During this election year, many people who study race and education had hoped that the nomination of a black presidential candidate and the increased focus on race would have led to a related discussion of equal access to higher education and a turn toward a stronger commitment to the creation of a truly diverse society. However, unfortunately, state ballot initiatives are challenging the voluntary use of the race-conscious policies that can be vital tools for higher-education institutions that wish to promote equality of opportunity. In this article, the authors argue that based on their research, the ballot measures are bad policy. They are bad for students' learning opportunities, limiting the chance to benefit from diversity. They are bad for institutional autonomy, usurping the judgment of colleges to decide how best to pursue their missions. They are bad for the important social outcomes described by leaders in education and business in their amicus curiae briefs in "Grutter v. Bollinger." The authors offer two recommendations: (1) Colleges need a more-complete picture of the impact of losing not just affirmative action in admissions, but also in other programs if the ballot measures pass; and (2) College leaders should stand up for what they know is right for their institutions and make their case to the voters.