Is Affirmative Action Archaic?
On Oct. 31, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether race-conscious admissions programs at two of the nation’s top post-secondary institutions — Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) — are lawful. Whether or not academic institutions should consider race in making admissions decisions has been a topic of contentious debate both socially and legally for decades now, ever since its implementation. Originating from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, Affirmative Action aims to address underrepresentation of certain groups of minorities in higher education. Specifically, this means increasing the number of people of color accepted at selective colleges through the consideration of ethnicity as an admissions factor.
Today, the fate of the movement towards educational equity is in the hands of the Supreme Court justices, who recently heard challenges to Affirmative Action in two cases: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. Legal experts say the ruling, given the current 6-3 conservative supermajority, is likely to overturn the longstanding practice and would have far-reaching implications for diversity on college campuses as well as in the workforce pipeline.
While these policies, also known as race-conscious admissions, are implemented with a laudable goal in mind, their execution is far from perfect. Though Affirmative Action in its current form may increase minority representation in U.S. universities, it does so unfairly at the cost of Asian Americans and Caucasians, many of whom work just as hard as other racial groups to earn spots at prestigious universities.
“Different people excel at different tasks,” junior Harley Qiu said. “Colleges, and by extension, society and the workforce, should be getting the most qualified individuals, the color of their skin aside. That is why I believe that college admission decisions should be made not on the basis of ethnicity, but on each and every applicant’s unique talents and abilities.”
These sentiments are not isolated. They are representative of an underlying uneasiness and frustration felt by students at Peninsula, one of the top ranked public schools in California, especially those vying for a spot at elite U.S. universities. Affirmative Action has the right spirit in trying to increase diversity in education, but is executing it in a manner that, at least to Peninsula students, feels more racist and stratifying than not.
“I think Affirmative Action is very unfair, particularly towards Asians,” senior Fiona Cho said. “Diversity is important, but so is qualification, and setting almost-quotas on race is inherently racist. Additionally, minority races who do work very hard do not receive the credit that they deserve, as the automatic assumption by the general public will be ‘oh, they only got into Yale because they are [part of a minority group].’”
It is not that students from underrepresented groups are necessarily worse at school compared to their Asian and Caucasian peers either, as race alone is rarely the determining factor for success. Hard work, natural ability, socioeconomic status and parental support all play equally large, if not greater roles in determining student success (American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers). As such, institutions targeting education inequality, and consequently, employment inequality, should not target race as a factor. Instead, it should take a back seat to these numerous other variables.
“I feel that the intention behind Affirmative Action is good, because a major purpose of education is that it is supposed to level the playing field (not just in education but for better future economic access and prosperity as well).” senior Kara Lo said. “If we are talking about class/wealth-based Affirmative Action think it is generally fair, but race-based Affirmative Action is a very flawed system, since schools create quotas or caps to generate a more diverse student population. That is not a bad thing, but colleges should be admitting those who are qualified based on their merit, which should be defined as how hard they have worked given the resources available to them.”
Instead of Affirmative Action starting with college admissions, it would be better to start equalizing the playing field earlier, by providing more opportunities and support for ‘disadvantaged’ or underrepresented groups earlier on in life so that ethnicity becomes less of a determining factor in a system that is supposedly nondiscriminatory. Of course, these problems lie in the way schools themselves are funded: almost half of a public school’s funding is obtained through property taxes on the residences in which their pupils reside, resulting in an obvious problem — schools in affluent areas obtain more funding, while schools in impoverished ones are left on shoestring budgets (Public School Review). In the state of New York, for instance, the most well funded public school districts spend almost 50% more per pupil compared with less privileged districts (United States Census). This does not even touch on the difference in resources that students at private schools enjoy. By waiting until college to provide a false sense of ‘equality,’ the current system is neglecting the needs of children growing up in disadvantaged communities and refusing to acknowledge the hard work and effort put in by those who are not.
However, even if the U.S. Supreme Court does strike down Affirmative Action at Harvard and UNC, it will not be the end of the story. After all, educational inequality is a prevalent issue in the U.S. and demands a solution. At least in the short run, a better and more fair solution would involve income, or socioeconomic affirmative action, admitting students who made the best use of the resources they had access to. Even still, serious change is needed in the long run — both in the way people think about educational inequality and in the way it is addressed.
