Affirmative action was struck down by the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard in 2023. In most cases, this essay would be simple. It would start with a bold statement: affirmative action deliberately and explicitly discriminates against and robs opportunities from Asian Americans. But SFA v. Harvard is the exact opposite of what it should have been. It should have been a case that struck down a set of policies that, historically, have done more harm than good. Instead, it was the latest in an 8-time Supreme Court litigant’s series of attempts to strike down affirmative action using hand-picked sob stories. It should have been a case that showed that in many parts of the US, including Florida, the epitome of American conservatism, a lack of affirmative action has not prevented minority populations in colleges from growing alongside the general populace. Instead, it was a case that featured that same man giving 3 different statistics for 2 different talking points on Fox and PBS. It should have been a case where Asian Americans presented a united front and a moderate stance against a policy that has discriminated against Asian Americans for decades. Instead, the nation saw stereotypical tiger parents present outlandish stories and obviously personally offended opinions that divided the Asian American population and positioned it as an object of ridicule for all to see.
To begin, it’s important to look at Edward Blum, a conservative activist who served as the figurehead of SFA v. Harvard. Born in 1952, Blum is a white-haired white man who serves as the director (and, allegedly, sole member) of the Project for Fair Representation (though he disputes allegations of his solitude). He also founded and heads the American Alliance for Equal Rights, an organization that sued Fearless Fund for giving out grants to women of color. In order to find plaintiffs for his numerous anti-affirmative action cases, he created 4 nearly identical websites, each corresponding to a different university, that allowed candidates to submit an application to take part in the case. Before his success with SFA v. Harvard, there was Fisher v. University of Texas, a case in which Blum tried to argue that a student who failed to make the top 10% of her class and who got only an 1180 on the SAT was being racially discriminated against when the University of Texas rejected her. His plaintiffs of choice were two white undergraduate students, though one dropped out later on, but even then, he enlisted the help of 3 different Asian American organizations in order to file the amicus briefs for his Supreme Court case.
Having lost that case, Blum then rallied the Asian American community behind Students for Fair Admissions, an offshoot of his Project for Fair Representation, and sued Harvard. During the case, he appeared on Fox News multiple times, pushing the idea of Harvard having a racial quota that limited Asian Americans from comprising more than 17% of admissions. The problem? At times, that number was 19% or 15%, and all three numbers are wrong. Harvard admission data shows that the proportion of admissions to the college comprised of Asian American admissions has continued to rise throughout the years, though perhaps not keeping pace with the Asian American population in the US. Moreover, other components of Blum’s case referred to Harvard’s holistic admissions process, a process that, by nature, clashes with a quota system. Yet Edward Blum, a man who picks on funds for women of color and who picks and plays with plaintiffs like marionettes, won. With a conservative majority led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and a case lauded by the Trump administration, Blum managed to end his crusade against affirmative action on a note of success.
And so, affirmative action was banned. With mainstream media criticizing the decision as a step backward in social justice and with almost all the evidence pointing to that, you’d be forgiven if you believed that affirmative action was, overall, a good thing. You may believe that it was a good policy with faults, or a necessary step in increasing diversity. But that’s exactly the problem. Even though, according to Pew, 50% of Americans oppose race or ethnicity being considered in college admissions, compared to 33% that agree. Affirmative action has become a martyr. Those that support affirmative action are now able to point at all the faults of the Supreme Court case and label it as yet another conservative crusade against equality, like the ban on AP African American Studies in Florida and the revisionist edits to the recounting of slavery (also in Florida). And although, even in Florida, a lack of affirmative action has not stopped minority populations in universities from growing with the general populace, this statistic will be dismissed in favor of the fact that the median salary of minorities in California, another state where affirmative action has been banned, has gone down since that ban.
On the topic of such statistics, this decrease should be obvious. Before the ban, minority students were given an artificial advantage to attend elite universities, and so more minority students attended elite universities. Those students went on to get better jobs, and so with the end of affirmative action, not as many minority students went on to get better jobs. The idea that the decreasing level of diversity from the end of affirmative action means that affirmative action is necessary, however, is ignorant. Those that come from underprivileged backgrounds are, by the very nature of the nation’s school system, underprepared in comparison to those from more privileged upbringings. The solution lies in better primary and secondary education, standardized schooling across the nation, an increase in state-sponsored extracurriculars, the abolishment of pro-child labor laws like that which exist in Texas, and better college counseling in public schools. The solution is not bolstering an unprepared student’s chance to go to a college where they will most likely find themselves overwhelmed. And not just overwhelmed: ostracized as well. In fact, even students who got in without affirmative action can find themselves shunned on the basis of their race and the assumption that they were admitted on the basis of said race: this is the exact opposite of what these supposed race-conscious policies aim to do.
Moreover, it makes even less sense to justify affirmative action as a way to allow students from less fortunate economic backgrounds to attend elite universities. Scholarships exist, in many cases, solely for the case that a student qualifies for a university and can’t afford it. But to admit underprepared students to these universities, is, yet again, cruel not only to the student who lost their spot but also to the student who now has to contend with life in a school in which they are completely and utterly overwhelmed. Admission to a college should be need-blind: admit those who have the experience and knowledge to attend a school, then assist those who don’t necessarily have the resources to attend that school. Instead, what systems like affirmative action and more direct need-based admissions, including Harvard’s holistic review, enact is that process in reverse. Admit those without the resources to attend a school, and then admit others who are prepared. And this doesn’t just build an unfair reality for applicants; in this manner, those underprivileged admittees may be left without scholarships because they lack the necessary academic qualifications that many high-value scholarships require.
Meanwhile, this entire ordeal has left the Asian American community divided and ridiculed. Often seen as a model minority with natural intelligence and an obsessiveness over college admissions, the idea that an organization supposedly representing Asian Americans sued Harvard has been made out to be tiger parents throwing a fit that their children didn’t get into the Ivy school of their choice. But that isn’t what this is about: SFA v. Harvard fails to properly represent the majority of Asian Americans. Imagine studying and working your entire life to go to a college you want to go to, but being rejected not because you’re unqualified but because of a policy supposedly designed to help minorities like you. Asian Americans aren’t naturally smart, as so many subconsciously believe. Instead, the immigrant culture that developed around the Asian American experience is one of academic success for rewards later down the line. And though many deny it, laugh at it, criticize the mere criticism of it, there is a limited number of spots to a college.
Why should we have to settle for second best? To say that second best should be good enough is to be ignorant and dismissive. Why is it that for any other person, intelligence is a trait to be lauded, but for an Asian, it’s because “you’re Asian”? Why is it that we’re told to settle for what we have, when we deserve more? Why are we, a minority that has historically experienced violence, racism, exile from the nation, considered just as privileged as the white colonizers who came here? Because we’ve been a model minority? Affirmative action is a complicated subject, with a complicated history. And SFA v. Harvard was the wrong case to end it all. But the statistics, and basic common sense, show that it had to end somehow. Now it’s time to consider - at what cost?
Affirmative Action | Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (n.d.). Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/affirmative-action/
Americans and affirmative action: How the public sees the consideration of race in college admissions, hiring. (n.d.). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans-and-affirmative-action-how-the-public-sees-the-consideration-of-race-in-college-admissions-hiring/
The Conservative Activist Who Brought Down Affirmative Action Has a New Target. (n.d.). Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fearless-fund-vc-fund-edward-blum-affirmative-action-1234808930/
Garcia-Navarro, L. (2023, July 8). He Worked for Years to Overturn Affirmative Action and Finally Won. He’s Not Done. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/us/edward-blum-affirmative-action-race.html