The Fall of Affirmative Action and what it Means for KIS Students
Protestors at the Supreme Court Affirmative Action Hearing
Just over a month ago on July 29th, the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action, a set of policies that had determined the demographics within universities for over half a century. Now, university admissions are moving away from a racial quota when considering applicants. The result of this trial, which included Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, marks the end of an era, although for better or worse, only time will tell. However, regardless of our opinion on affirmative action, we must consider how this will affect us in our transition away from high school students. With KIS students having gone to over 95 different U.S. colleges in the past 4 years, most students can seek to benefit from understanding more about the affirmative action policies.
For students with American citizenship, the effects of the outlaw of affirmative action will largely vary on their ethnicity and background. This consists of nearly half (48 percent) of our KIS students. Minority groups, specifically Black and Hispanic students, can expect a significant drop in general admittance to more competitive colleges. Compared to 1996, when universities in California gutted affirmative action, underrepresented minorities (URM) “applicants became at least 40 percentage points less likely to be admitted to UC’s more-selective Berkeley and UCLA campuses,” according to a report published by Zachary Bleemer, a research associate at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the UC Berkeley. On the other hand, simply on a merit-based competition, Asian and White students will be able to be more regularly admitted to elite campuses. Previously, Asian students had to score 450 more points than their Black counterparts and 140 more points than their White counterparts.
Still, the future for URM students is not as bleak as it may appear. From the Supreme Court ruling, universities are still able to consider race as a facet of one’s character and personality, meaning admission officers will not be completely blind to race. Moreover, this shift away from affirmative action is not completely abrupt. Even prior to this case, nine states had already banned affirmative action. So while the change is the largest step since the inception of affirmative action, the following effects may not be as extreme as one might expect, especially in schools within these nine states that may already have methods that ensure diversity.
On the other hand, the 52 percent of KIS students without U.S. citizenship will face a more indirect and uncertain impact. The American International Recruitment Council (AIRC) predicts a negative outcome for international students who face the threat of more competition. On the contrary, since many colleges admit international students without regard to their race group, some predict little to no impact on these students. So again, with a not-so-clear division on who benefits and who loses, it again brings us back to the original question that began this trial in the first place: is affirmative action fair?
As a Korean American student at KIS, I would love to attend college without the burden of having to wonder whether or not my race is tied to my admission. Ideally, a racially blind world would have no need for affirmative action to ensure diversity. But to state the glaringly obvious, that isn’t the world we live in. Nevertheless, working towards some type of this future is still the right decision, even if it might end in failure. Affirmative action can only be a temporary solution to the symptoms of America’s division in race and class. And the quicker we move away from these policies, the quicker we might end up in that ideal world we dream of.