In a regressive and disheartening blow to inclusivity in American universities, affirmative action was repealed by the majority-conservative US Supreme Court, reverting decades of social progress.
This shutdown has grave implications for all those who may pursue studies in the US, and could embolden conservatives to implement similar policies here at the University of Sydney.
Affirmative action has been instrumental in fostering diversity on university campuses throughout the United States and creating equitable conditions for marginalised communities.
The policy dates back to 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order in an effort to pressure institutions into being less discriminatory in their employment and admission policies, and to ensure that the principles of fairness and equality mandated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were being enforced in all parts of society.
However, there is also no denying the fact that affirmative action has mired in controversy for decades, inadvertently making it one of the most controversial topics in US society for quite some time. In 1998, California voters, who are largely considered to be the most liberal voters in the US, approved Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action in its university system. Since then, Black freshmen admitted to the University of California at Berkeley dropped to nearly half of what it was before the 1998 ban.
Criticism around affirmative action largely revolves around the fact that certain individuals from non-minority backgrounds (White) and those from overrepresented minorities (Asians) are disadvantaged in their admissions to the most competitive universities in the nation.
Most of those who are “disadvantaged” through the implementation of affirmative action at top universities are those who are fully capable of attending other equally reputable institutions and will not be excluded from a workplace or society for not attending the universities that opted to select someone from a more marginalised background over them. To use one’s desire of attending top universities such as Harvard or Yale as an excuse to ban affirmative action is a selfish attempt to comply with the status quo and to take part in the faulty capitalistic meritocracy that has been plaguing society for centuries.
It is still a mystery as to why affirmative action is being attacked on all fronts by certain groups such as the Asian American student interest group Students for Fair Admissions while legacy admissions, a potentially equally controversial admissions policy that favours children of big donors and alumni, is barely talked about nor considered unconstitutional.
This is a testament to the fact that the opposition to affirmative action are willing to turn a blind eye to the privileges of the wealthy and powerful while opting to squander the last hope of marginalised communities to better serve their needs and interests.
While the argument espoused by conservative circles that affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination — and unfairly favours certain groups over others — was accepted by the equally conservative US supreme court this year, it is crucial to recognize that affirmative action is not about disadvantaging any particular group. It is about rectifying historical wrongs and fostering a society that uplifts all its members.
Rather than discarding affirmative action, universities should focus on refining and improving the policy to address its shortcomings, better tailoring affirmative action to encompass all facets of diversity such as socio-economic status, different castes and refugee status, just as many institutions already have. In a recent article, the Harvard Gazette stated that the “University ‘remains steadfast’ in commitment to campus that reflects wide range of backgrounds and experiences”, and argues that diversity should and will continue to be Harvard’s core value.
It is true that in some instances, the affirmative action system was not the most effective in improving diversity and was even abused by certain high-profile individuals. However, such setbacks should not overshadow the myriad of societal benefits affirmative action has brought to traditionally marginalised groups and the commitment to diversity and equality the policy represents.
Universities should follow the example of affirmative action policies implemented in countries such as India (quotas based on caste), South Korea (quotas based on socio-economic status and geographic origin) and Australia (special entry schemes for First Nations students and those from rural areas) to better implement diversity on their campuses and aim to create a more comprehensive approach that supports all marginalised individuals.
While this Supreme Court ruling may be a blow to those of us who value equity and social progress, including the 63% of Americans who thought that affirmative action programs were “a good thing” according to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, it must be noted that Supreme Court decisions can be overturned in the future.
This strike down should not be the end of diversity-conscious university admissions but should rather mark the end of a beginning, implementing a more comprehensive admissions process that prioritises equity and diversity above all else.