Affirmative action fails to address root problems Riordan Roundtable Spartan Spear

individuals with their backgrounds in consideration rather than solely on their qualifications can also create harmful stereotypes that suggest they are under-qualified because their acceptance or hire was not purely based on merit. Thus, it furthers the resentment and bigotry minorities so frequently encounter.

By Naomi Lin ’24

Affirmative action refers to the act or policy of intentionally choosing individuals from historically marginalized or discriminated groups in an effort to combat discrimination.

It has existed since the 19th century and was first used in the context of civil rights by former President John F. Kennedy in Executive Order 10925, which stated, “The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

In theory, this novel method of favoring individuals from historically marginalized groups appears highly beneficial; it opens pathways that were previously inaccessible, increases diversity, and ensures that the viewpoints and talents of individuals of different backgrounds are taken into consideration.

However, giving preferential treatment to minorities can exclude those of another background who are equally, if not more qualified. Likewise, admitting or hiring

If the objective of affirmative action is to encourage diversity and combat discrimination, it should first examine the underlying issues within society, such as poverty and insufficient education for those in impoverished areas.

Furthermore, instead of primarily implementing affirmative action at the college and workforce level, education institutions should ensure that all students receive the same baseline education through enrichment programs in preschool, before a learning gap forms. To solve this predicament, the federal government should increase funding for education so that schools nationwide offer the same high quality education, thereby eliminating the need for affirmative action.

All in all, affirmative action policies, while well-intentioned, are not effective enough to solve the issue of discrimination. Rather than favoring individuals of certain backgrounds, hoping it diversifies the education system and workforce and caters success to individuals of marginalized backgrounds, the government should address the underlying issues that create the need for affirmative action to begin with.

By Keiko Casserly ’23

Despite several challenges against it since its original inception, affirmative action — the practice of race-conscious admissions — has been asserted as constitutional and necessary by the courts. However, with the current Supreme Court, likely the most conservative Supreme Court the country has seen in the past century according to The Republican Party Committee, there is uncertainty around this current practice. As the times progress, the question of affirmative action’s necessity often arises. While this method of reserving spaces in universities, especially private institutions, was deeply, deeply necessary at the time of affirmative action’s implementation, the line between its positive and negative outcomes has now become murky. It is undeniable that the practice yields good results in providing access to excellent post-secondary education for minority students. In fact, while the University of California system remains diverse, this is arguably due to the diversity of the state itself, and since these universities’ discontinuation of the affirmative acrion practice in the 1970s, they have been unable to serve minorities in the way they once did. For instance, they have been unable to admit as many African American students as they did while using affirmative action admissions policies.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that affirmative action inherently will diminish the already depleting respect that these students will receive in a racist society. As people of color, myself included, there is a constant need to prove ourselves to others, to prove that we deserve to be here just as much as our peers. While affirmative action serves to “level the playing field,” it is also frequently used as leverage against us, some sort of “proof” that our admissions into particular schools — our achievements — were nothing short of a lucky break, an act of pity, or the need to meet a quota. In helping, it is simultaneously hindering us by creating yet another wall we have to climb over.

Furthermore, by focusing on race alone, affirmative actions often fail to account for economic barriers. Historically, the American minority population has been isolated in urban communities and perpetually kept in low income communities. As our definitions of diversity and the playing field itself begin to shift, it may be time for affirmative action, as it is relates to race, to broaden its scope. Perhaps, rather than focusing on race alone, a focus on elevating minority students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds may prove to be more effective.