Affirmative action is a policy that aims to address the historical and ongoing effects of racial discrimination by increasing the representation of marginalized groups in education. The policy can include measures such as setting quotas, offering special scholarships, or providing preparation programs.
On Oct. 31, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard cases arguing that affirmative action programs in college admissions were unconstitutional, specifically at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard University. We, The Union, believe that affirmative action must not be deemed unconstitutional, as doing so would diminish the progress made for equality in the last four decades.
Affirmative action levels the playing field for marginalized groups who have traditionally faced barriers to education. For African Americans, the lasting legacy of slavery, redlining policies, and legal segregation in the Jim Crow South prohibits them from receiving as good an education as whites. Hispanics were treated as scapegoats for the Great Depression, segregated into “Mexican Schools,” and deported by the masses during the Mexican Repatriation. Current socioeconomic status leads many Hispanics straight to the labor force after high school as blue-collar workers, furthering a generational lack of higher education.
In the past, quotas have been used to set aside a fixed number of spaces in universities for racial minorities, but have been deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS since 1978. In the recent lawsuit, Harvard was accused of setting racial quotas, using the front of a “personal rating” system that judges subjective character traits such as “courage,” “leadership,” and “likability.” According to the University of California (UC) Berkeley economist David Card, Asians receive consistently lower personal scores than any other ethnic group, effectively capping the number of Asian admissions and leading some to believe that Harvard is discriminating against Asians to satisfy a quota.
According to the World Population Review, California has the highest Asian population in the U.S.; on Nov. 3, 2020, 57% of Californians voted against Proposition 16, which aimed to repeal Proposition 209 — the 1996 law that made affirmative action a factor in admissions decisions illegal in California public universities back. This voting outcome contradicts the state’s reputation as socially progressive and liberal. Some critics of affirmative action argue that it is reverse discrimination and that it unfairly favors certain minorities, specifically African Americans and Hispanics, over Asian Americans. They believe that people should be admitted to schools based solely on merit and that affirmative action undermines the principle of equal opportunity.
The current UC system is 100% merit-based as a result of Prop. 209, and the consequence is evident. According to the Best Colleges website, UC Los Angeles is 34% Asian and 6% Black; UC Berkeley is 40% Asian and 4% Black. The universities have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on outreach and resource programs to recruit more underrepresented and underserved minority students; these programs were mostly ineffective, reinforcing the fact that racial diversity is impossible to achieve without affirmative action.
Because of the high percentage Asians make of higher education student bodies, many opponents refer to them as the model minority. The myth is a common generalization that falsely portrays Asian Americans as more hard-working, diligent, and therefore more deserving than other races, which explains the significant percentage they make of the student body in higher education. In actuality, this stereotype not only shovels the ethnic diversity of Asian Americans into a monolith, but also excuses politicians from addressing the real issue at hand: racial disparity in education. Asian Americans are used as proof that putting emphasis on education can “undo” the effects of discrimination and raise a minority up to high socioeconomic status, but it is ultimately absurd and unreasonable to compare the racism that Asians have faced to what Blacks and Hispanics have faced.
In 1965, the Hart-Cellar Act created two “preferences” for immigration — family and skill. Immigrants with family already living in the U.S. or those with professional skills in areas such as engineering were allowed entrance. A majority of the Asian immigrants were wealthier and more educated than the other minorities in the country, leading to a skewed perception of the race as a whole. Having “tiger parents” is not a plausible explanation for the racial gap in academic success. Having money is, as merit is not always subjective, but is often determined by nepotism and socioeconomic status. Being financially flexible allows families to invest more into their child, whether that is extra tutoring or participating in an extracurricular activity. According to Statista, Blacks and Hispanics have a poverty rate of 19.5% and 17.1%, respectively, while Asians and Whites are 9.3% and 8.1% respectively.
Affirmative action should not be repealed, for its constitutionality is justified by its promotion and progress toward a more diverse and inclusive society. We, The Union, believe it remains a necessary and effective means of addressing the ongoing effects of discrimination in the classroom.
