The Effects of Affirmative Action

One of the reasons affirmative action in higher education was introduced was to increase the presence of racial minority demographics in college campuses in America. In simple terms, universities implement the practice by establishing admission quotas that are to be filled exclusively by nonwhite applicants. At first glance, the impetus behind affirmative action policies seem progressive and well meaning. What occurs as a result of such policies, however, shows otherwise.

A 2005 Princeton study found that amongst college applicants from minority groups in elite universities that exercise affirmative action, Asians essentially get docked the equivalent of 50 SAT points from their applications while their minority African American and Hispanic counterparts get boosted 230 and 185 SAT points, respectively. White applicants? Their SAT scores remain unaffected. Let’s assume for the purposes of this article that this study is an accurate reflection of how affirmative action policies are ultimately realized when put to practice. Is this a just outcome? I’d argue not.

In fact, there’s a name for the injustice that’s happening here and it’s nothing new: it’s called “race-norming,” the practice of adjusting scores on standardized tests between racial groups according to different curves. Developed in the early 1980’s by the Department of Labor, race-norming was actually outright banned in the early 1990’s due to the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

If colleges are exercising practices that result in outcomes that mimic race-norming, then something is definitely not right with the way affirmative action as a concept is executed. It doesn’t matter whether these institutions are intending to do anything illegal or not; their methods are wrong by virtue of their results being illegal.

In Defense of Asians and Other Minorities

While the goals inherent in affirmative action in colleges are obviously well intentioned, as severely disenfranchised groups like African Americans and Hispanics do deserve a fair chance at higher education given their fundamental socioeconomic disadvantages, it is simply unjust to do so at the expense of an entirely different minority group to achieve these ends. Because isn’t discrimination against minorities the exact issue we are trying to combat here?

Furthermore, the practice of setting aside one predetermined percentage of spots for multiple minority races implies that, as a set, minorities are The Others — the outgroup that doesn’t belong.

Especially since these predetermined slots comprise less than half the student body in most elite universities, and are meant to accommodate all minority types, leaving the remaining majority slots to be filled by White applicants.

As a result, this cements the idea that minorities will always be minorities, and deserve less of the American pie. No matter how you cut it, the way affirmative action is currently practiced will deprive countless qualified Asians of their higher educational dreams and ideal formative years — dreams they’ve invested countless years in trying to achieve. And had they just so happened to have been born a member of the majority American race, they probably would’ve achieved them.

In terms of other minority groups, the increased admission rates that African American and Hispanic applicants encounter due to affirmative action policies are arguably insufficient when taking history into account, for both groups remain in the very bottom percentiles when it comes to undergraduate admission statistics in top universities. What I mean is, the magnitude of the perceived uptick in admissions isn’t nearly enough to even begin to rectify the racial injustices these groups have had to endure — both from the past and in the present.

So while African Americans and Hispanics continue to receive inadequate reparations from affirmative action, Asians continue to be restrained and rejected in a discriminatory manner.