Imagine dedicating years of your life honing academics and extracurriculars, only to find out that race played a significant factor in determining your admission. This was the reality for many students before the landmark case between Students For Fair Admissions (S.F.F.A.) and Harvard last year, where affirmative action – policies aimed at providing to historically marginalized groups the opportunity at higher education – was challenged. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in undergraduate college admissions was unconstitutional, turning the table on over 40 years of conflict.
While this ruling appeared to settle the debate regarding affirmative action, the recent admission demographics publicized by top colleges has once again brewed controversy: MIT reported a 10% decrease in African-American students and a 4% decrease in Hispanic students, while Princeton reported a 2.2% drop in Asian American enrollment.
In September, S.F.F.A contended in a letter directed toward Yale, Princeton, and Duke – three top schools that reported lower Asian-American admissions rates – that “racial numbers are not possible under true race neutrality,” demanding the schools to “preserve all potentially relevant documents and communications.”
For Seven Lakes students that constantly have college on their minds, the ruling is a multifaceted matter that needs to be approached with care. Junior Christopher Ou, who disagrees with the ruling, sees how the embedded inequalities in society impact college admissions.
“I think that what’s important to note is that people in different locations with different levels of access to education might try as hard, but not have the same amount of opportunity of access,” Ou said.
Ou’s statement aligns with broader research on the role that socioeconomic status plays in college admissions. Harvard researchers and policymakers at Opportunity Insights report that “children with parents in the top 1% of the income distribution are 77 times more likely to attend…elite colleges and universities than children with parents in the bottom 20% of the income distribution.” Recognizing this disparity, Ou reflects on his own position within this uneven landscape.
“I also think that in my situation, I have so many opportunities, like clubs, the best teachers, probably in a large mile radius,” Ou said. “I think that because I have these opportunities, then it makes sense that I have to do better to get into the same opportunities.”
Income isn’t the only barrier to students. Research shows that in highly selective colleges, having legacy-which refers to the edge students have due to their familial connections with the school- can increase a student’s chance of admission by 27.5% compared to students without legacy. This disproportionally affects underrepresented minorities, which is a discussion that sophomore Sunny Pu further dissects.
“I think that by repealing [affirmative action], we’re just not offering any minorities, especially those without legacy, the opportunity to get into college, to get into a good college they deserve,” Pu said. “Stepping forward, I think we should mostly, not even target a specific race, but rather of legacies and donors and specifically…completely ban the whole legacy process.”
On the surface, the ruling on affirmative action seems to perpetuate inequality, advancing a flawed system where economic gain is the top priority. However, without affirmative action, college admissions became much more merit-based.
“I think banning [affirmative action] is correct, because I think it should be based off of how hard you worked,” junior Alexandra Espiga said. “I don’t think you should be denied from somewhere because they already accepted enough of your race.”
Whatever the future holds, one thing remains certain: the conversation about affirmative action is far from over.
