I was about to post the same. Obviously, it wasn't a lack of effort that left out these numbers from article. Cynically, it's because they wanted the reader to reach a conclusion that the numbers did not support.
It is confusing that "Asian American" went up by only 6% while the other percentages went down by a combined 14%. 1% of this is explained by more international students (10% -> 11%). I think the rest of the answer must be the note that says "Total exceeds 100% as students may indicate more than one option."
Did more applicants choose multiple races than in previous year because there are more multi-racial students or because of a change in response rate? It's a big enough difference that it might change how the results should be interpreted.
It is confusing that "Asian American" went up by only 6% while the other percentages went down by a combined 14%. 1% of this is explained by more international students (10% -> 11%). I think the rest of the answer must be the note that says "Total exceeds 100% as students may indicate more than one option."
Did more applicants choose multiple races than in previous year because there are more multi-racial students or because of a change in response rate? It's a big enough difference that it might change how the results should be interpreted.