In the college admissions process, affirmative action is a policy where schools consider a student’s race, ethnicity or other factors as a part of their application process. Its goal is to help certain groups of underprivileged, underrepresented or racial minority students to gain easier access to higher education and to promote diversity on campuses.
Although colleges primarily focus on grades and extracurricular activities, the inclusion of race and ethnicity tainted the fairness of the system. These qualities were beyond the applicant’s control, which challenged the notion of merit-based evaluation. Despite the attempt to address systematic inequalities–such as financial barriers, access to academic and extracurricular opportunities, and more–the policy itself further perpetuated discrimination and injustice in terms of racial bias.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that using racial preferences, also known as affirmative action, in making college admissions decisions is unconstitutional. The reason behind this was a mix of meritocracy, mitigating discriminatory impact and individual rights. Many dedicated students agree with this policy because prioritizing one’s qualification over inherent, unchanging identity is essential for creating a fair and equitable system.
To put this into perspective, consider the demographics of professional sports leagues like the NBA and NFL. In the NFL, over 50 percent of players are African American, and in the NBA, the percentage rises to over 70 percent.
Now imagine implementing diversity policies into these leagues that increase representation from other racial groups, even if it reduces opportunities for more qualified athletes.
Most likely, there would be immediate nationwide backlash advocating for fairness within those leagues. The athletes in those leagues, people would argue, should be there based on their ability in the sport, not whether they are a minority. They would not want to see the quality of play decrease for a diversity quota. Likewise, the college admissions process should be the same.
Truthfully, the concept of “qualified” should also consider structural inequalities that disproportionately affect minority students, such as disparities in early education, financial resources, and academic support. The point of affirmative action was to address these issues by leveling the playing field for students who faced systemic barriers due to historical racism.
However, the problem lies not with the policy’s intent, but in its actual consequences. While trying to alleviate these societal barriers, affirmative action unintentionally introduced new forms of unfairness by focusing on race rather than individual merit. This response to past inequalities perpetuated a cycle where one type of bias was replaced by another, complicating the admissions process’ idea of true fairness.
By acknowledging both the clear benefits of affirmative action – such as the promotion of diversity on campuses, which has been proven to encourage empathy and understanding among peers – and its flaws, we can find ways to reshape the policy to be equitable for everyone.
While many believe that the key to ending discrimination is having diverse populations, over-compensating and over-prioritizing race has ultimately led to the policy’s ban. Indeed, many opponents of affirmative action in admissions believe its goal to end discrimination has seen little progress.
“Preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds… because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers),” Stanford Magazine editors David Sacks and Peter Thiel said.
With affirmative action’s removal from the college scene, there have been significant changes within many university demographics. Just to list some key statistics, at MIT, there has been a major increase in Asian American enrollment, rising from 40 percent to 47 percent. Meanwhile, the share of African American, Hispanic and Native American students dropped by nine percent.
Conversely, Yale saw a decline in Asian American students, from 30 percent to 24 percent, while the other minority groups remained relatively stable. These demographic shifts as a result of the removal of affirmative action are still unfolding as colleges and universities adjust to the new legal landscape.
Many institutions are looking for alternative ways to foster diversity, such as focusing on socioeconomic factors and reaching out to lower-income students. Additionally, some colleges have reduced their reliance on standardized test scores like the SAT, aiming to address concerns about inequality. They argue that students with better access to financial resources would have a higher chance at doing well on the exams.
Ultimately, affirmative action within the college system is still a highly debated issue. But as schools continue to adjust and strive for an equitable solution, one thing is certain: fairness in the admissions process should value merit but also acknowledge systematic inequalities, ensuring everyone has a chance at success.