. It’s just being able to know what someone’s race, ethnicity was,” right? And you could have, two African American applicants, and neither of them, they could not, they might not- Yeah … get in, right? So that’s one. And then the other I’d say is to push back around what it means to have merit sort of merit-based admissions because I feel like sometimes people use that term to describe a narrow conception of merit.

So they’ll say, “Oh, we need to move back to merit. Let’s bring back required testing.” And it’s just no, right? Like-

Mamta Accapadi: Yes …

Julie Park: you know that, yeah, we have… so two people can be talking about merit-based or merit-driven admissions but have totally different things in mind, right? And so I guess I would just urge people to, when they’re talking about merit, to be specific and to recognize that, of course, like merit, may…

It could be reflected in things like grades and test scores and what classes students take and what AP scores they get, but that’s not the end, right? That there can be other ways to demonstrate merit, and the tricky job of admissions officers is to really to bring together a class that reflects merit demonstrated in a variety of ways.

And there are some forms of, say, admissions I’ll say are not merit-based. A donor, right? Yeah. Donor-based, right? So I’m like, okay yeah. Let’s not have that. But on the whole it’s it’s a, they’re a very talented class, but they’re not all gonna demonstrate talent in one single way.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah. Yeah, that, I I feel like it’s one of those vaccination of consciousness. I feel like this is a thing that we just have to keep repetitively-

…

Mamta Accapadi: Saying in our spa- in our community spaces, and I don’t know how we continue to do… it, the, it seems very singular narrative interpretations for such complex experiences.

So I r- I really appreciate you in- inviting us to think about that. If i- through- throughout your book you y- you warn… I don’t know if it’s a warning, but you really raise the awareness of the our practices or y- you, you warn us against repressive legalism, right?

And And I think about, we- we’ve seen this happen over the past couple of years, institutions making specific decisions. I would call them like an an, an over- e- either an overreach or an over-interpretation of over-compliance. And also maybe not you talk a lot about courageous and bold leadership as well.

And so in this next reflection, I would love to hear your perspective and wisdom around examples of policies or actions that where colleges can exercise, I don’t know if it’s courageous and bold and mission aligned courageous- Sure … bold, and mission aligned decisions. What, those kinds of decisions or actions they could take even if they fear a legal challenge.

Julie Park: Yeah. It is a really difficult environment because, yeah, the Trump administration has completely weaponized the ruling, right? To go after anything and everything. But, the law says that students for admissions is, it’s related to admissions, right? Certainly. And, we are beginning to see I think unfortunately, some courts kind of rule towards or to support the application of SFFA to areas that are more adjacent to admissions, like scholarship and financial aid.

Although, I will say the jury’s now not out on those. And you have legal experts who have talked about race- certain race conscious scholarships- Yeah … being able to survive, and it’s very interesting, and it can get really tricky into the law and donor intent and all of these things.

And so there’s some interesting cases out there. But I’d say, the other arena where, the we’ve had claims that SFFA c- applies to, like, all of campus life- Oh … and I’m like no,” right? And we do have parameters that, programs need to be open to everyone, right?

For the most part they need to be able to yeah, to be accessible. But then at the same time, there’s no prohibition on programs that, seek to provide support for students of color, that seek to celebrate their experiences for them and anyone who’s interested in learning about communities of color and whatnot.

And we did have just yesterday, I think the administration issued some, what they see as affinity halls, right? They’re going after affinity halls. And it’s like, don’t you have a war? Like- Yeah … going on? Like this is all the distraction, and it’s just oh, my goodness. And it’s j- their interpretation of the Fair Housing Act and how, and it’s just no as long as these programs are open to everyone, right? Which they are. Yeah.

Mamta Accapadi: Yes …

Julie Park: then they should be okay. But- And it’s just I would like to see institutions continue to stand up for things like, ethnic student associations-

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah

Julie Park: Funding for uni- We saw cases where I think it was, like, University of Alabama where they kicked student, certain student organizations out of the student union. They stripped funding for publications like on women’s experiences- … e- the experiences yeah, in some other communities, and that’s total overreach, right?

And so I hope universities, most universities will stay strong, right? Because I think students see those actions and they say we have a lot about there’s this big conversation about trust in higher ed, right? And how we’ve, there’s this collective loss of trust supposedly.

But I’ll tell you what will make a lot of people lose trust, like those types of actions where I think institutions are walking away from communities of co- when institutions walk away from communities of color that certainly takes away trust in higher ed, right?

And so I hope that institutions will yeah, continue to remember their missions, right?

And to to be able to support programs that are a lot in alignment with their admiss- their missions of supporting in- learning environments for all students.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah. I, I really appreciate that, and you invoke that i- in the book pretty clearly. I think we all need to hear that.

I, what I was also grappling with is, it’s this decision i- in interplay with state legislature decisions and mandates as well, and so sometimes-

…

Mamta Accapadi: It’s the stacking of, of-

Yeah … the different pieces, I think. Again we have to, we have a duty of care to stay present and, create opportunities for all students to have that sense of belonging and connection.

I still I he- I hear what you’re saying, and I think that sometimes even we ourselves narrowly interpret what can’t be done to keep us from thinking about, okay, what’s the expansive mindset about what we believe all students should have, opportunity and experience to have, and how are we holding ourselves accountable, to make sure that the breadth of our students, which would obviously include historically underrepresented and undersupported students have, have those opportunities for success and, w- just the breadth of the university experience in general.

One of the things that moved me quite a bit when you were, I think this may have been in your opening. You talked about as you were writing this book, you actually, felt more hopeful at the end. Like throughout your journey you cultivated a a, a great- you felt a greater sense of hope along the way.

I I needed to hear that. And so I really just appreciate kind of the, the energy and mindset by which you went through in your writing process. Reflecting on that, what data or evidence gave you the most hope about maintaining diversity, inclusive practices caring communities after the ban?

And what data alarmed you the most?

Julie Park: Yeah. You mean after the restriction- Yes … of race-conscious admissions? Yeah, there are a couple things to see… I I… It is not good times, right? We’re not having- Yeah … good times right now. Yeah. But I, in ear- I s- dedicate some time early in the book just to talking about let’s remember the historical context of, like- Yes

how far we’ve come from, how… what previous generations have had to deal with. And we had laws that would not allow it- enslaved people to learn how to read, right? Exactly. And which is u- unfathomable today, but was reality, right? Yes. Reality not too long ago in the, this country.

And so in a way just reflecting on that history, like of how terrible certain things have been, and while this country is so imperfect, how we have limped along sometimes- Yeah … one step back and two step. It’s just like we can’t give up now, right? We- Yes, absolutely

We can’t… in that way it I think stirred me to just be like, we have to keep going because people have overcome, so mu- just such- Yeah … incredible odds. And yes, it is very difficult and discouraging right now, but it’s just I think looking at history re- the patterns come, and you have progress, and then there’s pushback against the progress, right?

That’s just been this pattern, and we are in one of those heavy pushback moments. Yeah. But seeing how it, things keep going on. People don’t give up, they- Yeah … you know what ancestors have done and what people’s, forefathers and foremothers did- I’m like, oh my goodness, like yeah, like we, we will keep going.

And there are other things like, seeing what, I give the example of like the University of California Davis School of Medicine and what they were able to do following Proposition 209. And that shows possibility. It is just incredible possibility and like what happens when…

And I think that story is so interesting because that, those changes did not happen overnight, and there was a long period where UC Davis was just like, school of medicine was the same as any other school of medicine, right? Just not very diverse- Yes … and they came together and they just said “We really need to change things,” right?

And they made just incredible progress over the years and, but they had to change so many things, right? From kinda top to bottom. Those doctors who are coming out of there, they’re gonna save lives, right? And they’re gonna reach people that would not be able to be reached otherwise.

So that filled me, that really inspired me. And in the book I talk about alternate defenses for- Yeah … race-conscious admissions, which while they are maybe not politically viable now, like I, it was inspiring to be like, wow. And even after I wrote the book, like I found artic- like document, like articles written over 25 years ago when it’s interesting, like the d- the conversations people had around prior to the Michigan cases- Yeah

on or during- Yeah … the Michigan Case- cases on how are we gonna defend this? And you know what won out ultimately was the diversity defense, and I think there are great things with that, but you had voices then who were just like, “No, Michigan should own up to its history, and it would be most effective…”

Charles Lawrence, who’s a Georgetown Law professor, said, “It would be most effective to combine that historical institutional defense justifying the policy because of institution-specific actions taken by the University of Michigan in combination with the entire yes, everyone benefits through diversity.”

To bring those two things together. That’s been talked about for decades. And so that just- Yeah Even my, in my own grad program it was- Yeah … and I imagine with yours, it was “Oh, we want…” Those were happy days after the Michigan cases, and everyone felt good, and the diversity defense did pull through then, and it pulled through again in Fisher, and-

Mamta Accapadi: Yes

Julie Park: So but it’s just when, unfortunately when something stops working- Yeah … even when we appreciate the values and, and believe that it should work, right? It needs, we need to start looking other wa- to other places. And so I thought the Croson strategy is fascinating and, I describe how it even institutions don’t even have to say “Oh, we did this thing that kept out students.”

They can just say “We passively participated.” Yes. It’s like, talk about throwing you a bone. Passive participation- Yes … in an industry that, led to a certain amount of exclusion, and it’s like- … that’s one big industry everyone- Yes … was involved in, right?

Yes. So you know, so I, I write it, learning about those things, like it’s funny how writing a book makes you just learn about all of this- Yes, all the stuff

you think, you are like, “Oh, I, I know a lot of stuff. I should write a book.” But then you write the book, you’re like, “Oh, I learned so much more just writing it,” right? And so learning about those things, for me I was like, hey, yes, these are terrible times, but-

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah …

Julie Park: learning about these, those things through the process of writing the book did leave me with some, this combination of whether it’s optimism or just feeling like we definitely can’t give up now.

Yeah. Now is not a good ti- yeah. We just can’t. There’s no justification.

Mamta Accapadi: Any, any things that you think about in terms of cause of c- continued alarm. One of the al- one of the pieces that you also open with is I just think about, it’s 20 three years have gone, right?

20 it’s 2026 now, so I feel like to write this book and then, like, all the changes over the past couple of years any, anything that particularly raises concern for you?

Julie Park: Yeah, there are many things that raise concern for me. One big one is just the dwindling numbers over time- Yeah, completely

of, in particular for Black enrollment. Yes. Black student enrollments on elite college campuses, right? It’s, we know these campuses are not the end all be all, but they are significant. Yeah. And there’s a reason why people fight tooth and na- right? Are like clawing pretty much- yeah

to get in, right? And so to see those numbers go down at a n- a number of ca- places and how that, I think it, this will be the… In, by fall 2027 we’ll have fo- four cohorts of turnover, and so it’s just gonna be a very, at some places you’re just gonna have a very different type of experience, I think, for historically underrepresented populations.

And it’s not like it was great even before the ruling- Exactly … but, you take a- you take away, say, half of those students or a third of those students and you’re i- in an even more difficult place. So that concerns me. The trickle-down effects of what we as researchers call the cascade effect of how the the ruling or how previous affirmative action restrictions- Yes

or bans have resulted in eventually Black, brown, low-income students filtering down to lower selectivity institutions where they’re less likely to be supported. And we’re seeing some upticks of enrollment of Black students in the for-profit sector. And so those concern me, and of course just the entire weaponization of the ruling by the Trump administration to go after anything and everything. Though that, that’s something we weren’t even thinking about in 2023. We were already like sad and discouraged in 2023, but-

Mamta Accapadi: Yes …

Julie Park: boy, it just took on a whole nother dimension and, to complicate people’s lives or just to make things very difficult.

I hope that we’ll make it through somehow. We will.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah. Yeah. The, I don’t… A- as you’ve invoked before it’s a, e- especially now, it’s our responsibility to stay in it, right? And to stay present. And I, just to really think about what it means to create- opportunities and space for belonging, and what does belonging actually mean?

If we’re doing that in a way that all of our students feel that dignity and sense of connection, particularly i- in the… Always, but particularly in, in the current climate. You talked about you… So I just think about the downstream impact, right? And effect of the Students for Fair Admission v.

Harvard decision on campus life and the student experience in general. You spoke a bit about that as you, as I hear… obviously when a, when certain demographics of students are all of a sudden, not all, I shouldn’t say all of a sudden, but there’s a, a significant impact or decrease of specific demographics of students, obviously that impacts the experiences of, and opportunities of those students, and it also ex- impacts the student experience overall.

How do you think we as educators those of us who are working on programmatic experiences how can we be responsive to the campus climate needs or to students during this time?

Julie Park: Yeah, that’s a great question. I think just recognizing that students are going to that students already had challenges and that they’re gonna face additional challenges in the climate. And thinking of whether it’s institutions, and this is hard ’cause it’s sh- we’re beginning- Yeah … to have layoffs, right?

We’ve had staff layoffs, and so and everyone is kinda doing the, the belt-tightening thing. And it’s th- the situation of people are asked to do more with less, right? And so- … but, I- hopefully institutions will step forward to try to support students to stand behind the structures, the infrastructure, and the programs that we’ve had been able to have in order to continue to support them to, I think, be there interest, I think maybe almost like a collective grieving or just, I remember just- dropping in so many times, right? When you’re- Yeah … kind of a student leader, a student activist, and you just want someone to talk to, right? Yeah. And being able to be there for students and to validate their experience, and also to say “No, you’re not you’re not losing your mind,” or the-

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah

Julie Park: the feeling that you have of that this doesn’t feel right. That’s not off, right? ‘Cause I think that is something like that can take some time sometimes for students to sink in. But o- once you feel it, you’re just like, “Oh is there something wrong with me?” ‘Cause it seems like a lot of- people over here are having a good time, and a lot of people here are having a good time. But why is, why am I experiencing like this? So I think, and to the extent that support structures that help students understand like the structural conditions that are influencing like what they are experiencing, and it’s no coincidence that these are the same types of classes that people are going after in red states because, you know- Yeah

they don’t want people to understand what’s happening to them in a way.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah.

Julie Park: But yeah, hopefully being able to continue the availability and I think pointing students to those resources and and just being there for them, and then continuing to build, behind the scenes, I think.

And, sometimes it might be just behind the scenes fighting to keep, whether it’s a budget or-

…

Julie Park: Space for students, or, this these different areas. Yeah, and to, to be able to just continue to be that, that presence for them and recognizing like that it’s, they’re going through so much, right?

And, ugh it’s hard. It’s hard ’cause they have to wear so many hats sometimes as students too as do the faculty and ad- administrators and everyone. And so yeah, it’s a really difficult time. But I think coming together and- Yes … being able to validate each other’s experiences and encourage.

I think we we get through everything better when we’re together and we’re united.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah. I really value that your wisdom there. I think having, having worked and served on college campuses, one of the things, I think my wish and hope- as we navigate this very tough time, right?

Recognizing that there, there… that there are many hurdles. I feel that there’s an opportunity for areas that support student, students to have I I might not say this in the best way, but a, a values and operational clarity across a breadth of units so that if a student is going into academic advising, they’re experiencing that high level of dignity and care in the same way that when they go to their student acti- in the student activities office to, to have that listening ear, or the counseling center, or, y- your success coach. But that a student would experience the consistency of that level of care because there’s values clarity around creating an environment where students feel a sense of affection and care.

And I feel like that, there’s… a- again, w- while I too grieve focused programs and opportunities we know that those are important. I think we have an opportunity to really be in a space of values clarification around-

…

Mamta Accapadi: How we really create that space of affection for students that may or may not feel that, right?

And so how do we focus on that? So I just appreciate you continuing to call us in to, to stay focused and stay present. That means a lot. As you as we go through the journey of the book, you focus on a c- or you have a call for us to reimagine admissions.

There’s the invitation for us to think about admissions differently. Again, back to the bold and courageous phrase that, that stuck with me in the book. If you had a change, a bold change that a selective college, or any institution, but, there’s a focus on selective institutions a conversation around selective institutions in the book.

If you had a bold change that a selective college could make immediately, do you have thoughts on what that might be?

Julie Park: Oh, since you’ve given me like the magic wand- Yeah … and it doesn’t necessarily have to be like realistic, right?

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah.

Julie Park: I would love to re- preferences for recruited athletes, right?

Like athletic recruitment, I would love to see that just totally change radically, right? Yes. Whether it’s the number of spots for recruited athletes or just period, right? Yes. Like that, yes, come, play on s- let us have these teams, right? I know that’s- Yes … doesn’t reflect the, the whatever the athletic industrial complex that it is, but you asked for-

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah

Julie Park: for ideas. And in the book I have other ones I think are more realistic. Yeah. Like more like in terms of push out, like just more push out information, like- Yes … reducing the friction in the process where as- Yeah … as I’m sure you experienced with your daughter, there’s so much waiting and, this and that, and you don’t know what’s…

so just the more clarity that can be offered around hey, if you get in, you will not… You, this is what you will pay, I think is- Yes … is helpful. And along that, sure, getting rid of early decision. Like somehow, I think yeah, these twin concerns of, equity- Yes

and mental health, like both. And the system is, yeah, I’m sure you walked through it- Yes … watching your daughter- … and her peers really go through it, right? It’s just not a-

Mamta Accapadi: No …

Julie Park: great system. Like this survival of the fittest and, I say, like I have this like theory, they talk about like fire, like people wanting to retire early, right?

Mamta Accapadi: Yes.

Julie Park: I think it’s ’cause people are feeling just so crunched-

Mamta Accapadi: Yes …

Julie Park: early on, right? Yes. And that doesn’t seem good for society if everyone wants to retire when they’re like- Yeah … before they’re 40, right? Yeah. And so thinking of kind of the- how we would rethink if it’s like, okay if we want this, like this flourishing, right- Yeah

society where people are not so stressed out then what does this have to look… at different points, right? And even- Yeah … down to childhood, right? And so I- that would be yeah, a big magic wand. I don’t know how you would do it, right? Yeah. But just a system that is more in align with both our values, but also just what we want for society, right?

And yeah, you have people who are… This current administration’s like, “Oh, everyone should have four kids.” It’s like, that is not happening. Yeah.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah.

Julie Park: That is not happening when people are feeling this way and yeah it’s interesting.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah. Absolutely. I join you in that. I, it’s interesting because the, yeah, there’s an interesting cycle because we’re rewarding behaviors that then are not necessarily the behaviors that we wanna see, right?

So if you wanna focus on health and wellbeing and students telling authentic stories, at the end of the day, there’s a whole machine around curating said authentic stories before you write that that oddly is inauthentic i- in, in the way that the, the admission process works,

Julie Park: it’s like, “Be authentic. Hire a 20, $10,000 consultant to help you be authentic.”

Mamta Accapadi: Yes. Or to, to, to, yes to figure out what your authentic is gonna be, right? And I think… And then the kind of the crisis that happens as, as then our young people are questioning what is authentic and what is, what, what tells the story of authenticity for somebody reading on the other side, which are, two different things.

So yeah I join you in that for sure. As you think about the future of admissions what are you watching most closely in the coming years? Do you are there indicators or policies on the horizon that you think could be pivotal or things that we should be paying attention to?

Julie Park: Yeah, honestly, what I’m watching the most is just, are just the numbers, right? Yeah. Like just looking at how the, the decision is continuing to impact enrollments. Yeah. I think what we’re, something we’re all, we’re keeping an eye on is what’s gonna happen with this ACT survey, right?

That was traumatized Yeah … a lot of higher ed over the last year, and what the administration is gonna do with it. And early indications are not very positive- Yeah … although we don’t know what’s gonna happen. So I think, that will probably open up a can of worms on, what different people want admissions to look like, and the pushback of, defending the ability to capture merit in such a- Right

th- wide-ranging holistic fashion, right?

Mamta Accapadi: Yes.

Julie Park: And so yeah, so those are two of the developments. But I’m also interest… i’m in- interested in, we were at like peak birthrate, right? And we’re not… The cliff, right? Yes. It’s not gonna just like tsh. Yeah. But it is, you were seeing like- Just like that

bit by bit, and it’s kinda… There’s the canary in the coalmine. Yeah. And so that’s like the other thing of, how institutions are gonna respond, adjust, consolidate, and whatnot. And so that’s something else I’m continuing to watch.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah. I’m cu- I, as, as we think about, as we c- cl- close out our conversation when we l- at least for me, when I read from a learner lens, right?

What are the tools that I can develop? What are the, what are the conversations I can have alongside my colleagues to think about programs differently or initiatives differently? And that’s really meaningful. I’m gonna ask a bit of a heart although you’ve brought heart into this entire conversation, which I always cherish about you.

How do you want people to feel after reading your book? What is your hope and wish for those of us that have, that, that read your book? How do you want us to feel emerging out of reading the book?

Julie Park: Yeah. If it had to be one word, it would be hopeful. But if I could use more than one word, I think it’s, I think this book, it I reflect a little, I mentioned in the intro, like it took on a different meaning- Yes

’cause I wrote most of the book actually before the start of 2025. So and then I went back and I did a heavy revisions, in that to capture, how the Trump administration was talking about the ruling, applying it- Yeah … weaponizing it, the overreach. But that said, I think the book took on sort of this new significance because it documented like what we should be doing- Right

even though someone is trying to scare us into not doing these things. And let’s not forget the ruling says this even though we’re being constantly told it means something else, right? The gaslighting. Yeah. And so in that I hope that it gives them this feeling of like it allows them to see how things should be, right?

And whether that’s happening is another issue, but to kinda give this like clarity and vision of, oh, like- the, all this noise, like it shouldn’t be… number one, it shouldn’t be going on, but number two, like amidst all of that, like what is, what are what’s the reality, right? And what are, and even though it’s being able to achieve that reality has become a lot more complicated, right?

So I th- I hope it gives people some kind of that clarity and vision and hope but also like the reminder of like this is what should be happening, right? We should have all hands on deck. We should still be working to support opportunity and access to the fullest extent possible, ’cause our job- has gotten a lot harder. We can still students can still talk about race in their applications. Institutions have a lot of leeway to consider those experiences. And really, we should not be touching most of the campus environment if-

Mamta Accapadi: Yes …

Julie Park: other than to enhance things, right? Yeah. And to build things up versus like taking them down.

And so I hope the book can offer some clarity around like someone is telling you, “Oh, SFFA means this,” and just the pushback to say “No.” Yeah. “A- actually, it doesn’t.” Yeah.

Mamta Accapadi: Yeah. Yeah I really appreciated that context and I certainly left feeling hopeful. Trepidatiously hopeful, if I can say that.

Yeah. Like it’s like there’s that like it’s oh, I have this pit in my stomach, and it’s the journey that we need to be in together. I it was I really value I, I value you putting this out in the space in such a beautifully woven way. With like I, I feel like a, a chronology of research and context to understand, okay, here’s where we are.

There, there’s a continuum and a context and this is just how we need to show up at this point and the continuum, ob- obviously unseen, but will continue, so here’s how we need to show up right now. Julie, I’m so grateful for our conversation. Oh. I could talk to you for, like I just I soak in your wisdom.

I could talk to you for hours and days. I’m so grateful to you for your time and your spirit, your intellect but particularly your time and spirit today as a guest on Student Affairs NOW. I also wanna take a moment to again, thank our sponsor Evolve. We really appreciate the support of Evolve.

Given the current context of higher education, we need to invest in leaders with the capacity and capabilities to transform their institutions and the future of higher education. The Evolve Institute for Higher Education Leadership in- offers four i- leadership coaching journeys tailored to four different leadership levels.

Each is a three-month journey that includes individual and group coaching, plus a curated curriculum of short asynchronous video modules. We also offer Evolve for leadership teams. If you are ready to evolve your leadership voice, visit evolve-institute.com to learn more. I also want to take a moment to thank and give a shout-out and love to Natalie Ambrosey, the producer of the podcast, who does all of the behind-the-scenes work to make us look good and sound good.

And friends, if you’re listening today and not already is receiving the weekly newsletter, please visit the website at studentaffairsnow.com and scroll to the bottom of the homepage to add your email to the Mailchimp list. And while you’re there, feel free to check out the archives. I’m Mamta Accapadi.

It’s an honor to be in space with all of you. So much love and gratitude to everyone who’s listening. Please honor your spirits and make it a beautiful week. And until next time, thank you all very much. Dr. Park, super, super grateful again to be in community with you. Also, thank you for sharing resources.

When you collapse an accordion item and save, it will automatically display collapsed in front end