On June 23rd, 2016, the Supreme Court decided on a particularly divisive case regarding the legality of race-based affirmative action for admissions into universities. The court voted in favor of affirmative action, citing that the policies at the University of Texas do not violate the constitutional rights of students under the equal protections clause. This ruling was ultimately tallied up as the latest of victories for the continuation of race-based affirmative action. However, this decision is not to say that the issue is not controversial. The court was split 4-3, a result that many did not anticipate under the current circumstances, and it has many wondering whether or not the right decision was made. After all, it is typically understood that the supreme court consists of human beings with political identities, and that the constitution is a document that can be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on what one wants the meaning to be to fit this political identity. Overall, although the case was won, the evidence relating to the policy shows that the argument for race-based affirmative action is built on unstable grounds. The fact of the matter is that the practice of racial preferencing during college admissions has been historically ineffective, arguably harmful to those it intends to help, and ethically flawed.

Affirmative action cases have been close in the past and never fail to stir up controversy. In fact, it has been a contentious subject since it’s conception, due to the fact that racial tension has had a vast role in American history as well as in our current social climate. The subject matter summons the memories of the civil rights struggle, starting as far back as Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas, progressing through Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, and bringing itself to the current Black Lives Matter movement and other similar groups. In essence, issues like this force people to encounter the fact that America has not always been a free country for all who have lived here, and that despite progress, there is still a success gap. Those who identify or sympathize with these historically oppressed groups have valid reasons to hold strong feelings surrounding affirmative action. On boths sides of the debate, most would agree that the fight for equality is not over. But equally so, those who oppose affirmative action have a voice that also deserves to be heard and valid evidence worth be presented.

The origins of affirmative action come from the early 1960’s-- 1961 to be precise-- in an executive order signed by John F. Kennedy. It was an equal opportunity order, regarding the prevention of discriminatory practices for hiring government contractors: "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." This is a particularly interesting genesis considering that the practice of affirmative action would eventually become the exact opposite of what this order implies; instead of disregarding race, skin color is now considered a factor that makes a worker more employable and a student more admissible.

This is a dilemma when it comes to the ethical part of affirmative action. The most successful rhetoric that came out of the civil rights movement was from people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who argued that people should be “judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Dr. King’s dream was a beautiful idea but it still remains a dream, not only due to the fact that racism still exists in our culture at least to a mild degree, but also because of affirmative action policies that reward individuals with certain advantages based on their skin color rather than their content of character. In the process of racial preferencing, white and Asian students lose the opportunities that they worked to earn. This affects the Asian community in particular because they are already such a small minority of the population-- even more so than blacks-- meaning that the loss opportunity has a greater overall impact for them. Knowing this, it would seem that race-based affirmative action should be rejected ethically on principle, but it isn’t. Why is that? Well, although affirmative action is undeniably a discriminatory practice by its very nature, its supporters would argue that this discrimination is justified and completely necessary for social progress. In fact, the United States is the only country that refers to these type of policies as affirmative action. The UK, for example, calls it “positive discrimination”- a more forthright term, though this is arguably a complete oxymoron. On the other hand, morality is subjective and it’s usually closely linked with ideologies. In the case of affirmative action, it is a progressive ideology, typically left-wing that justifies this variety of discrimination.

The question now, is whether or not it’s effective. It does not aim to create equal opportunity, but rather equal outcomes, and in this way it is strikingly similar to Marxism. Both philosophies set out to destroy differences in class, or race in the case of affirmative action, and do so by raising the lower class at the expense of the higher class. Of course, the lessons of economic Marxism have taught us that this idealistic goal is ultimately unachievable and often only makes the quality of life worse for everyone across the board when attempted. It characteristically requires an authority to mandate participation, thus erasing any form of personal liberty or individuality, and usually leads to mediocrity due to the lack of incentive to be successful. The only success that matters is the success of the collective whole, and because humans usually are only willing to help others only after they have helped themselves, this leads to a lack of effort and a decline of success for everyone. In all of history, there has never once been a nation based on the principles of Marxism that has stood the test of time. These same concepts also apply to affirmative action. An authority- in this case the university- must exist to enforce these practices to advance the goals of society as a whole. Furthermore, the individuals success is shadowed by society's success overall, and this mentality leads to a decline of success for everyone in hopes of achieving a “greater good”.

In a Marxist society, personal success is unimportant because that success is given away for the “greater good”. Many argue that this redistribution is immoral in itself, some going so far to argue that it is theft. As a philosophical argument, this assertion does hold some merit. Taking something that a person earned and giving it to someone else that didn’t earn it without the first person’s consent doesn’t seem ethically sound, even if the intentions are for the benefit of the “greater good” of society. Again, this is yet another major flaw in the cultural Marxist mentality. This isn’t to say that those with more success can’t be generous to those who are disadvantaged, but this generosity should be voluntary. Those who honestly have faith in affirmative action as an effective way to better our society should be challenged to do what they believe is right; perhaps they should give up their own opportunities rather than mandating the loss of opportunities to their peers. If these people are truly convicted to creating a “greater good”, then this approach should in theory create a massive amount of spots opening up in prestigious colleges across the nation, equally as big or bigger than what mandated affirmative action already accomplishes. What is the likelihood of this working? Most likely zero, because people are selfish.

Aside from being ineffective in the real world, this entire ideal of cultural Marxism is based on the false premise that success is a finite resource. The reality is that it is not necessary to take away from someone else's success to have some of your own. Success is possible for everyone in a society. Compare South Korean society to North Korean society, for example. The problem in North Korea is not that the success all belongs to one person- Kim Jong Il- but that no one else is allowed to create success for themselves. In South Korea, people are encouraged to create their own success, and now lead the world in technological advancement. This has also greatly improved their quality of life because this wealth creates good jobs for people and even more opportunities for people to embark on new journeys and ideas that advance our society. Meanwhile, North Korea has a third world economy that can barely provide enough food for its citizens. If success is limited, how could South Korea have possibly created it? How could have society a thousand years ago have created the success that society has today? History has proven that selfishness, although an undesirable trait to have in close relationships, actually does a extremely good job at creating wealth in the form of either money or success compared to the Marxist, “greater good” approach. This wealth eventually finds its way to others in the society through voluntary transactions without any sort of artificial redistribution and everyone can benefit if they choose to contribute.

To remind ourselves that success is not finite, it’s also important to keep in mind that affirmative action doesn’t necessarily affect whether an under qualified person goes to college, but rather what college they go to. In the current situation, where blacks are underrepresented in colleges overall, the priority should simply be to get black people into college in the first place instead of focusing on getting them into highly prestigious colleges. Although people with degrees from prestigious schools do have a better chance of success in their field, the reason for this is not based merely on the fact that they attended said school. Rather, their success is based on the talent and work ethic that earned them a spot there in the first place, which are the same assets that will be used to create a successful professional career. This being said, if a black person truly earns a spot in one of these schools, they should have the same outcome as a white person that also earned the spot. On the contrary, though, if a black person is put into this spot despite being unqualified, the same amount of success is not likely, and this is a logical fallacy that those who support affirmative action don’t really seem to have an answer for.

The concept that addresses this fallacy is called mismatch theory-- basically the idea that putting someone less qualified than they should be into a position where they will be challenged at a higher level that their current capabilities is a recipe for an eventual failure. It’s not unlike putting an amatuar in the ring with Mike Tyson for a boxing match. Unless the amatuar pulls off some sort of a miracle, he will most certainly have his face beaten in, just as a student with mediocre test scores will most likely fail out of Yale. The idea that minorities who are put into high level schools which they aren’t qualified to attend won’t reach the same levels of success is based on the assumption that they will even get a degree in the first place.

However, the statistics offer even more bad news. Overall, blacks are much more likely to drop out before they graduate and for those who remain, most end up at the bottom of their class when it comes to test scores and G.P.A. This is attributed to the fact that these students seem to be “in over their heads” because their lower qualifications infer a less advanced skillset and talent level compared to their peers. In theory, this would also lower one's self esteem and make them feel inferior, which could take everything full circle back to the higher dropout rates in a malicious cycle. Additionally, the amount of money borrowed in student loans taken out by these under qualified students is horrendous in many cases, especially from top tier private universities. The struggle of paying off these debts without having a degree or getting low grades to make themselves more appealing to well-paying employers can put them in a state of financial chaos potentially lasting for many years and impairing other opportunities for success in the future. It could be detrimental to their credit, prevent them from buying a house, starting a family, investing in their retirement, and would presumingly make them more likely to require assistance from the government.

The evidence seems to point it favor of the notion that affirmative action has actually hindered the success of blacks rather than improve it due to some fundamental flaws that go against logic and reason. Over the 50 or more years that race-based affirmative action has been in effect, there has been no truly enticing evidence that it has made any more than an insignificant impact on the rate of blacks being enrolled in college compared to other races, let alone graduating with a degree and rising out of poverty. So far, there have been eight states that have banned race-based affirmative action, including Arizona. The most common immediate result was an initial fall in the admission rates for blacks followed by a recovery either back to what it was or somewhere near where it was initially. These changes were never more than a few percent. The revelation of this information creates a need for another explanation for why, despite being prefered in the admission process, are blacks not being enrolled into college. If it isn’t the institutes of higher education, then could it possibly be the black community itself?

When the state of the black community is examined, this lack of overall measurable success appears to go much deeper than college degrees or even education in general. There is a string of problems that are all related going back to high crime and incarceration rates due to the drug war, an extremely high rate of fatherless homes, disproportionately, higher poverty rates than any other demographic, and perhaps most importantly, a much higher rate of high school dropouts as well as low grades and test scores. These are problems that must be addressed if there is any hope at all to remedy their troubles.

To focus closely on education in particular, more attention needs to be paid concerning the family life of the children growing up in these communities. The fact that most black children are born out of wedlock is a significant enough statistic to restate. The absence of a parent, most often the father, can lead to a number of troubles down the road. Single parent households contain only one working adult, of course, which leads often to financial hardships. In turn, this lowers the overall quality of life for the children and lessens opportunity. Regarding education, poorer families are forced to live in lower income neighborhoods which pay less in property tax, meaning that the school district in that area receives less funding. Less funding means less resources and probably less talented teachers, which leads to these children learning less. By the time these kids graduate high school, they are comparatively miles behind other more fortunate students, and affirmative action is just a band-aid being put on the nub of a severed arm in an attempt to patch the wounds that the system has inflicted.

This is the true problem that needs to be fixed if this country is going to be a more equal society and race-based affirmative action ignores it. The United States of America must take affirmative action to undergo major reform to the K-12 education system, especially in regards to funding. The distribution of funds should be distributed to all schools in an equal fashion which is not based on property tax revenue. If this is done, it will have an effect as positive as what the efforts of affirmative action ever hoped to achieve in the first place.