Written By: Mika Lai
In June 2023, rejected Asian applicants of Harvard University sued the college for discriminating against Asians due to affirmative action. The case was brought to the Supreme Court who deemed affirmative action- a policy designed to address historical inequalities and promote equal opportunities in college decisions- as unconstitutional, sparking outrage and polarizing debate. Did affirmative action truly discriminate against Asian students? And did it truly promote diversity and reduce the economic and social divide for people of color?
Due to a long history of slavery and systemic oppression, many POCs were not allowed a fair chance to receive proper education that would advance their career and therefore household income; this cycle continued throughout generations. Hence, supporters of affirmative action argue that the policy is a necessary tool to address inherent barriers and create opportunities for underrepresented groups. If colleges solely focus on grades and extracurriculars, without taking into account applicants' pre-18 investment, access to resources, household stability, and family educational background, they would be ignorant to the fact that many students who show a large range of experiences may have come from a wealthier background in which they had the capital to pay for better education that led to activities that can seem extremely appealing on paper.
So would overruling affirmative action lead to a lack of diversity? In 1996, California banned affirmative action, which caused significant repercussions. Over the course of 3 years the population of Black, African-Americans in the University of California, Berkeley decreased by over 50%, while less-selective schools showed rapid growth of African American students. This evidently indicates that many African Americans began to enroll in less selective schools, which gave them less of an edge when they applied for jobs. Statistically, there was a lesser chance of POC majoring in STEM, enrolling in graduate school, and ultimately earning relatively less income. Overruling the policy “rolls back decades of precedent & momentous progress” (Biden, 23), and undermines decades of effort in bridging racial inequities. By limiting the consideration of race in admissions, opportunities for historically marginalized communities to access higher education and employment will diminish.
The underlying principle of affirmative action was to level the playing field of a racially biased system. However, a criticism of race-conscious admissions policies is that it can reinforce prejudice. Taking race into account can lead to racial profiling, assuming certain stereotypes that may not apply to the applicant. High SAT scores should not be the expected standard from a student just because they are Asian; we should not assume that these impressive scores took little effort to achieve because of their race. Just because a student is Black does not insinuate that they come from the lower class, living in a poorer neighborhood with poorer education. As everyone experiences race differently, the subtle limitation of affirmative action can subconsciously reinforce racial stereotypes that may not always be true for every individual.
However, the primary argument against affirmative action is the supposed hypocrisy that lies beneath the surface of the stance- a policy that strived for racial equality discriminated against Asian American applicants. With affirmative action in place, it was stated that Asian Americans were less likely to get into the same schools as previously, despite being just as, or even more, qualified, as they face higher academic standards compared to other racial groups. The problem with this argument is that this is hearsay: we are automatically assuming Asian applicants who were rejected were likely more qualified than other students. This doesn’t make a case against affirmative action- it only presents the issue of our own internalized racial biases. If a white student was rejected from a certain college and blamed it all on affirmative action, would you believe them? Now if they were Asian, would you believe them? In fact Asian Americans only hold 7% of the US’s population yet 21% of Ivy League students are Asian- this is triple the national population. Perhaps a reason why more students are being rejected to colleges is simply due to the growing applicant pool; with the same limited spaces, admission rates for colleges have declined for all applicants of every race.
The humbling conclusion that we oftentimes don’t want to hear is: not everybody can get into Harvard. If you don’t get into a prestigious, tier 20 school, perhaps it is simply not where you were meant to be. If you did get in, it is possible that you wouldn’t have suited the academic or social environment, which admissions officers realized when reviewing your application. This is the entire basis of a holistic review; you have no idea what the factor was that led to your rejection, because it was an accumulation of all of them. A ‘holistic’ review means there is simply no way of knowing how much your race and the assumptions that an admissions officer may associate with your application weighs on whether you get accepted or not. However, affirmative action emphasizes that it is not meant to be the sole deciding factor in admissions, but rather an adjustment to compensate for the historical biases. We need to trust that as admissions officers view our files, they judge us for our qualities and whether they would align with their school culture or not. If they really did hold prejudice against your application, then it can be argued you shouldn’t attend that particular college anyways. The inaccurate notion that affirmative action discriminates against Asian Americans only drives a racial wedge between communities of color, where, in actuality, a majority of Asian Americans are for affirmative action.
Rejecting affirmative action will affect millions of students in publicly funded universities: there will be fewer admissions officers offering financial aid or even reaching out to lower-income neighborhoods or people of POC to avoid breaching the law. Dismantling Affirmative action won’t get rid of implicit bias, nor will it make admissions more ‘equal’. In actuality, aiming for truly fair admissions starts with dismantling Legacy admissions.
The greater issue at hand is rather the address of legacy admissions, which perpetuate advantages for White and wealthy Americans. Rejecting affirmative action without addressing these disparities will only widen the gap between marginalized communities and those with historical advantages.While the policy is not without limitations, it serves as a necessary tool to redress historical inequities and foster a diverse and inclusive educational environment. It is essential to engage in open dialogue, challenge biases, and continuously work towards dismantling systemic barriers to creating a more equitable society.
Comentários