Affirmative Action Only Perpetuates America’s Issue of Racial Inequity
The Supreme Court has once again turned to discussing the long-debated issue with forty years of precedents in its support: the presence of affirmative action in the application processes of highly competitive education institutions. On October 31, the Supreme Court struck down momentous previous cases in support of affirmative action, especially pertaining to prestigious colleges and universities.
Affirmative action serves as one of the most prominent methods utilized in the 20th century to vitalize equity following a great length of time of unjust discrimination towards racial minorities. When the idea was first conceived, it came in the form of President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925, which compelled federal contractors to take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Designed to prevent candidate selection on the basis of race or ethnicity alone, these policies and regulations associated with affirmative action—usually as worker acceptance quotas—were relatively effective in working to maintain balance in racial diversity in education systems, occupations, and other organizations. In the 2000s, these policies were supported in higher education systems by Supreme Court rulings, further integrating affirmative action into American society.
However, recently, the issue of affirmative action has become more and more shrouded in controversy—is it right, especially when pertaining to higher education, to appoint applicants with race as a key factor rather than by merit itself?
What came to my mind foremost seemed straightforward: selection based on race is racism, regardless of the form it comes in. If the world truly wishes to not judge from the color of a person’s skin, it doesn’t make sense to elevate one or two races in particular, even if it just so happens to be the opposite of what is usually criminalized. And yet, the rationality behind the move is complicated, to say the least. While this would have held true in a world of equal opportunity, the fact stands that minority populations, especially Black or Hispanic, are significantly less financially secure—with the median net worth for White and Black families differing by nearly $164,000 in pre-pandemic 2019. In a nation so governed by wealth, this greatly affects the options available to them throughout life. Affirmative action seeks to address these concerns, artificially minimizing economic disparity by creating openings strictly determined or otherwise influenced by race and ethnicity, allowing disadvantaged minorities to have opportunities comparable to those of the majority, despite coming from more arduous backgrounds.
In essence, affirmative action is an ideal way to promote diversity in a nation where its inexistence in certain societal sectors has become a grave issue. However, there prove to be fundamental differences between the policy goals and results themselves.
By using positive discrimination to counter existing discrimination, racism will only be perpetuated further, as categorizing students in this way only solidifies racial stereotypes and societal limitations placed on those of certain races. Many educational institutions do not pay heed to the original intent of affirmative action: to give equal opportunity to those who have achieved the very same level of academic success as applicants from prestigious schoolings despite financial hardships and subaverage education.
Discussions between admissions officers have centered more around recruiting the “ideal racial candidate”—the ones who conform to the stereotypes of that particular race, who pursue ambitions expected from caucasian applicants, or who are not deemed the “right kind of Black.” Those of Cuban or African descent tend to receive less of an admissions boost compared to other Black or Hispanic applicants, even though they are said to fall under the same category.
Furthermore, previous Cornell Law School admissions officer David French revealed that in the modern world, affirmative action provides benefits predominantly to Black or Latino applicants who already have access to adequate educational resources due to organizations’ pursuit of the most competent. Selection by race or ethnicity presents immense advantages to the most qualified applicants in a particular racial category. In actuality, this gives a dramatic boost to those of minority races who are financially well-off and receive similar, if not the very same academic opportunities as the majority. Data from Harvard and UNC depict that race is twice as determinative of a factor as economic status or education opportunity, a number far too influential and one that counteracts the goal behind the creation of affirmative action in the first place. Granting aid to those without the need for it does not help alleviate the wealth gap as it claims to, only further lengthening the economic disparity between those born affluent and those raised in poverty.
Although issues regarding systemic oppression undeniably manifest themselves in countless aspects of our modern world, deliberately de-equalizing an already unstable and controversially unfair schooling system on the basis of race may not prove the best option, especially when more opportunity-oriented and measurable methods exist.
Fundamentally, the present use of these processes and practices fail to achieve the outcome they advertise, only serving to shallowly satisfy racial quotas and level racial percentages. The underlying issue behind the massive divide between those of Asian American, Black, Hispanic, and Caucasian descent remains neglected by these high-end education institutions and other organizations.
Instead, colleges and universities should recognize that students who have risen from impoverished childhoods are most deserving of admission boosts, rather than inaccurately correlating certain races with a certain financial situation. Considering the aforementioned wealth gap between majority and minority groups, this would stabilize racial disparities in prestigious education systems in a much more authentic way. It will also combat the issue of economic inequality at its source, where it will be most effective and genuine.
In the end, the issue does not lie in the motive behind race-based candidate selection. Rather, the methods used to achieve this outcome are, at best, inadequate to improve financial and racial disparities and, at worst, simply performative to conform with the democratic vision—all while integrating racial stereotypes further and further into our society.
by ANONYMOUS