• Affirmative Action: As defined by Cornell Law School, “Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment.”

• 14th Amendment & Equal Protection Clause: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Hard-working and education is a consistently emphasized cultural value among many Asian cultures. Asian parents traditionally are much more willing to invest in their children’s education by sending them to test prep or afterschool tutoring programs for high grades and test scores to improve their child’s chances in getting into a decent college. So it is understandable why some peers and parents of our community are anti-Affirmative Action when they felt like their hardwork and investment in education is devalued by the college admission system because of their race. Their frustration is plausible, why should ones’ hardwork and invest on educate be penalized and devalued based on race under Affirmative Action when the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, prohibit discrimination based on race. 

On the flip slide, other members of our community believe that racial bias and legacy admission is the problem in college admission, not Affimative Action. They point out that the system of legacy admission give far more advantage and preference to children of alumni in admission process than racial consideration. Legacy admission make up 14% of the Havard Class of 2022, while Hispanic and Latino make up 8% of the class, Black or African American make up 10.7% of the class and AAPI make up 22% of the class (The Harvard Crimson). Both of Hispanic and Latino and Black and African American ethnic group admission make up are less than legacy, so why target Affirmative Action but not legacy action? Asians have historically been used to pin minorities against one another, ultimately benefitting white supremacy and this Supreme Court ruling is no exception. Conservative-leaning Justices and lawmakers in favor of the decision have repeatedly used the Asian American community as a counter-example for other racial groups that have been systemically oppressed in higher education. It is disheartening for them to see that our community has been used to harm People of Color (POC). 

• • Everyone benefits from diversity in education. POC or not, learning in a community that is rich with students with varying opinions, backgrounds, and perspectives is imperative for a thriving classroom environment. Especially in higher education, where some go specifically to engage with diverse communities, educational diversity helps students develop empathy and communication skills. 

  • In the United States, being a person of color has so many more implications than just the color of one’s skin. Due to our country’s racist history of slavery, internment, and colonization, present-day society has inevitably been socially and systemically influenced by the inequalities of our past. Thus, the economic disparities that POC face due to their race also have major impacts on their access to education and resources, all factors which should be considered when reviewing applicants for colleges or universities. To ignore race in admissions would be to ignore all the obstacles and disparities POC have faced. 

The ruling is concerned with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states that no law shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

• • On the one hand, justices who voted in favor of the ruling argued that Affirmative Action is considered racial discrimination and therefore is not constitutional.

  • On the other hand, Justice Jackson’s dissent perfectly summarizes the court’s minority opinion: “Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” Justice Jackson and the two other dissenting justices argue that in American society, race inherently creates social inequality that bleeds into all aspects of life, including education. Thus a holistic view of college and university applicants is the only fair approach.

• Without affirmative action, colleges can give greater weight to an applicant's personal accomplishments, such as academic performance, extracurricular activities, leadership roles, community service, and other relevant achievements. This allows admissions officers to assess an applicant's abilities and potential based on their individual merits.

• Merit-based admissions prioritize an applicant's academic qualifications, including standardized test scores, GPA, class rank, and the rigor of their high school curriculum. This places emphasis on an applicant's academic abilities and their potential to succeed in a college setting.

• Without affirmative action, colleges can also consider an applicant's unique talents, skills, and experiences relevant to their desired field of study. This approach allows for the recognition and inclusion of individuals with exceptional abilities or talents, irrespective of their racial or ethnic background.

The argument that ending affirmative action leads to equal treatment is based on the belief that all individuals should be treated equally under the law, regardless of their race or ethnicity. Proponents argue that affirmative action, which considers race as a factor in admissions decisions, can be seen as a form of preferential treatment or discrimination. They contend that eliminating affirmative action allows for a more impartial and fair treatment of all applicants. By adopting a colorblind approach, college applicants will be evaluated on their individual achievements and abilities. 

Some argue that affirmative action can create the perception that minority students are admitted solely because of their race, potentially leading to stigma and the perception of lowered standards.

The purpose of affirmative action is to promote diversity on campus. Everyone benefits from more diversity. By lowering the diversity on campus, there will be less inclusive learning environments. The more diverse a college is, the more it is to learn about new perspectives and promote inclusivity.

• POC, particularly those from historically marginalized groups, have often faced systemic disadvantages and barriers that limit their access to quality education and resources. Affirmative action policies are designed to address these disparities by considering race as a factor in admissions decisions. Ending affirmative action can remove a mechanism intended to counterbalance these systemic disadvantages, potentially resulting in decreased representation of POC.

• Racial and ethnic disparities exist in various aspects of society, including education, housing, employment, and access to opportunities. These structural inequalities can impact the educational achievements and preparation of POC, making it harder for them to compete on an equal footing with their peers. Affirmative action attempts to address these structural inequalities by considering race as a factor in admissions, thereby increasing representation and diversity.

• POC often face limited access to educational resources, college preparatory programs, and mentorship opportunities, which can affect their competitiveness in the admissions process. Affirmative action aims to provide opportunities for POC who have overcome these challenges and demonstrate potential for success. Without affirmative action, POC may face greater difficulty in accessing higher education, leading to underrepresentation.