Affirmative action: what are the pros and cons?

Supreme Court Building (Photo courtesy of: WIKIPEDIA.COM)

By Kevin Wei, video editor, and, Sophia Hughes, editor

Cons of Affirmative Action:

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision that removed a nearly 60-year-old policy in the United States: Affirmative Action. The decision would forever change the academic lives of millions of Americans. However, despite Affirmative Action’s goal to boost educational opportunities for discriminated racial and ethnic minority groups, there are potentially better ways to achieve this, and Affirmative Action has distinctive flaws.

When people mention Affirmative Action, they are referring to Race-Based Affirmative Action, where members of certain minority groups are given preferential treatment in admissions. Such a policy is not at all detrimental to America. Its lengthy history represents a prolonged struggle to help discriminated groups and has helped make the nation more equitable.

Up until the 1960s, “redlining” policies refused federally-backed home loans on neighborhoods based on demographic factors such as race. The Home Owners Loan Corporation drew physical red lines on maps to indicate that companies should avoid loaning money to them. As such, entire regions of America became economically disadvantaged based on the area's demographics.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy first implemented federal Affirmative Action to expand job opportunities for minorities. Within a few years, schools began to adopt Affirmative Action policies, promoting diversity in high-level universities. It quickly helped provide for underrepresented minorities by considering the loss of opportunities due to their race.

However, is Affirmative Action ideal? While it is true that discriminated groups have been denied equal socioeconomic status because of their race, it is clear how, in America, economic disparity is also a primary driving factor toward unequal opportunity. According to the American Psychological Association, “Children from low-SES [socioeconomic status] families enter high school with average literacy skills 5 years behind those of high-income students.” Furthermore, “Children from lower SES households are about twice as likely as those from high-SES households to display learning-related behavior problems.”

The Supreme Court decision may provide room for better alternatives. For example, low socioeconomic status clearly results in lower educational opportunities and lower quality of health care. With the Supreme Court’s ban on race-based college admissions, Wealth-Based Affirmative Action comes to mind as an alternative that could address issues such as the effects of redlining. Although it is difficult to separate economic disparity from historic racial discrimination, and the United States definitely has not moved beyond racism, Wealth-Based Affirmative Action could be better than Race-Based Affirmative Action.

A major argument against Affirmative Action is its effects on Asian-American communities. According to a 2023 study from the Pew Research Center, 7% of the U.S. adult population and 36% of Asians have changed their routines out of concern for personal safety and fear of being threatened or attacked because of their race. Asian Americans face consistent discrimination and hate that may be ignored when Race-Based Affirmative Action expects Asians to generally perform above average academically.

Affirmative Action’s higher standards on Asians exemplify the common “model minority” trope where Asians are viewed as inherently “smarter” or “more capable” than other races. A TIME Magazine cover story depicts six Asian American students with the caption, “Those Asian-American WHIZ KIDS.” Asian Americans are considered clever because of their race rather than their efforts. The success of certain Asian groups in America is cast off as a natural race difference, implying that other minorities are inherently less capable. The “natural race difference” between whites and Asians is thus often used as a model for the white majority to explain their success over other minorities as another “natural race difference.” Calling the Asian race smart is far from a compliment; it is a subtle discriminatory jab. By intensifying the “model minority” myth, Race-Based Affirmative Action was deeply flawed.

Additionally, the “model minority” lumps hundreds of vastly different ethnicities—Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Filipino, and more—into a single “Asian” group. Affirmative Action can apply unfair pressure on Asian-American students to perform better than other Asian Americans despite the intricately complex distinctions between Asian ethnicities. For example, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition measured wealth between different Asian nationalities, highlighting a $34000 difference in yearly income between Chinese and Burmese Americans. Furthermore, “Filipino Americans faced a 6.0% poverty rate, compared to the 16.2% for Hmong Americans.” The labeling of entire diverse racial ethnicities under a single tag is a common problem with Affirmative Action.

But a lingering question remains: How will the removal of race-based admissions affect diversity in schools? As an example, one may look at the University of California system. In 1996, California passed Proposition 209, banning Race-Based Affirmative Action programs in employment, education, and contracting. After Proposition 209, UC schools have remained ethnically and economically diverse. According to The LA Times, in 2021, the UC system “admitted its largest, most diverse undergraduate class ever for fall 2021.” UC Berkeley has a 20% white population, and at UCLA, 34% of California incoming freshmen were Black, Latino, American Indian, and Pacific Islander students. Even though the University of California can continue to improve campus diversity, UC schools are a clear example that beneficial diversity can continue without Race-Based Affirmative Action.

Even though universities nationwide are forced to transition to race-blind admissions, they are still very passionate about maintaining diversity in their schools. Harvard University, for example, made a statement asserting, “Harvard will continue to be a vibrant community whose members come from all walks of life.” With the banning of race-based admissions, they are forced to find alternatives.

Ultimately, with the existence of several potentially attractive substitutes, only time will tell if the discontinued Race-Based Affirmative Action policy will be replaced with a better solution or a more flawed one.

Pros of affirmative action:

The Pew Research Center defines affirmative action as “programs aimed at boosting educational or employment opportunities for racial and ethnic minority groups that historically have faced discrimination.” The goal is clearly stated: affirmative action is supposed to help those who have been educationally marginalized in the past.

Since its creation in 1965, affirmative action has been a highly debated topic: whether or not colleges should know one’s ethnicity when choosing applicants and whether the law makes a positive impact.

So, what does ethnicity-based affirmative action help with? It sets the bar for colleges and universities to reach a certain percentage of the student population to be a certain ethnicity. It also includes outreach programs that support different ethnicities pursuing different fields.

One solution proposed is using socioeconomic class instead of ethnicity to give all socioeconomic statuses a chance. Aside from that, it has been shown that even when considering socioeconomic classes, considering it only helps highly selective colleges. In a study done by the Educational Testing Service, “students applying to less selective colleges appear to be penalized for their lower SES in the admission process.” So, rather than helping, considering socioeconomic status only benefits a small percentage of colleges in the country.

The study also goes on to address why, stating: “Most colleges rely heavily on student tuition and must take the ability to pay into account in admissions; on the other hand, many colleges, particularly very selective colleges, actively recruit and admit low-SES students,” highlighting the economic burden of the cost of higher education. ​​Affirmative action should also focus more on outreach programs and decreasing the income gap, which is the real cause of ethnic barriers to higher education. The hefty costs of college are a weight many carry late into adulthood. Increasing support for these economically struggling students will increase the number of students who can apply and go to colleges and universities.

There have been studies that also report social issues on higher education campuses. Springer Link addresses such issues by explaining that “Having different social classes in the same institution increases — but does not guarantee — the probability of cross-class interaction,” which goes on to address the negative side effects of using socioeconomic class as a percentage requirement to meet. This could possibly lead to some feeling “more isolated in their networks than upper social class students.” This showcases that there should be more outreach programs to decrease the socioeconomic status gap— which— is what affirmative action was initially doing as well.

The Educational Testing Service study also elaborated that they found “ very little or no evidence of racial preferences in admissions to colleges in lower selectivity tiers.” underlining that there is something to be said about the success of affirmative action.

These studies point out the flaws in one popular “solution” to affirmative action and indirectly point out its strengths. So, with correct implementation, affirmative action should aid and create outreach programs that create an equal, diverse socioeconomic and ethnic social and educational playing field.

Affirmative action supports—or should support—equality of opportunity, an idea with roots in the formation of our country. It shouldn’t have been shot down but rather edited to put a focus on outreach programs and additional studies to fine-tune the admissions process and support America's ideals.