Diversity has long been considered a secret to America’s success. We use our melting pot of ideas to fuel our endless innovations. We acknowledge varied opinions to make thoughtful decisions. We rely on our diverse population for a better democracy. So what happens when this integral part of the American identity is challenged? With the Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision to end affirmative action in higher education, the answer is uncertain.

Affirmative action policies for colleges have a long and complex history, with their origins dating back to the civil rights movement in the 1960s. They were introduced as a way to address historical injustices faced by Black and Hispanic communities in the United States. The idea behind affirmative action was to level the playing field and provide opportunities for marginalized groups, particularly African Americans, who had long been denied access to quality education and employment due to systemic racism and discrimination. In the landmark decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court supported the creation of affirmative action. It said that considering race as one of many factors in a holistic admissions process would help break down racial barriers, promoting diversity on college campuses.

This idea was notably challenged in 2013 by Michael Wang, an Asian-American student who filed a complaint with the Department of Education against elite colleges like Princeton, Yale, and Stanford. Wang alleged that these universities were unfairly considering race as a factor in admissions, which he believed put him at a disadvantage despite his superior standardized test scores. His argument rested on the notion that affirmative action was inadvertently causing Asian-American applicants to face higher admission standards compared to peers from other racial backgrounds. 

Although Wang has stated that he now regrets the movement he started, his initial complaint became the foundation for the two most recent Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina decisions, which stated that colleges can no longer consider race in the admissions process, deeming such policies unconstitutional. One of the arguments proposed by Students for Fair Admissions, a coalition led by white conservative activist Edward Blum, was that affirmative action had gone on too far and too long, leading to another form of bias: “reverse discrimination”. But if anything, affirmative action has been too short-lived; as Justice Sonia Sotomayor states in her dissent, the Supreme Court’s decision is “grounded in the illusion that racial inequality was a problem of a different generation. Entrenched racial inequality remains a reality today.”

Of course, affirmative action was not perfect, nor was it viable as a long-term solution to centuries of injustice. But removing it completely was also not the answer. The recent decision can result in some serious problems, such as reducing diversity and discouraging people of color from applying to prestigious colleges. According to Harvard and U.S. Census Bureau statistics, the admitted class of 2026 at Harvard University comprised 13% Hispanic, 15% Black, and 28% Asian American students, compared to the national distribution of 20% Hispanic, 16.5% Black, and 7% Asian college-age Americans. At Harvard, Black and Hispanic students are still underrepresented compared to the overall population, while Asian Americans are overrepresented. This means that despite affirmative action having been in place for almost 50 years, there is still much work to be done to bridge the gap for marginalized populations. But this also means that without affirmative action, proper representation will be even more difficult.

What’s most disheartening to me as an Asian American is how this issue has led to increased tension among minorities, particularly between Asian American and Black communities. This conflict stems from the idea that affirmative action is a “zero-sum” game: one applicant’s acceptance prevents another’s; in other words, for someone to win, someone else has to lose. However, there is no proof that this is the case, and college admissions have always been a gray area of subjectivity. Furthermore, banning affirmative action has been found to have no significant benefit to Asian American students, which was a large goal of this movement. For example, after California banned colleges’ consideration of race in 1998, there was little to no change in admission rates for Asian American students. Meanwhile, Black and Hispanic/Latinx students bore the brunt of the ban, seeing an immediate drop of 40% in enrollment at selective colleges. It seems there is no real winner here (except for white applicants).

Still, the hard truth remains that affirmative action is over in the U.S. for now and in the foreseeable future. So what can we do to preserve educational equity despite this? First, we should end all preferential treatment programs like legacy admissions. This practice of favoring children of college alumni or sponsors has become a large point of contention because white families, having been around longer, make up the majority of generational alumni. In the case of Harvard, 70% of legacy applicants are white. If we end affirmative action because it gives one group an “unfair” advantage over another, we must end all such practices, including legacy admissions. Meanwhile, we must address the issue of education inequality at the root. Affirmative action was created because of the historical socioeconomic obstacles faced by Black and Hispanic students, who were more likely to live in low-income areas and in turn receive a lower-quality education. To remedy this, increasing funding for primary and secondary schools in these marginalized neighborhoods could be a step in the right direction. We can also strengthen support programs like financial aid and scholarships geared toward serving underrepresented students. 

Most importantly, it is essential to remember that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Pacific Islander, and Asian Americans all share an identity as part of the minority community. In the wake of divisive disagreements on affirmative action, we must make a point of staying united to pursue a world of opportunities for all. Only together can we keep our country on track for progress and not regression.