Affirmative Action & Us
The Supreme Court's most recent ruling has effectively altered our education systems in a potentially disastrous way. Also referred to as race-based admissions, affirmative action has been deemed unconstitutional despite past precedents in cases like the University of California v. Burke or the University of Texas v. Fisher. Our country is becoming more diverse by the day, and it is even estimated that by 2050 over half of the U.S. population will be non-white identifying community members. We need people of color in academia that are going to properly represent our nation's demographics. The loss of race-conscious admissions in 2023 will have consequences that will come to foul us in 2050 and beyond. That said, the policies in place did its share of reverse discrimination towards white and Asian students of merit which made such processes a system of inequality without intention. America must now begin to cope with — and in some ways reconstruct — a method of vital student diversification without knowledge of individuals' racial and ethnic identity.
What is Affirmative Action anyway?
Affirmative action (AA), in the context of higher-level education, is the consideration of students' racial and/or ethnic identity in admission to college. This idea was adopted in the 1970s with the conscious effort to expand university demographics from a historically white-only enterprise. Since 1976, the U.S. Department of Education has found a significant increase in Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian student enrollment. These guidelines have been instrumental in the move towards a more equitable and diverse national identity.
But AA, like many justice efforts, does not come without its drawbacks. Firstly, AA in no way has eliminated implicit bias, prejudice, or stereotyping in educational and professional environments. Diversity does not necessarily equate to inclusion. Minorities may be in growing representation, but DE&I efforts are still a growing division in dedication to psychologically-safe inclusion. Likewise, AA encompasses its share of discriminatory inclusion models, in which hard-working white and Asian students are sometimes brushed over in search of growing a specific minority group's metric. Race-based preference constitutes the turning away of already represented groups which can have equally damaging effects on their social progression.
In the most recent cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC-Chapel Hill, accusations rose against both universities with claims of direct discrimination against the admittance of white and Asian students with preference to Black, Latine, and Native American applicants. Despite similar arguments surfacing in 2014, AA was upheld in 2016 as a legal guideline for promoting necessary diversity measures across national campuses. On June 29th, 2023 however, race-based practices were deemed unconstitutional in university decisions. The consequences of this reversal have been popularly discussed in anticipation of such an outcome, but what does the loss of AA truly elicit?
Expected Short-term Effects vs. Long-term Goals
In the absence of knowledge about applicants’ cultural backgrounds, there will no doubt be a decrease in Black and Latine enrollment in elite educational institutions across the country. In 1998, California eliminated race-conscious admissions across the state. At UCLA and UC Berkeley, two of the State’s highly selective public colleges, Black and Latine enrollment fell by over 40%, says Zachary Bleemer, a Princeton economist who has studied similar college minority drops. Through a lot of trial and error, recruitment of Black and Latino communities, and class-based policies, California institutions have fought to regain their student body's racial diversity. It has taken over two decades to catch up to where they were before this ban and they are still ‘nowhere near where they want to be.’ Now, universities across the country are confronted with the same obstacle.
As I am preparing to apply for college myself, I have learned of many of these universities 'holistic’ admissions processes. Social and racial context is a critical indicator in measuring one’s access to achieving opportunities that others do not have the same access to. For example, a white student may apply with prestigious research opportunities and an impressive SAT score on their resume. Conversely, a Hispanic applicant may be unable to compare or match that same level of accomplished ‘merit’ due to historically oppressive policies and racial adversity now unaccounted for on applications.
Naturally, there has already been discussion on how to counteract the ruling in different diversity considerations. Places like Harvard and Georgetown University are playing around with the idea of race-neutral class-conscious admissions. These policies would put more weight on those of lower socioeconomic backgrounds to acknowledge those who did not have the same educational access and opportunities that higher class identities may have. The goal of this is derived from the correlation between racial and class status. In admitting more lower-income students, racial diversity would be alongside such intentions. A 2016 Brookings Institutions study confirms this in their finding that minority racial groups are more likely to experience multidimensional poverty than their white counterparts. However, does socioeconomic status sync correlate to racial standing? A recent Georgetown University study says no. In ensuring campus diversity mirrors the diversity of the national population, the replacement of race-conscious preference with class-conscious efforts would only partially ‘claw back’ minority groups, with the exclusion of Native American and Pacific Islanders. Equal representation in differing socio-economic classes is of equal and critical importance but does not extend as far as we might think. The same study emphasizes: "The most effective way of increasing socioeconomic diversity at selective colleges is to consider race in the admissions process, not to ignore it." Both identities endlessly overlap with one another and offer unique levels of diversity, but it comes down to what aspects of diversity our country is after.
Racial Glamorization
When and if class-based policies are implemented to remedy the loss of racial/ethnic knowledge, the recent overturning of AA only exacerbates the widespread issue of racial glamorization within college admissions. This notion of 'glamorization' underlines a tokenizing of one’s own identity. Many BIPOC applicants feel a level of inferiority to their white and higher-privileged peers when it comes to matching their competitive efforts. With AA policies in place, some students have felt obligated to dump their racial trauma or bring light to the discrimination they have endured using their essays and similar supplemental materials. This process of ‘trauma-dumping’ has been placed onto many minority populations, in which popular platforms have reinforced a theme of BIPOC resilience in the face of oppression. By evoking this narrative, underserved groups feel compelled to defend one’s stance of equal access to admissions officers or employers. This is emotionally exhausting for marginalized communities because they feel as if they must put their trauma on display for their worth to be acknowledged and/or to assist ignorant individuals in their learning process. In terms of college admissions, this causes many young people to cough out a hardship or systemic barrier they have faced and subsequently overcome to prove their worthiness of equal-level higher education. With the recent reversal of AA policies, resources like the Common Application and the Questbridge Application will extend an offer to colleges to hide an applicant’s cultural status. But this in no way prevents students from speaking about their race in different ways, which perpetuates the glamorization of certain community affiliations. Not only is such glorification going to become necessary for making voices heard, it is even being damagingly encouraged. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. emphasized after both Harvard and UNC cases strike downs, "Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise." They have been instilled that their trauma is a core value in the sociopolitical environment of this nation. This demeans their communities, impacts their cultural perception, and proliferates the American abuse of BIPOC pain for white benefit.
Policies like affirmative action are intended to promote BIPOC voices in academia and within the educational system. To obtain a dream of equal opportunity, all racial groups need to begin from the same level playing field which is one that current equal opportunity initiatives deny. Although strides have been made and campuses are more diverse than ever, 2023 is still just the beginning. In 2030 and beyond, the representation of our doctors and lawyers will not be what it used to be and will not resemble what it could have been. The ultimate vision for any policy of any current racial preference action is to uplift historically disadvantaged community members, with the end goal of the elimination of such policies in the future. AA was removed far too soon and we will reap the consequences for the next decades to come.
My biggest fear is for these next 2024-2028 application cycles. We are the test drive. My future is now in the hands of unpracticed diversification models. This is so scary. I can empathize with both sides of the affirmative action debate and I fail to see a policy in which all communities will benefit. However, I do believe that all student applicants, regardless of their extracurricular spread, academics, race, or class, should be brought into a college campus on character-based incentives. I never want to think I got into the college of my dreams because of my race or doubt how far I have come and fought to be where I am. I do not doubt that every individual applying to colleges ends up exactly where they are meant to be. Remember, you are accepting them as much as they are accepting you. Take that power back!
University Alternatives
There are a variety of ways to promote inclusivity and diversity measures (non-racial) in an educational environment. Whether through different campus cultural groups, implicit bias required curricula, and the active selection of all kinds of diversity. Geographical, religious, neurodiverse, disabled, language, and familial education context is crucial in consideration of a diverse student body. It is no secret that having an intersectionally unique campus enriches the educational experience, encourages open-mindedness, and prepares students for a globalized world. To actively promote cultural diversity on college campuses, here are some effective strategies:
1. Diverse recruitment initiatives - Implement proactive outreach programs targeting diverse communities, offering scholarships and resources to attract students from various cultural backgrounds. Establish partnerships with organizations that support underrepresented groups to expand access to higher education.
2. Culturally diverse faculty and staff - Endeavor to recruit diverse faculty members and staff who bring a wide range of perspectives and experiences. Encourage equal representation and create a supportive environment for individuals from diverse backgrounds to thrive professionally.
3. Curriculum development - Incorporate courses that emphasize multicultural perspectives across disciplines, from history and literature to business and sciences. Encourage interdisciplinary studies that acknowledge the value of different cultures and foster cross-cultural understanding.
4. Student-led organizations - Establish and support student-led clubs and organizations representing different cultures, ethnicities, and identities. These groups provide platforms for dialogue, cultural celebrations, and awareness campaigns that educate the campus community about diverse traditions and experiences.
5. Cultural events and activities - Organize cultural festivals, art exhibitions, food fairs, and international film screenings to showcase the richness of various cultures within the student body. Encourage active participation from different student organizations, faculty, and staff to foster dialogue and appreciation.
6. Diversity training and workshops - Conduct regular diversity and inclusion training sessions targeting students, faculty, and staff. These sessions can equip individuals with the awareness, knowledge, and tools to challenge biases, stereotypes, and promote empathy and respect for all cultures.
7. Study abroad and exchange programs - Facilitate opportunities for students to study abroad or participate in exchange programs with partner universities. Exposure to different cultures firsthand encourages cultural immersion, empathy, and a broader global perspective.
8. Support services for international students - Establish comprehensive support services tailored to the needs of international students. These services can include orientation programs, language support, cultural adjustment resources, and mentorship programs to help create a sense of belonging on campus.
9. Interdisciplinary research collaborations - Encourage research collaborations across cultural and academic disciplines. Such collaborations promote the exploration and understanding of different cultures, fostering mutual respect and appreciation.
10. Community engagement initiatives - Establish partnerships with local communities to foster relationships and understanding between
