Reporter's Notebook

The End of Affirmative Action?
Show Description +

Readers debate the merits of affirmative action following the December 2015 oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas (which ended in a 4-3 ruling upholding AA in June 2016). Contribute your own views via

Show 5 Newer Notes

'Check Your Privilege, Kids, but Don't Check a Race Box'

That’s what this reader recommends:

I am an under-represented minority with a mixed background who never checked the box during college admissions. In a state that only measures race composition afterwards and does not consider it in admission, that was a formality. But regardless, I don’t want preference or discrimination.

What I see at work, where I report on student demographics, is that fewer and fewer students are checking boxes. Those opting out first are likely students who believe it would disadvantage them, followed by students of mixed race who don’t agree with the terminology of “other”/“multi”/“mixed.”

My children and I have names that belie our complex mixed background (hyphens are too troublesome). Will admissions officers then look at the last names and try to determine race? Will they pore over essays that conveniently mention neither mama’s kimchi nor grandma’s gumbo, desperate for clues?

Can this be an “out” for Asian students? My children may be classified as Asian, since their father is from Western Asia. I would never ask them to choose one heritage over another. But what will they do?

And what happens when we all opt out?

2012 stats for undergrads at UC Berkeley, which under CA law doesn’t allow affirmative action

A reader of Asian descent makes a key distinction:

I strongly oppose the notion that Asian Americans should view affirmative action as being a competitive process only between minorities. Specifically, I am writing in to partially disagree with the Asian American reader who wrote:

When we talk at the group level, AA [affirmative action] is about “blacks getting the same advantage whites always had,” but at an individual level, it means smart Asian kids getting shut out in favor of black or other underrepresented minority kids.

I don’t think the statistics warrant his/her notion that Asians are being rejected for only underrepresented minorities. I think the unspoken quotas currently in place at Ivies are for protecting the Caucasian ratio. If you look at Cal-tech and the UC systems that have done away with affirmative action, it would seem to validate this view.

That seems to be true. Take UC-Berkeley: Their diversity statistics show 3 percent Black, 49 percent Asian, and 29 percent White. Harvard, where affirmative action is allowed, had a record high last year of 12 percent Black—a figure school’s website promotes alongside its 21 percent Asian figure … but it doesn’t provide a White percentage (though that figure appears to be roughly 50 percent when Harvard’s four non-White categories are subtracted from the whole). So if more Asians were allowed into Harvard, they would likely cut into that 50 percent, not the 12 percent Black or 13 percent Hispanic—figures that affirmative action was created to maintain.

This reader proposes a solution to prevent direct competition between underrepresented minorities:

The quotas and “negative affirmative action” practiced upon Asians (i.e. they must perform at a higher level than whites to have equal chances of admissions) can be ended without ending the “positive affirmative action” that exists for blacks (and Latinos, Filipinos, Cambodians, etc.). Admissions officers could simply place applicants into either a race-blind or race-conscious pool depending on the representation of that applicant’s race at the university relative to the overall population of the country (easily available from census data).

A reader of Asian descent makes a historical connection:

The very notion that Asians should be collectively “limited” is outrageous, a direct parallel to the infamous quotas on Jewish students once imposed at many of these same institutions in the early 20th century. Asians are a historically marginalized group in this country. We lack any operative power in terms of political, social, or institutional influence that would make any collective success subject to just intervention on the level of individuals.

A good source for this Jewish-American history is Jerome Karabel’s The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. He spoke with Bloomberg about his findings:

Karabel: Harvard, Yale and Princeton, up until the very early 1920s, had an exam-based system of admission. If you passed you were admitted. If you failed you were turned away. If you were in the gray zone, then they might admit you on conditions but basically, if you passed, regardless of your social background, you would be admitted.

That was precisely why the system was judged to be no longer viable because too many of the wrong students, the ``undesirable'' students -- that is, predominantly, Jewish students of East European background -- started to pass the exams.

From a reader of East Asian heritage:

When my son was in seventh grade, one of his friend told him that even if he is the football team captain and the student council president, gets straight A’s and a perfect SAT score, he still won’t be able to get into Harvard—just because he is an Asian. (He was the running back of his school football team at the time and a member of school student council.) He asked me if this is true. It saddened me that I couldn’t simply tell him it is not.

When my daughter was six, she played a game at a Girl Scout meeting to learn that they are all equal despite their different skin colors and looks; race doesn’t matter. She was taught so at home and at school for 17 years and she believed in it. I often heard her say that “race doesn’t matter” when the word was “race” mentioned—until her senior year in high school. I asked her what was so great about her friend to make him be accepted to Harvard.  Instead of telling me about his accomplishments, she said that his mother (a Caucasian woman) has some sort of Hispanic lineage, so he is a “Hispanic”.  

This race-based admission process slaps everybody on the face. It tells kids what hypocrites we all are. Our school district has zero tolerance for racial discrimination. Our children were told for all their lives that they should judge people by their character, not skin color. But right before our kids leave home for college, it is our country’s most prestigious institutions that FIRST bring them the news: What your parents and teachers have taught you are lies: Race does matter! We judge you by your skin color!

From an old Dish reader:

It is great to see you in action at The Atlantic curating the discussion instead of letting it devolve into a shouting match between trolls. As an younger, single Asian, I was completely in agreement with affirmative action. I could see that a lot of minority kids did not have the resources and means to get the kind of education that typically wealthy, white kids received. So AA as a corrective made a lot of sense to me.

Two things have made me question my perspective.

A reader writes:

Any discussion about affirmative action is incomplete without a discussion of learning mismatch. The evidence is pretty clear at this point that mismatch is real and producing negative outcomes. Here is a post that discusses it in the context of Fisher.

That post is by Richard Sander, an economist and law professor at UCLA who has spent more than a decade studying the theory of “mismatch”—when the college application of a student who benefitted from affirmative action is significantly weaker than the average student’s at the same college, and thus the AA student would be a better “match” at a less competitive school because he or she is more likely to thrive—both in college and after graduation. Sander argues that a mismatch ends up disadvantaging an AA student even more than if he or she had originally attended a less prestigious college. From his post:

A second form of mismatch—“competition” mismatch—occurs when students abandon particular fields, or college itself, because of the practical and psychological effects of competing with better-prepared students.

John McWhorter, the linguistics professor at Columbia who should contribute to The Atlantic more often, invoked Sander in a piece for CNN yesterday on the Fisher case:

Now, at this point, many object that despite the mismatch, the students excel nevertheless. Here is the rub: the data is in, and in crucial ways and too often, they do not.

A reader in favor of affirmative action, Adrian Gallegos, introduces a new factor to our debate:

Just as a generalization, most minorities don’t have the social capital to take or gain advantages from nepotism as non-minorities do, either consciously or unconsciously. The new word for that is called networking. Networks take time to be established.

A reader who can attest to the power of networking is “an African American who attended a string of elite schools on scholarship from before college through grad school”:

Notwithstanding Justice Roberts’s comments about the benefits of diversity in physics class, the plaintiff herself in Fisher noted that what she was most upset about was the lost alumni connections regarding UT. This is why Justice Scalia’s comments were most disturbing to me, because even if minorities excel academically in “slower” schools, everyone knows the biggest benefits of college are enjoyed after graduation. Good schools will give you a degree and great schools will get you the degree and some connections. Minorities will never be able to affect institutional change within a bubble of such segregation.

Yes, students shouldn’t be pushed to attend schools they can’t graduate from, but I refuse to have others try to make me feel bad for my “lacking” academic performance in comparison to those who benefited from all kinds of tutors, special testing arrangements, medications, etc.  And, of course, we can get really deep and talk about the discriminatory history of the GI bill/ benefits, redlining, and other forms of institutional racism that existed well into the mid of the 20th century.

The African American reader at an Ivy League university who expressed some discomfort with affirmative action responds to the older Black reader who scoffed at her email:

I would start by saying that there is no way I can confirm my identity without disclosing my name, the college I went to, and a picture of my face. Since I happen to be applying to graduate schools, I’d rather not have my name attached to anything too controversial.

Instead of that, I would rather address some of the points made. Before I state anything, I’d like to give a nod to how much work was done to fight for the rights of black students to attend elite schools and have the opportunity to succeed. It is a legacy I am aware of and that I carry with me everyday.

One of the points the other reader made was that I was “shamed by AA.” I hope I didn’t come off that way. Affirmative action could not erase my achievements, and I believe “shame” is best used for when the person in question is actually guilty of wrongdoing. What I was trying to get across was that because my acceptance into an Ivy was seen as “being due to AA,” I felt that all my hard work had been overlooked or erased by my classmates. That also put extra pressure on me in college because I felt like I needed to prove that I belonged to be there, both to others and to myself.

I don’t think my sentiments are strange in the black community; but what does concern me is that whenever I or others voice our questions or struggles with AA, we are seen as “not real black people,” or like “Clarence Thomas.” I would hope that I could express my reservations about AA without being seen as some kind of Uncle Tom or boogeyman.

The following reader seems to agree with our Ivy League black reader, who suggests that if forms of non-racial, non-academic preferences are given to students all the time (e.g. legacy), then race-based affirmative action, however flawed, should be in the mix as well:

The question should be framed as one bigger than race: Should a school be allowed to consider its needs when building an incoming class? A school may desire to promote donations by giving a preference to donors, athletic reputation by giving preference to athletes, political currency by giving preference to the children of celebrities, or a more inclusive culture by giving preference to historically underrepresented classes. Should a school have this kind of discretion?

If so, it seems reasonable that a school should have it in all areas, including race, rather than disproportionately in those areas where discretion will tend to favor the wealthy.

Another reader suspects that I, or the black Ivy League reader, might have fabricated her email and its personal angst with affirmative action (for the record, her identity and Ivy status were confirmed prior to publication):

Why do white people always go get (or make up) some letter from some poor black student who says he or she was harmed or shamed by affirmative action? It’s such bullshit.

But I get it. As a black man whose undergrad years were right at the start of this—1969 to 1973—I’m used to white distraction and bullshit. I have never known a black student who said they were shamed by AA. Never. If you find one you should videotape them and put it up on Youtube.

The most compelling email I’ve seen in our discussion so far:

I am a black student who went to an Ivy League School for undergrad and now applying to graduate school. I am very split about affirmative action. On one hand, I hate it. I am never recognized for any of my accomplishments, never given the respect I feel is due because of affirmative action. When I got into my Ivy League undergrad (and unlike Abigail Fisher, I was actually in the top 10 percent of my class when I was applying to college). I took the second hardest course load in my school, had a 2250 SAT, and pretty much knocked the Verbal section out of the park by getting a cool 800.

But the same classmates I went to school with, spoke to, and beat in competitions grumbled behind my back: “It was affirmative action.” That cut me deeply in a way that I have never forgiven them.

This reader, Athena Kifah, isn’t so sure:

“In the weird constitutional language of affirmative action,” writes Garrett Epps in The Atlantic today, “no one is allowed to say what they really mean.”

Past judicial rulings have allowed for a holistic approach in college admissions based on the abstract idea that a diverse learning community is in the interest of all students. But this is not how many people view affirmative action; they see it as compensatory, a necessary step towards erasing systemic and historical disadvantages that have prevented minority individuals—in particular, Black and African-Americans and Native Americans—from achieving the same levels of monetary success as their White counterparts.

But while this idea of atoning for past sins through affirmative action is logical and appealing in theory, its implementation would be problematic. How does one determine which minorities have been systemically or historically disadvantaged? Would this exclude any Black individual who has immigrated to the U.S. since ... when? After slavery? After Jim Crow? After the Civil Rights era? Where do we draw the divide in our timeline to establish who has faced enough generations of discrimination to be owed something by the U.S.? And how would such a lineage, if specified, ever be proven? By this metric, virtually no new immigrants would meet the criteria to be a recipient of affirmative action.

I agree, as I venture most would, that increasing the range of perspectives within any learning space is beneficial to learning. But what does that mean? How is that being achieved? Is the highest metric of “diversity” strictly racial? Experiences within race can be extremely varied, in both White and non-White communities. There are ranges of privilege, wealth, and educational attainment within each community, metrics that also contribute significantly to what “diversity” a student might bring to the table.

I believe it is also worth noting, particularly in this political climate, that Middle Eastern and North African people are all census designated as White.

Richard Kahlenberg wrote a great piece for us yesterday about the future of affirmative action and “how a conservative decision at the Supreme Court could lead to a liberal outcome”—how striking down explicitly racial preferences in college admissions could lead, paradoxically, to even better results for racial and economic diversity. Here’s Kahlenberg:

My Century Foundation colleague Halley Potter has found that in the 10 states where racial affirmative action was dropped [because of state bans], eight states adopted class-based affirmative action programs; eight expanded financial-aid budgets; three rewarded students with the top GPA in each high school and downplayed standardized tests scores; and two adopted stronger programs to allow students to transfer from community colleges to four-year institutions. In three states, individual universities dropped legacy preferences for the children of alumni that tend to benefit white and wealthy students. Not only did these programs usually produce as much racial diversity as did racial preferences, they also jumpstarted social mobility, new evidence suggests.

The Supreme Court case at issue for Kahlenberg is Fisher v. University of Texas II, which had oral arguments today. The transcript was just released and is available here.

From a reader who is very sympathetic to the idea of affirmation action:

But the thing about affirmative action, above all else, is that it must be a temporary thing.