On Affirmative Action

So...the Supreme Court overturned Affirmative Action this summer. 

Or at least -- that's what the headlines read. 

In actuality, the Supreme Court really banned the use of the "race box" as a factor in admissions. Students are still allowed to write identity-driven essays, mention their status as low-income or first-generation, or otherwise share their Opportunity Index with schools. The logic employed by the justices behind this decision is simple -- if a student writes a personal statement about how their belonging to a racial minority impacted them personally, their acceptance into any elite institution based on their race is a form of meritocracy, but assuming that all students of a certain race have the same diversity to add to an incoming class is paradoxical, misguided, and inaccurate. Practically, this nuance in the ruling is almost certain to mean that elite institutions who pride themselves on diversity will begin using surrogate factors (such as income level or familial education) as implications of race, despite Clarence Thomas's assertion that "nothing that is banned directly can be done indirectly". 

Of course, we will have to wait until the Class of 2024 application cycle is complete before we begin making judgements about the implications of this landmark decision, but I, for one, have a few predictions. 

For one, this will almost unequivocally mean that elite insitutions will become more white and more Asian. Not only is this the intuitive conclusion that the plaintiffs were hoping for, but this has also been tested in California and Michigan, two states that banned race-based affirmative action decades ago. UC Berkeley, despite state-supported outreach for diversity and its location in one of the most liberal areas in the country, has struggled to raise their African American student population above 4%. Similarly, the University of Michigan boasts a 4% black student body despite being situated in a state with a 14% black population. These statistics are revealing -- the UC system has banned race-based affirmative action for over twenty-five years now, proving that the dip in black and hispanic numbers at elite institutions is not temporary, but generational. 

Additionally, it is interesting to note that race-based affirmative action is still explicitly allowed in the military academy system. The logic here being that promotion and movement through the military happens in one direction only -- upwards. All high-ranking officers came from the top military missions, which recruited from the top military academies. Thus, to guarantee racial diversity in the armed forces, the "race box" is required at the high school application level, where all promotions fundamentally start. What's interesting here is the implication that this is not true within the professional world -- sure, students in community college/without college degrees can excel professionally and rise to become world leaders, but no amount of feel-good stories can detract from the statistical fact that it's a whole lot easier (and much more common) for these same leaders to come from elite institutions. 

The truth is that good-natured, anti-racist people can be on both sides of this debate. Seventeen and in high school is far too young for children to be paying the cost of their identity, and white/Asian high-achieving students who obtain incredible levels of success do deserve their seat at Harvard. As someone who went through the process myself six months ago, I know how soul-crushing it is to be rejected, waitlisted, or deferred. 

I also know that most high-achieving white and Asian students end up in some elite university, if not Harvard¹. And that, truthfully, the seats "saved" for disadvantaged minorities are usually not the ones preventing successful and deserving white and Asian students from admission -- it's the legacy, donors, and recruited athletes². In this way, affirmative action debates remind me of Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. In it, the Wakandans end up at war with Talokans (Mayans) over something...*checks notes* the American government did? Why have we framed this issue as Asians and African Americans fighting for seats at Harvard, when legacy students (historically rich and white) are ten times more likely to be admitted? Why are two minority groups fighting while the issue remains with those in power? 

Furthermore -- of all the potentially racist institutionalized policies in the United States, it's ironic that the one we're ruling on, debating, and fighting over is the one that might potentially be hurting white students? 

The root of this issue, to me, lies in what each side deems the "goals" of affirmative action are. Those who view affirmative action as a system designed to amend past wrongs are outraged that they're paying for something their great-great-ancestors did or underwent, and this rejection of meritocracy seems decidely un-American. 

Those who view affirmative action as a policy designed to forge a better, more diverse class of future leaders understand the sad but likely authentic reality that without checking race, the most affluent, most resourced, and most respected universities will soon become reserved for the rich, and the white/Asian, a policy which has ramifications far beyond what we can see today. To this side of the debate, to quote Ketanji Brown Jackson, forcing a pseudo-meritocracy within a wider world where one does not exist is "let-them-eat-cake obliviousness" and "pink elephant paradoxical". 

I'll admit (as you can probably gather), I fall into the later camp. As an Asian-American, high-achieving, "typical pre-med" student, I'm sure I would have benefited from this policy (had it only come a year earlier...). Yet, as I wrote in "Lessons from a Newly Finished College Applicant" on January 5th: 

"Perhaps we should stop seeing college admissions as a relationship between individual students and individual universities, and rather see the process as a relationship between universities as a collective and the future society they're creating. [...] Colleges can't consider what Joe Smith from Missouri is feeling (or even what he deserves) because they're busy creating a student body that represents the kind of future we hope to have."

I stand by this today -- this debate around affirmative action is really the next battle in the long war about representation and education, generational wealth and reparations, privilege and lack thereof. It just so happens that elite institutions were chosen as the battleground. 

1. About this -- I recently theorized that the college admissions process is designed to create a sense of cognitive dissonance. Most students apply to several schools, and while they can't guarantee admission to every single one (or any specific one), with a healthy mix of safety, target, and reach schools, they can be reasonably assured a seat at a school that will bring them success and happiness. However, the infamous "Why Us" essay that the application process requires for almost every school requires that a student feel extremely passionate about one particular program in one particular school. In short -- the process both depends on a student having a dream school, and a student knowing that any one of several dozen top schools produce the same result. This is a hard thing to tell a teenager whose lifelong dream is attending MIT, but this is, unfortunately, the truth.

2. Funnily enough, the argument used to justify this is "elite institutions are private! If we wanted to only enroll students whose last names began with the letter M, that's our right!" I don't altogether disagree -- universities are usually businesses, and often times they need money from donors and/or students who they know won't need financial aid, and that's fine. But why doesn't this argument extend to "elite institutions are private! If we decide racial diversity is important to us, that's our right!"?
I bring legacy admissions up in general to highlight that affirmative action is NOT the singular process standing in the way of students and a completely just meritocracy in higher-education. Yet, it's the one that we consistently choose to address head on because it is the only arena where disadvantaged groups have a leg up, and for some reason, that is deeply unsettling to those in power.