In 1961, President JFK signed an executive order that implemented affirmative action, which prevents mistreatment of workers based on their race, color, or origin, specifically targeted towards government contractor companies. In the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case that labeled affirmative action as constitutional, Justice O’Connor proposed that in twenty-five years, racial biases wouldn’t be necessary anymore due to the policy’s societal effects and the fear of unintended consequences. Fast forward to 2023, before that 25-year mark, the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in college admissions, arguing that race-conscious policies violate the Equal Protection Clause. And while this policy has indeed bolstered diverse communities and allowed certain minority groups to be given equal opportunities, affirmative action is still a form of discrimination. Not only does it imply that some ethnic minority groups are incapable of having enough intellectual capability to succeed without the dependence on a wealthier, whiter hand, but it also boxes other minority groups into its own special category, which heightens competition amongst people of that race.
Affirmative action is different from other governmental programs, such as SNAP food stamps and SSI (Supplemental Security Income), because the latter programs benefit members of our society based on income, not race. This safety net, as well as other welfare programs, is a means to tilt the playing field by giving underprivileged students a sturdier foundation to stand on. Addressing imbalances shouldn’t be taken so far as post-secondary education, but when income-dynamics can be addressed further into its roots, such as primary education, with funding for Summer/after-school programs. Yes, Latino and African communities are generally less wealthy than white communities, but generalizing that all African-American and Latino applications are poor isn’t true. Instead of adding a variable of race, colleges can look directly at someone’s financial situation and availability for opportunities to provide equity. There’s always a balance between equity and equality, but I believe that this form of equity, with the factor of wealth, is better than the form of equity with the factor of race.
Acceptance to Ivy League schools requires “Asian-Americans [to] score 140 points higher on their SATs than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students, and 450 points higher than black students,” according to an NLM study. South Asian students with similar extracurricular and academic qualifications showed 49% lower odds of acceptance to an Ivy League than white students. In an Andover faculty member’s Commencement Phillipian article for Asian self-empowerment, she states, “The vast majority of you are high-achieving and hard-working—just look at the make-up of our high-level (STEM) classes and orchestra.” Although the model minority myth harms the way some groups are conceptualized, some traits, such as the “hard-working” Asian, are so prevalent that they become inherent traits in the United States. But even with a large trend of sought-after traits, Asian-American students’ college applications are overlooked because of the way they look.
However, it is not just Asian Americans who have been harmed by affirmative action. In the words of Inaya Folarin Imaan, “Affirmative action betrayed Black America, [and] far from addressing long-standing structural inequalities, it institutionalized the deeply racist idea that Black people were incapable of attaining positions of excellence and high achievement on merit alone.” Having other students wondering whether someone received acceptance due to a diversity card harms the perception of others and oneself.
This is not to say that you should presume anything about anyone in correlation with the way they look, but rather that we should look at the wider picture of general academic or extracurricular achievements, race, and acceptance rates. Of course, hard work and passion won’t always guarantee anyone a position or role, but it’s undeniable that a desire to pursue knowledge and contribute to society, regardless of your race, salary, or sex, will form a solid foundation for anyone. Separating people by race is fundamentally wrong, but when it’s presented as needed progress for the greater good, we forget that raising one side of this admission process’s seesaw lowers the other into a void of quiet obedience. Melting pots become inedible when some portions are cooked to a crisp under pressure and intense heat, while others float on light, undercooked simmers, questioning whether we are assembling brochures, not building a future.
