A decades-long debate over admission into United States universities appears to have been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). On Oct. 31, the conservative majority in the SCOTUS expressed that they are ready to end race-based admissions into American universities.
Affirmative action has been a polarizing topic of debate since the mid-20th century. The controversial policy which allows for the factoring of race in admissions has now been thrust back into the spotlight. Those against the admissions tie-breaker view it as a threat to the supposed equality of college admissions, while those who are proponents view affirmative action as a means to level the playing field and help undo years of racial violence against minorities.
In a vacuum, affirmative action policies don’t make sense. Why would college admissions officers admit a prospective student for anything besides their pedigree? There has been no evidence that shows that biological factors play a role in cognitive ability, so it would make sense to completely eliminate race or ethnicity from consideration.
However, in reality, life is not as black and white as it seems. There are an infinite amount of factors which play into one’s socioeconomic status at the age of 18, when a student typically applies to universities.
One aspect to consider is this. At 18, most people do not have financial independence and stability. No matter the circumstance, no one has any control over their racial and financial background. Poor, college-aged students of color face struggles that wealthy, white students are less likely to have to overcome. A method to level the playing field is necessary, and for colleges specifically, it should be affirmative action. Affirmative action should be used as a tie-breaker and implemented nationwide to restore balance and proportional diversity to our nation’s top schools.
SCOTUS will, in all likelihood, strike down affirmative action for good when their decision comes out in the near future. Black people and Indigenous Latinos will feel the worst burdens of this looming decision, as these groups were the demographics affirmative action was intended to benefit. This is not simply a prediction of future circumstances; this is a proven — and arguably intended — result of the banning of affirmative action.
When California banned it in 1996, its top public university, the University of California (UC) Berkeley, had a sharp decline in its Black student population. UC Berkeley’s Black student population was only 6% before the affirmative action ban; it now sits at a mere 3%. Despite only making up 17% of UC Berkeley’s population, Latinos make up 39% of California’s overall population, Black Californians are 5% of the state’s population. A reverse disparity appears for Asian students; 32% of students at UC Berkeley are Asian, while only 15% of California residents are Asian.
The myths that Black and Latino cultures promote laziness while Asian cultures encourage education and success tend to prevail in debates over affirmative action. The Asian model minority myth has long been debunked, but the history between all of these ethnic groups separates them. Because of this separation, it would be unfair to treat these demographics as if they all have endured the same hardships, setbacks or successes as each other.
As a result of this history, it also makes more sense as to why Asian Americans tend to be accepted disproportionately into top academic institutions. It also makes sense why Black and Latino Americans have difficulties with not only getting into these universities but also breaking the cycle of economic inequality which has plagued them for generations.
Higher education is a proven means for a person to earn a higher wage than if they did not have a degree. The simple fact is that if society expects racial minorities to close the gap in wealth inequality, we must give them the necessary tools — like higher education — to attain these goals. Affirmative action is not a means to end racial inequality by itself, but education and narrowing economic racial gaps are.
There should be no totem pole of races, but unfortunately, there is an economic totem pole which each race tends to fall into. This is reality, and instead of running from it in the name of supposed equality, SCOTUS should help provide more opportunities for those who have been robbed of it.
Jacob Ramos is an Opinion Intern for the fall 2022 quarter. He can be reached at jacobtr@uci.edu.