In the United States, affirmative action has been, and continues to be a heavily debated topic since its introduction 40 years ago. At the university level, affirmative action can be described as practices which goal is to strengthen the resume for groups that have been deemed historically excluded, such as minorities, in the college application process. This involves evaluating factors such as race, ethnicity, as well as income, when determining which applicants get accepted into the university and how scholarship money and financial aid is distributed. Affirmative action at universities has been altered since its creation in the 1970s through various Supreme Court cases such as Bakke V. Regents of the University of California, Grutter V. Bollinger, and most recently Fisher v. University of Texas. Since affirmative action practices at universities primary focus is promote diversity by giving minority groups preferential treatment in the application process, it is not surprising that these practices continue to create a divided commentary. Those who oppose affirmative action often argue that universities should admit students based on merit and that factors such as race should be left out of the college admissions process. On the other hand, those in favor of affirmative action at universities argue that its policies allow minority groups to overcome the socio-economic barriers they experience, creating accessibility. Although the arguments raised in opposition of affirmative are valid, for the time being, affirmative action policies should continue to be implemented at the university level, if it gradually reduces the socio-economic barriers faced by minorities, and in turn eliminating the need for affirmative action.

Affirmative action and its standards has been altered numerous times through various Supreme Court cases regarding universities and their applicants. The commonality between each of these cases is how the court determines whether the universities practices are unconstitutional. The standard for constitutionality of affirmative action policies is defined as the university implementing such practices of affirmative action to promote diversity of the university. The problem with this criteria for determining whether or not a university is in the wrong, is that this definition is too broad, and subject to interpretation, therefore allowing opinions to be contributed from those who oppose, and those who are in favor of affirmative action policies. The driving force behind these arguments and opinions is essentially what role should institutions and the government play in promoting fairness in selective situations, more specifically, college admissions. Those against affirmative action policies argue that by factoring in race, institutions have created an unfair advantage for minority groups and are attempting to promote a certain level of equality of outcomes. On the other hand, those in favor of affirmative action policies argue that through using race as a factor, institutions are leveling the playing field for minority groups, and are attempting to promote equality of opportunity and accessibility (CrashCourse).

While affirmative action is very beneficial to minority groups in the college application and admission process, for those who oppose of its practices there are specific situations in which this opposition is valid. Those who are against affirmative action practices often raise the issue that its definition is too broad. By this I mean that while one individual who belongs to a minority group could have faced many socio-economic barriers and hardships, another individual belonging to the same group may have not experienced any of these hardships yet receive the same benefits of affirmative action just because of their ethnicity or race. More specifically, as a Hispanic male, I grew up in a nice neighborhood, and was not challenged economically or socially. Yet I am still considered through affirmative action policies as historically excluded and receive the benefits these policies offer. While this is a valid point, it can be represented in support of the idea that as time passes the need for affirmative action will diminish. This is evident as the very barriers that affirmative action is supposed to help minorities overcome I was not presented with. Therefore, as minorities such as Hispanics and African Americans continue to benefit from affirmative action policies their incomes increase and the need to overcome socio-economic barriers decreases as the barriers are no longer being faced.

Often when people think about affirmative action, their perception is that it uses race as one of the main factors in admissions, however this is not the case. In fact, affirmative action has evolved to what it is currently through various supreme court rulings in which certain aspects of affirmative action were approved while others modified to keep the practices fair. In the study, Diversity Challenged, Dr. Gary Orfield represents race as it relates to college admissions as a “plus factor”. Describing race as a plus factor in admissions, highlights the idea that while affirmative action policies allow universities to factor in race, the primary factor in admission will always be academic ability. So while much of the opposition to affirmative action policies stems from people thinking that race is the end all be all in affirmative action, this notion is false. Universities are still focused on what the academic ability of a student is, and most universities would not admit a student who they do not think could succeed at their university. It is also important to remember that universities are also striving to achieve diversity not solely through race but through various other factors such as geographic location, income, gender, age, etc. These factors allow universities to achieve diversity without necessarily having to place high value on race in order to attain diversity for their university (Orfield 68). It is often easy to forget this idea as race being a plus factor in a scenario such as college admissions which are often subjective and end with a clear winner and loser. 

When evaluating minority groups and how they fare in college applications, and admissions, one of the largest issues present is the inability to pay for a college tuition. In 2016, nationwide averages for yearly costs at four year institutions were $33,480 at private universities, $9,650 at in-state public universities, and $24,930 at out-of-state public universities, all of which do not include room and board (CollegeBoard 9). Compare this to the median household incomes of minority groups such as African Americans and Hispanics who earned $35,398 and $42,491 respectively in that same year (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Following this data, we can see that for the average minority household, it is often not economically viable to attend even the cheapest of four-year universities, and instead often opt enter the workforce at a much lower paying job than one which requires a college degree. For students such as these, affirmative action can have its greatest impact as it targets minorities who are unable to afford the cost of college finds them scholarship money, grants, and other forms of financial aid that allow them to manage the cost of earning an education. Evaluating the income disparity between groups such as Africans Americans and Hispanics compared to Whites, the difference is quite staggering, however it should come as no surprise that much less African Americans and Hispanics are attending college and receiving degrees, therefore causing most high paying job fields to be predominately white. Affirmative action policies not only lead to minorities attending college who could not before due to income, but also a decrease in the income disparity between minority groups as more minorities would be receiving degrees and receiving high paying jobs.

This concept of providing for minorities now, so that in the future the need for affirmative action is the main fuel behind why I am arguing what I am. The issue with this idea of providing for minorities is that the measures taken cannot be too severe as it would be promoting equality of outcome which is not a good thing. There is also an issue with the measures taken being too lenient and not doing enough for minorities to get access to the opportunities they are seeking. This idea relates to my side of the argument which is influenced by one of the key points raised in the 2003 affirmative action Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, where Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “I expect that 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary” (Liptak). Justice O’Connor statement is justifiable because in practice, if affirmative action policies are effective at reducing hardships and barriers faced by minorities, that in time these issues should slowly lessen. This idea is crucial to the affirmative action argument, as it is necessary for there to be a time limit of the practices. By this, I mean that it would defeat the purpose of bettering conditions for minorities in university applications if there was not any sort of time limit placed on the practice. Justice O’Connor stating 25 years from now she believes it will not be necessary also lessens the divide between opposing opinions first for those who oppose, creating a time frame in which she believes affirmative action will not be necessary after, and for more niche arguments such as my own that while affirmative action is needed now, in the near future, these policies should become unnecessary.

Looking ahead, the main issue is whether or not affirmative action practices will stick at colleges and universities, and at the moment all signs point to no. Legislation regarding affirmative action policies is determined on a state by state basis and therefore individual states have the power to ban affirmative action practices as a whole. So far, a total of nine states have banned affirmative action by voter referenda, including Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, and California to name a few (Bangs). While I argue that eventually the need for affirmative action will diminish, I do not believe that banning the practice is the proper solution. As a proponent for affirmative action, instead of banning affirmative action, I think that possibly modifying the current definition of affirmative action to better suit its goal would be steps in the right direction. By modifying the policies, I mean that instead of the current affirmative action, which looks at race to determine need, changes should be made so that affirmative action policies could be more specific and more precisely determine who out of the applicant pool is in need. This would include looking at factors such as income, wealth, parent’s education level, single parent status, or whether a student is the first in their family to attend college. Taking factors such as these into account and using them to determine how preferential treatment should be used would give a much better representation of what a student’s needs were to attend college. This would help remedy the issue faced by current affirmative action which is that those who are a part of a minority group may be able to take advantage of benefits even if they do not require them. Looking at these factors coupled with test scores and academic performance in school would also give a much better idea of what a student might be dealing without outside of academics and determine if they should be given any preference.

The problem affirmative action policies in the admissions process at universities is that it creates a strong divide as it is inevitable some students will be accepted while other will be denied. The divide between sides is so strong because the minority groups who are receiving benefits feel that affirmative action is necessary for them to be able to compete, while those who oppose the practices feel that they are being penalized for no fault of their own. While originally created in the attempt to level the playing field between minorities and majority groups, since the creation of affirmative action, many changes have been made in order to try and create the best way to benefit groups considered to be historically excluded. While affirmative action at universities is not a perfect system, it is however, very beneficial to minorities who may be unable to attend college for various reasons without the benefits of its policies. Although currently affirmative action is being implemented in many colleges and universities around the country, eventually, if the programs serve their purpose, the socio-economic barriers faced by minorities should gradually decrease, eventually eliminating the need for preferential treatment in the college admissions process.
