In the United States (U.S.), affirmative action describes a set of policies that permits separate opportunities for people of color, women, and other marginalized groups that have traditionally been subject to environmental and historical challenges. However, in the case Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a ban on this practice in support of “race neutrality,” in an attempt to prevent reverse discrimination. Affirmative action reflects the U.S. grappling with its history of racism and segregation, widespread and deep-rooted inequalities that have been difficult to overturn to this day. Affirmative action has been one of America’s emblematic policies balancing liberty and fairness, true meritocracy, and a level playing field. It is now gone, for better or for worse.

Side Effects of Affirmative Action

While affirmative action sounds perfectly reasonable on paper, it has not always achieved its initially desired effects since its introduction in the U.S. during the American civil rights movement 62 years ago. The demographic groups that have benefited the most have been students of color (e.g., African, Native, and Hispanic Americans, and Pacific Islanders). However, other races, most conspicuously Asian Americans, have been particularly disadvantaged, and this has driven the anti-affirmative action movement. Professor Kong Young Ho (School of Law, Chungnam National University) states that universities have tended to sort applicants by racial groups rather than evaluating them as individuals under race-conscious affirmative action. For example, Asian American students have often been assumed to “lack leadership and interpersonal skills.” Thus, the Supreme Court deemed this practice a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

As an alternative to the current system that puts emphasis on race, some have endorsed socioeconomic-class-based affirmative action instead. Professor Kong argued that, “while socioeconomic disadvantages often coincide [with race], they may not necessarily be equated.”  The New York Times has reported that more than 50 percent of students come from wealthy families to demonstrate that affirmative action has always been an insufficient means to ensure real diversity. Furthermore, Professor Lani Guinier (School of Law, Harvard University) has insisted that current affirmative action only benefits the college admission of wealthy students of color that go to the same private schools that wealthy white students attend, leading to “cosmetic diversity,” in which wealth unfairly translates to merit. The linking of socioeconomic status with race is a case of overgeneralization prone to getting lost in its translation from theory to practice.

Race-based affirmative action has also proven to be ineffective in improving access to a high-quality college education for all students of color because affirmative action occurs only at America’s most elite institutions, for which acceptance rates are below 15 percent. Professors Richard Arum and Mitchell L. Stevens argue in a New York Times opinion piece that the Supreme Court ban will not influence most students; the majority of black and Hispanic students attend schools that accept more than 75 percent of its applicants. This is due to many students simply choosing schools near their families, which can lead to cases of “undermatching.” Hence, some have discussed the possibility of additional measures that could make a broader impact, such as the expansion of “feeder schools” that serve students in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions. Rather than channeling resources into an exclusive group of prestigious institutions that are already well-equipped, it has been argued that more efforts should be directed toward spreading resources equally across schools of various sizes, regions, and populations.

The American Meritocracy

Proponents of affirmative action have long pointed out the discriminatory nature of a neutral meritocracy. Professor Natasha Warikoo (Department of Sociology, Tufts University) argues that college admissions not supposed to be based on personal merit in the first place. In her book Is Affirmative Action Fair?: The Myth of Equity in College Admissions, Warikoo states that colleges exist to fulfill the ultimate purpose of higher education, which is to contribute to shared democracy and diversity; the idea of individual “merit” is “inherently situational,” depending on the needs of a particular society at a particular moment in time. Political philosopher Michael J. Sandel, author of The Tyranny of Merit has also argued similarly in favor of affirmative action. As the San Francisco Chronicle puts it, Sandel has mentioned post-industrial American politicians’ penchant for emphasis on individual merit to climb the social ladder, whereas merit is not a monolith in reality.

The NPR reports that, since universities under the University of California system banned race-conscious admissions in 1996, even the most selective schools have struggled to meet diversity standards despite efforts to replace the role that affirmative action once played. This exemplifies why simply abolishing affirmative action will not be the remedy for all of its shortcomings. Professor Guinier presents two types of merit: “testocratic” and “democratic” merit. Testocratic merit posits that standardized test scores are objective measures on which college admission should be based – other listable credentials like extracurricular activities and awards are similar factors, which are all correlated with wealth. Guinier argues in favor of college admissions that value democratic merit, which views “higher education as a public good,” warranting a key intervening tool that could substantially reform admission standards in general, and not just nominally level the playing field through race-based advantage. Race should not be a transactional plus factor nor completely dismissed, but rather understood within the context of each individual and how they can contribute to American society.

Due to potential racial discrimination in the college admissions process and the actual efficacy of affirmative action being questioned, affirmative action is now no longer constitutional. Professor Kong predicts that legacy admissions, which are special admission for applicants with alumni parents, will be more heavily scrutinized and questioned for their glaring bias, and that calls for a financial need-blind policy will increase. Ultimately, what the seemingly opposing parties agree on is the need for a more fair, balanced system of admissions that could equitably offer opportunities to all. The end of affirmative action may seem like an act of regression on the surface given the spirit of diversity, equity, and historical reparations that it has stood for, but it shall galvanize the debate in the U.S. on the pathway to achieving this ideal via different innovative initiatives.