The Trojan Horse of College Admissions
Banning affirmative action has nothing to do with merit
On October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the use of affirmative action in Harvard University’s admissions process. A key argument being made by opponents of affirmative action in both the general public and media is that race should be removed from consideration in college and university admissions because it allegedly grants an unfair advantage to us Black, Latino, and Native students i.e. underrepresented minorities, at the expense of Asian American students.
If the Supreme Court chooses to erode affirmative action, diversity in higher education will be virtually impossible to achieve in the long run — and for Edward Blum and the Students for Fair Admissions, the prosecution in the Supreme Court Case, and staunch opponents to affirmative action, that is the point.
That is why, we, alongside many others, implore the Supreme Court and general public to recognize how the reversal of affirmative action fails to:
- Address how admissions to elite universities favor privileged groups already
- Recognize how affirmative action directly considers long-standing systemic barriers faced by underrepresented minorities
- Acknowledge evidence that shows that banning affirmative action impacts underrepresented minorities disproportionately
Opponents to affirmative action argue that the absence of affirmative action reinstates a race-neutral admissions process that prioritizes merit over racial identity. Which is ironic considering that a recent study found that 43% of white Harvard college students identified as recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty or staff, or children of donors. Among admits who were Black, Asian American, or Latino, the share that fell into this group of admits with an asteriks was less than 16%.
Harvard’s own data, in 2021, finds that among applicants whose families made at least $500,000 per year, 77 percent of them accepted an Early Admissions offer. On the contrary, only 26.2% of students from families making $40,000 or less per year were admitted early. Data from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors shows that the average white family has financial assets amounting to nearly $500,000 in 2021 while both Black and Latino families have remained below $70,000 since 1989.
Not to mention that right now, Black and Latino children are more likely to live in poverty and attend a school that is segregated and underfunded than children of other races. Furthermore, Black and Latino students are also less likely to attend schools with advanced courses, adequate instructional materials, and qualified teachers. Among elite public high schools and independent college preparatory schools — schools that funnel a large portion of their students into places like Harvard. Instead of these realities being perceived as a systemic barriers, opponents of Affirmative Action attribute these facts as completely divorced from the educational outcomes of minorities.
Put another way: it’s like someone setting fire to your house, removing the fire hydrant, and wondering why you can’t put out the fire. It’s a set up.
The truth is we do not need to guess or extrapolate what will happen in the event that affirmative action is abolished — we already know the answer. Economist Zachary Bleemer, a professor at Yale School of Management, finds that when Prop 209, an Affirmative Action ban enacted in California in the 1990s, went into effect, Black and Brown high school graduates in California who targeted admission at selective public universities ended up enrolling at less-selective schools and subsequently earning about five percent lower annual wages in the decades that followed. It’s important to note that prior to Prop 209, white and Asian students who did not attend selective colleges in California tended to sort into selective colleges elsewhere.
That said, there is little evidence that white and Asian students benefitted from the end of Affirmative Action.
In court documents provided by Harvard, it is projected that eliminating the consideration of race in the admissions process would lead Black and Latino representation at Harvard to decline from approximately 28% of the student population to 15%. That means that over the course of four years the number of Black and Latino students at Harvard would decline by nearly 1,000 students. Not to mention that it’s hard to admit people if they do not apply. If Prop 209 is any indication of what is coming, the number of Black and Brown students applying to Harvard and other selective colleges could dramatically decrease overtime.
The reality of the matter is that universities like Harvard have an outsized influence on our world. There are people at Harvard that get a fast track to power simply because of simply being at Harvard, generational wealth aside. Recent work finds that having rich friends is a predictor of economic mobility. Guess where all the rich people are (or at least where they send their children)? Selective colleges like Harvard. More importantly, as noted by Bleemer, minorities who achieve degrees from selective colleges are better off financially than those who do not.
Take it from us: Two underrepresented minority students hailing from low-income and majority Black and/or Latino neighborhoods. For people in our communities, us becoming graduate students at Harvard unlocked another reality. We’ve only been studying here for two years and one of us has already received a Forbes 30 under 30 nomination while the other has published an acclaimed collection. Systemic barriers in higher education aside, opportunity is bred and cultivated in places like Harvard. Which is why limiting access to already limited access is cruel.
What universities and colleges should consider, as affirmative action hangs in the balance, is based on our experiences. Schools should consider helping marginalized students navigate the higher education system and encouraging minority students to still apply to the Harvards of the world. For economically disadvantaged students, providing guidance and funding for financing higher education will ensure that it continues to remain an option for all. Work from Bridget Terry Long, the Dean of Harvard Graduate School of Education, and co-authors, shows that low-income students who are offered assistance with applying for financial aid are more likely to apply to college.
Additionally, until the potential ban is lifted, the Biden Administration must recognize that minority-serving colleges and universities, alongside under-resourced public institutions, will bear the responsibility of educating the vast majority of students. Which is why Kristen Broady, Director of the Economic Mobility Project at the Chicago Federal Reserve, notes, in The Black Agenda, the importance of federally funding Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We would add here that this broadly applies to tribal colleges as well.
At the crux, the narrative that Black, Native, and Latino admits are a threat to their Asian American counterparts masks the real story– a story centered on how the powerful retain the exclusive birthright to access and opportunity at the expense of everyone else.
This piece was written by Katie Camacho Orona and Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman. If you are interested in covering this piece, please reach out to Gabrielle Gantz at gabrielle.gantz@stmartins.com.
