The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision. It put an end to affirmative action in college admissions. Many believe that the US took a huge step backward due to this ruling. This shall impact college admissions, jobs, and more for minorities across the nation. All though this is a older yet recent ruling this decision holds significance.

          Affirmative action refers to government programs intended to assist historically discriminated groups such as minorities and women. These policies were first introduced by President John F. Kennedy during the 1960s civil rights movement as a way to end discrimination in the workforce and create equal opportunities in both jobs and education.  In the case of college admissions, this means that universities have a preference for groups that are underrepresented such as African Americans and Hispanics, giving them leverage in their applications.

​Throughout its existence, there have been many challenges to affirmative action programs, particularly in education, as racial preferences were seen as a form of “reverse racism”. The first major challenge was The University of California v. Bakke (1978), where the court ruled that racial quotas that reserved admission slots for minority students were unconstitutional as they did not provide equal opportunity. In Gratz V. Bollinger (2003), the court once again ruled affirmative action programs unconstitutional, as giving points to minorities was not an equal practice. In the most recent cases, Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, an Asian student with an SAT score of 1590 was denied admittance to Harvard, with his race being used against him as other students of color with lower SAT scores were admitted. On a constitutional level, the issue is that these programs violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Affirmative action programs were intended to help underrepresented groups, these programs are undoubtedly discriminatory. It lowers the standards of admissions for Hispanics and African Americans while making it more difficult for white people and Asians to get in. This does not solve racism but instead creates it by essentially valuing students based on race rather than merit.

​The admissions data for Harvard and UNC used by the Supreme Court reflect this issue. Top decile students of each race group, meaning the top 10%, have vastly different admission chances based on race. If you are white you have a 15.3% chance, if you are Asian you have a 12.7% chance, if you are Hispanic you have a 31.3% chance, and if you are black you have a 56% chance. These are all students with the same academic skills, and the difference in acceptance chances is very concerning. These programs are supposed to promote equality, but looking at these statistics, where is the equality? This is a system that values you not by hard work and merit, but by the color of your skin, and that is textbook racism.

          Now you might be asking yourself, “How can it be discrimination if it’s supporting people of color?” well let’s take a step back and define the meaning of discrimination. Just so we have an official definition, the American Psychological Association defines discrimination as “the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation.” Now looking back at this data it is clear that discrimination is present.

​There is a false narrative that people of color cannot be racist and that white people are incapable of experiencing racism. This has never been true. First of all, white people have indeed experienced oppression throughout history, just look at the Holocaust for an example. Second of all, if we want to end racism once and for all, we can’t just switch the roles by instead discriminating against those who were historically the oppressors in America, white students of today have nothing to do with the wrongs of their ancestors, and they shouldn’t have to be essentially punished for something they didn’t do. Yes in the past, white America has been a very racist place, but we live in a different time now.

​You see, this program fails because instead of looking at each applicant as an individual, it looks at them as a people based on their race. It falls on the assumption that all white and Asian students are economically stable and have access to an abundance of educational resources, while Blacks and Hispanics do not. While statistically, this may be true, it’s certainly not always the case. The assumption adheres to racial stereotypes that may be true for many students, but what about others? For example, let’s say a wealthy black student who has two working parents, goes to a well-funded high school, and is in the top 10% of his class applies to Harvard. Now let’s say a white student is also in the top 10% of his class, but he lives in an impoverished neighborhood in a single-parent household. Should the school still give points to the black student for diversity and because he experiences “racial hardships”? Of course not, being a person of color does not mean you face adversity.

​Do you see the issue here? Granting admissions to students based on race is extremely problematic as the assumptions that I mentioned are not always true, placing many students at a disadvantage. The truth is, not all black students face adversity, and not all white students are wealthy. While statistically speaking there is indeed a difference in the median household incomes for these races, affirmative action policies overlook all the individuals who do not fit each stereotype, which is extremely unfair to them.

​A better method of reaching disadvantaged applicants while maintaining diversity is looking at factors such as socioeconomic status, and even geography. That way universities can target students who live in impoverished neighborhoods and are at a disadvantage in terms of available resources that can affect their learning. Universities have been doing this and continue to do it, even after the ban. Many believe that the ban will make it nearly impossible for minorities to have an equal playing ground. But in fact, colleges still take into consideration any outside factors such as family income, home responsibilities, and even race.  

​What you cannot do, however, is gain an advantage by simply checking the African American or Hispanic box in your application. You can demonstrate in your essays how you as an individual have overcome challenges and any barriers to your learning and success, and race certainly can be a part of that. The main takeaway here is that while race can certainly pose a barrier for some students, we no longer live in a systemically racist society, and your race just no longer always equates to adversity.

​Now I will be talking about how affirmative action fails on its own terms. First of all, it’s important to note that because the majority of colleges in the US have high acceptance rates and accept virtually everyone, the effects of affirmative action programs can really only be seen at highly selective schools such as Harvard or Yale. Because many students get accepted to these schools because of race preference rather than merit, many underperforming students get accepted and often cluster at the bottom of their class, leading them to switch to easier majors or even drop out.

​In fact, according to Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, students who got in through affirmative action programs are twice as likely to be derailed from pursuing a doctorate, not to mention about half of the black college students admitted through race preference rank in the bottom 20% of their class. Furthermore, in a study by Richard Sander that tracked students who entered law school in 1991, about 45%-50% of all black students rank in the lowest tenth of their freshmen class, however, controlling for LSAT and GPA scores removes this gap. This means that black students perform just as well as their peers in the same schools if they have the same academic credentials. They do worse on average because they have lower credentials than their peers, which is largely due to affirmative action. All of this can be attributed to what is known as academic mismatch.

             An academic mismatch is when a student attends a school in which they are unqualified. The lack of proper background knowledge and preparation causes them to fall behind in class. This puts damaging effects on students who are admitted to selective schools by race preference instead of their qualifications.

​ Let’s say for instance that a black student who performed poorly in terms of SAT scores and GPA gets accepted into UCLA through affirmative action. What happens next is that the unprepared student will be put in an extremely difficult learning environment where professors teach quickly, assuming that the students already have the abilities and background knowledge to keep up. He ends up falling behind his peers which reflects on his low exam scores. Discouraged, learning becomes difficult and he might switch to an easier major or he may even drop out completely. The sudden change in learning pace and rigor causes immense stress and a toll on his self-confidence, causing learning to become more difficult and the overall college experience to be very negative. Couple that with other things such as imposter syndrome and you will get a student who will feel miserable and even oppressed.

             Now let’s say the same student gets into a less selective UC campus such as UC Riverside where he is more qualified. He can handle the coursework, he can learn and complete assignments at a pace he is used to, and as he can now understand the material, he performs well on tests, boosting his self-esteem. As he keeps up with his peers he is encouraged to continue his education, he even has the chance to later transfer to UCLA and complete his education there.