In Favor of Affirmative Action

Originally posted 5/2/20

After months of bitter dispute that gained national recognition, a historic ruling maintained that Harvard University was not biased against Asian-Americans in its affirmative action policies last October. This case brought the concept of affirmative action — and questions about how fair it is — to the forefront of American’s minds. While the concept of affirmative action is nondiscriminatory and mostly successful, byproducts of the policy may stand to racially profile Asian-American applicants.

Defining Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is a term that first came into the public's eye during the Kennedy administration that implemented policies aimed at increasing diversity and elevating oppressed minorities. The definition today has evolved into favoring the allocation of resources toward minority groups that were discriminated against in history. The origin of the word, thus, came from the “do something” idea, the position that the government should be proactive in undoing the effects of discrimination. It reminds those in power that there’s more to be done than simply not discriminating. There are many forms that affirmative action can manifest in — from employment to scholarship — but the focus of this paper will narrow the parameters of the debate to college admissions through the Asian-American experience.

Harvard is in the Right

The Harvard case was one of the country’s largest debates surrounding affirmative action for colleges, and it shone a light on important controversies. Motivated by the claim that elite colleges such as Harvard discriminated in purposely admitting less Asian-American students on the basis of their race, the plaintiff was the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). SFFA is an organization created by Edward Blum, a known critic of affirmative action, who has recently moved on to challenge University of North Carolina’s admission policies for the next year. While most well-known, this case is not alone in scrutinizing the college admissions process; the Justice Department has opened investigations in the policies of Yale and Richard Sander is suing the University of California for admissions data (4).

Judge Allison D. Burroughs, the federal judge who delivered the final ruling, dismissed charges of racial discrimination against Asian-Americans “given precedent and the evidence” (1). Burroughs found the plaintiff’s statistical analysis that compared the test scores of Asian-American applicants with admission rates flawed and faulted the plaintiff for not calling any Asian-Americans to testify or exemplify the alleged discrimination. In a quote from the ruling, Burroughs highlights the importance of diversity in the future of education:

“The students who are admitted to Harvard and choose to attend will live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people, with all sorts of experiences, beliefs and talents… It is this, at Harvard and elsewhere that will move us, one day, to the point where we see that race is a fact, but not the defining fact and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet.”

Essentially, while there ideally will come a time in which race will no longer be a factor of admission, affirmative action is a necessary measure to ensure diversity in this point in time. Given the history of racial inequality and systematic oppression that was detrimental to certain minority groups, affirmative action is a necessary step to ensuring equal opportunities for all. Fundamentally, colleges should prioritize equity over equality. While equality is treating everyone equally, equity is treating people to the degree that they need to be equally successful. In addition, “not seeing race” is harmful; instead, there should be an embrace of cultural diversity and promotion of awareness for what different opportunities racial groups require to be successful.

From the Opponent’s Perspective

As a topic that has been debated by both higher and lower courts for decades, the debate surrounding affirmative action is comprehensive. The counterarguments to affirmative action come from two groups of people: one believes that banning preferential treatment while upholding anti-discriminatory laws is sufficient, the other group simply doesn’t understand how discriminating to a degree will end discrimination. The main, logical arguments that come from opponents are summed up as below:

1. The belief that meritocracy should be valued above all

2. “Racial balancing” is unfair and immoral

3. The effect of implicit bias and reinforcing stereotypes

Above all, opponents tout the superiority of meritocracy, or a system in which those given resources and power are distributed by individual talents. For example, the plaintiff in the Harvard case built their argument on the claim that Asian-Americans had the highest test scores and grades across the nation, yet were not accepted proportionally (1). Though there were no specific examples in the Harvard case, Abigail Fisher, a white student who was rejected from the University of Texas, claimed she was a victim of reverse discrimination in 2008 because 47 minorities with lower statistics than her were admitted (8). In a Youtube video posted by Blum, the orchestrator of the Harvard case, Fisher states:

“There were people in my class with lower grades who weren't in all the activities I was in… and the only other difference between us was the color of our skin. I was taught from the time I was a little girl that any kind of discrimination was wrong… What kind of example does it set for others?" (3)

This idea of reverse discrimination is core of the anti-affirmative action argument; “less-deserving” candidates are taking the places of those who have more merit for the position.

Another argument critiques “race-balancing,” or the attempt to reach a critical mass of minority groups through preferential treatment. Many cite the Supreme Court’s decision to ban racial quotas in 1978, calling affirmative action unconstitutional and unfair (6). Opponents believe that diversity can be achieved through passive support of government-support programs, rather than the more active approach that hurts others and call for race-neutral policies instead.

Finally, opponents hone in on how affirmative action reinforces racial stereotypes in students who are both positively and negatively impacted by the policies. The success of Asian-Americans is even used to blame other minorities as opponents of affirmative action policies ask: “if they could do it, why couldn’t you?” (2). Consequently, some hold the success of Asian Americans against other minorities, arguing that black and Latinx communities are receiving favoritism. Additionally, despite her ruling, Judge Burroughs did criticize Harvard’s process in allowing unintentional implicit biases from admission officers or recommendation letters. One conclusion from the NY Times Harvard investigation is that Asians were consistently given lower ratings on the personality scale, lowering their overall “score” that qualified them for admission (4).

Addressing the Inherent Imbalance

The scrutiny for where merit lies from the perspective of opponents is often too narrow. And while many will argue that these policies are reverse discriminatory, law professor Melvin Urofsky, who wrote The Affirmative Puzzle, says that

“There is very little hard evidence to prove that a minority hire almost always took place at the expense of a better-qualified white person” (6).

And this is evident even in the Fisher case. Out of the 47 students who got into UT and had lower statistics than Fisher, 42 were white (8). Clearly, it was not Fisher’s race that prevented her from being accepted. So what was it then? UT stated that one consideration for admissions included a personality index — important character traits that were more demonstrative of future success such as learning ability and leadership. Harvard argued the same defense during the trial: that admissions officers take a holistic perspective on evaluating students. And oftentimes, those who struggled to receive education in a difficult socioeconomic class — a factor that intersects closely with race — were more likely to develop traits like tenacity and grit than privileged students who grew up conditions aligned to help them succeed (8).

Clearly, the existence of race-balancing is tenuous, and affirmative action is helping increase diversity in universities by uplifting minorities. Centuries of racist laws have prevented minorities from reaching the same employment, education, and wealth status as the more privileged; thus affirmative action is needed to push universities to be more proactive. Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke against race-neutral policies while challenging Chief Justice John Roberts:

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination” (7)

Furthermore, those who benefit from affirmative action performed just as well as white classmates, thus showing an equal amount of merit. In a statistical analysis conducted by former university presidents William Bowen and Derek Bok, of seven hundred black students who entered 28 selective schools under race-preferential criteria in 1976, 32% obtained doctorates or professional degrees, 125 were business executives, and more than three hundred were “civic leaders.” Affirmative action has been successful in offsetting the race and wealth discrepancy in America.

Flaws in College Admissions Process

Though Harvard denies that being Asian-American has an effect on admissions, the New York Times shows a pattern of Asians receiving lower personality scores, a part of the implicit bias that Judge Burroughs stated was still flawed (4). The admission officers, after all, are making subjective decisions through the written application that cannot be shown through statistical analysis. These correlations highlight the racial stereotype of Asian-Americans being the “model minority” myth, the assumption that Asians are more academically successful and integrated in American society, yet demonstrate less leadership qualities and other positive character traits.

While there is still racism involved in the lower “personality scoring” of Asian applicants, white people are still given an unfair advantage through cyclic processes that are neither fair nor merit-based. For example, 30% of Harvard admissions are athletes, children of prominent celebrities, and legacies; the vast majority of whom are white (5). Thus, focusing on the innate problem within the system, wealth privilege and its intersection with race, should be the target of those who want to equalize this process, not race-neutral policies.

Conclusion

Racial diversity is important, whether it’s in our universities or jobs. In the business sphere, companies want to be able to sell to different people, and thus educating and hiring a diverse workforce is important. Even more, diversity is an accurate reflection of the American population, and enforcing these laws is a continuation in undoing centuries of racism and discrimination. Though the college admissions process has a long way to go in being as fair as possible, affirmative action is a necessary measure to ensure the presence of diversity.

---

Bibliography

1. Board, Editorial. “Opinion | A Judge Made the Right Call in Upholding Harvard's

Admissions System.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 Oct. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-judge-made-the-right-call-in-upholding-harvards-admissions-system/2019/10/10/2eab667e-ea02-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html.

2. Chow, Kat. “'Model Minority' Myth Again Used As A Racial Wedge Between Asians

And Blacks.” NPR, NPR, 19 Apr. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/524571669/model-minority-myth-again-used-as-a-racial-wedge-between-asians-and-blacks.

3. Hannah-Jones, Nikole. “What Abigail Fisher's Affirmative Action Case Was Really

About.” ProPublica, 9 Mar. 2019, www.propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution-what-abigail-fishers-affirmative-action-case-is-r.

4. Hartocollis, Anemona. “Harvard Won a Key Affirmative Action Battle. But the War's Not

Over.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/harvard-admissions-lawsuit.html.

5. Kang, Jay Caspian, and Ronghui Chen. “Where Does Affirmative Action Leave

Asian-Americans?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Aug. 2019,

6. Menand, Louis. “The Changing Meaning of Affirmative Action.” The New Yorker, The

New Yorker, 13 Jan. 2020, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/20/have-we-outgrown-the-need-for-affirmative-action.

7. Rothstein, Richard. “Race or Class? The Future of Affirmative Action on the College

Campus.” The American Prospect, 23 June 2014, prospect.org/article/race-or-class-future-affirmative-action-college-campus.

8. Strauss, Valerie. “Perspective | Actually, We Still Need Affirmative Action for African

Americans in College Admissions. Here's Why.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2 Aug. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/08/02/actually-we-still-need-affirmative-action-for-african-americans-in-college-admissions-heres-why/.