Blog

« Back

Is Getting Rid of Affirmative Action a Good or Bad Thing for the Educational Landscape?

July 24th, 2023 by Kenneth Abrahams

Emotions surrounding the recent Supreme Court ruling on the use of affirmative action in the admissions process at colleges and universities is still raw. For some, it is a major victory. They truly believe that people should be admitted solely based on merit. For others, it is a crushing defeat. Fervently they believe that for marginalized groups it is a way to balance the scales and not only provide access to education but also create more robust and vibrant campuses.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we were eliminating affirmative action because there was no longer a need for it? That, as a society, we had reached a point where bias in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, class, wealth, sexual orientation, or country of origin was a thing of the past.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.

This is not the first case the Supreme Court has heard and issued a verdict on that pertains to access to education. Brown vs the Board of Education, in Topeka in 1954, challenged the policy of “separate but equal.” Oliver Brown claimed that the schools that provided education for black students were clearly inferior to those that white children attended. In its 1954 ruling, the nation’s highest court unanimously agreed with Mr. Brown and eliminated the policy of separate but equal. Unfortunately, subsequent rulings gave states the power to implement this and created loopholes. For many areas across the country it was well past 1960 before school systems were fully or even partially integrated. Forced bussing wasn’t implemented in the city of Boston until 1974. It was an issue that left people on both sides angry and frustrated.

In 1978, the Supreme Court heard the case of Regents of the University of California versus Allan Bakke. For those unfamiliar with the case, Allan Bakke had been an engineer when in his 30’s he applied to Medical School. He was rejected because of his age and the fact the school felt he was not an ideal candidate for the program. Bakke learned that the school had set aside a specific number of seats for minority students and sued claiming that he was being discriminated against and that affirmative action was a violation of his rights. After several lower court rulings, the case reached the nations highest court. At that time, the court was ideologically divided, like today’s court. In that case, the court ruled that the premise of affirmative action wasn’t unconstitutional but holding a specific number of seats at an institution or program was. Bakke was granted admission and became a doctor.

In the recent ruling by the court, highly selective colleges and universities are no longer allowed to consider race in the application process. Students will still be able to use race or ethnicity in their essays as long as it is “concretely tied” to a “quality of character or unique ability” that the applicant believes relevant to their case for being admitted to the school. However, the court made it clear that students cannot simply mention their race in the essay as a way around the court’s ruling.

Many conservatives are applauding the decision praising the court for finally making the admissions process a truly fair, merit-based process. Justice Thomas who voted with the majority made the statement, “This is not 1958 or 1968,”. “Today’s youth do not shoulder moral debts of their ancestors.” If we are being truly honest, the admissions process has never been nor will ever be, fair or blind. There are so many factors that are considered in admissions that are not purely based on merit, or at least not academic merit. Look at the number of students whose parents have donated significantly to institutions who are granted admission, even if they may not be qualified. Many institutions strongly consider if a candidate who has applied is a legacy, meaning a family member or members have also attended that same institution. Division 2 and 3, where they are not permitted to provide athletic scholarships, has athletes that are often recruited and provided with either merit or need based scholarships. Those are factors well outside of the scope of a purely merit-based system.

Division 1 college athletics are another whole quagmire that many don’t want to step in. Is it fair for an academically qualified student, who is denied admission to the college or university of their choice, to sue the school claiming that preferential treatment was given to an academically un or under qualified candidate, who happens to be an athlete? After all, many Division 1 blue chip recruits either never finish their collegiate careers or don’t graduate. Either opting to turn pro or simply being unable or unwilling to successfully complete the academic requirements to graduate.  Should we not consider the seats that those individuals are taking up in our quest to make the process one that is blind, and merit based?

How can we create a truly “merit based” admissions process? Look at things like SAT’s or ACT’s. Clearly individuals of wealth and privilege have a clear-cut advantage. They can hire tutors or take prep classes. Not to mention the fact that they can take the test multiple times if they want. SAT’s cost $60.00 to take. For students who are not blessed with a large bank account they will get one shot at this with probably no outside tutors or high-end prep class. There is also evidence out there indicating that these tests are inherently biased against people of color and the economically disadvantaged. Hardly a blind, merit-based system.

It took almost no time for legacy admissions to come under fire. Harvard is already being sued for using legacy in their admissions process. After all, and never having worked in admissions at Harvard or anywhere else, if that is a criterion for being sued, are we not once again creating an unfair, non-merit based system?

I am not a person of color or one that has had significant challenges thrown his way, but I believe that I was the beneficiary of a system that is neither blind nor solely merit based. When I was accepted to Connecticut College in 1978, there were several other students at my high school who had also applied to Conn College, but were rejected. Many of them had higher grade point averages and or SAT scores. Some were significantly more involved in various clubs, organizations, or sports than I was, but they were rejected, and I was admitted. It didn’t hurt that I am male, and the school had just recently gone co-ed. Several years later, I got to know the Dean of Admissions at the college. We were at a meeting together and I asked her how I got into Conn. She responded by saying that she didn’t really know the specifics of my particular case, but that each year every admissions counselor was given one folly; a student that may not be quite qualified but that they believed would offer something special or unique to the school. Her assessment was that I was probably someone’s folly that year. Another case that the process is not now, nor has it ever been, just about academic credentials.

This decision saddens me on a number of levels. Not only does it reaffirm that the admissions process, like the SAT’s and IQ tests, gives preferential treatment to people of means and opportunity, many of whom are white, but it diminishes the quality of the communities at our colleges and universities. Having diverse populations brings an enriched dynamic to a college campus. We can never walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, but we can learn from them and their experiences. Our upbringing and the cultures that we are a part of make-up who we are. We bring our past with us wherever we go, including a college campus. Our differences make the fabric of these communities richer and more vibrant. The court’s decision will make that infinitely harder. This, in my opinion, is a lose, lose for everybody.

About the Author

Ken Abrahams is a 1982 graduate of Connecticut College. His degree is in Sociology, and he has been fascinated by the law for years. He is the father of 2 grown boys so this decision will not impact them, but it will impact his grandkids and future great grandkids. Most of his clients are colleges and universities. This decision will impact the people that he works with and potentially the events that happen on those campuses.

To find out more about the company go to our website www.funent.com you can also go to this link to sign up for our newsletter which comes out about 6 times a year    https://funent.com/subscribe-to-the-funny-pages/.  Our newsletter will tell you more about the company and the products and services we offer as well as some games, things to do, and the occasional cooking tip.