“All men are created equal.”
Despite being in the Declaration of Independence since 1776, this key phrase has certainly been a fickle concept for society to grasp throughout history. Nearly a century passed before Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and several more decades progressed before both sexes were allowed to vote. Today, a similar instance of inequality and discrimination has arisen—albeit on a much smaller scale—in the form of tiny checkboxes asking for your race and ethnicity on your college application.
Significant controversy has stemmed from the presence of affirmative action in the college admissions process. Defined as actions or policies that favor individuals who currently suffer from discrimination, affirmative action manifests itself in the collegiate application process as a fundamental part of the “holistic decision” approach utilized by most universities and colleges. The “holistic decision” approach describes the evaluation process used by admissions officers, in which they consider multiple aspects of each applicant—including race—in order to determine their viability for acceptance.
Thus, an increasing number of high school students across America are coming to a singular and troubling consensus: all races simply aren’t equal when it comes to college admissions. As a result, many competitive students have become willing to exaggerate or even fake their own ethnicity on their college applications in order to get into the best colleges. For instance, a Caucasian applicant who is only one sixteenth Native American might be motivated to simply check themselves off as being exclusively Native American.
Many students across the country are outraged over the fact that race has any sway in one’s assessment at all. The fact that certain considerations are made based solely upon one’s race is completely contrary to the intended purpose of affirmative action: ensuring that all applicants are given an equal playing field, regardless of their ethnicity.
As a result, a concept known as “reverse discrimination” is in effect. Defined as discrimination against a majority group in favor of a minority or historically disadvantaged group, “reverse discrimination” is believed to be inherent in the affirmative action policies utilized by colleges and universities. With this in mind, it is often hard for many to distinguish preference from flat-out discrimination.
Thus, an important, albeit controversial, question must be posed: is the continued use of race and affirmative action in universities simply causing us to commit the very wrongs of the past the system itself seeks to atone for? Unfortunately, compelling evidence suggests that affirmative action is indeed damaging the integrity of the college admissions process.
According to Sara Harberson, a former admissions officer for both University of Pennsylvania and Franklin & Marshall College, the ability to identify and distinguish an applicant’s ethnicity has led to the formation of racial stereotypes. Specifically, colleges and universities hold specific academic and extracurricular expectations for each ethnicity. Thus, because universities desire to assemble an ideal class with perfect ethnic ratios, applicants are essentially forced to not only meet, but also exceed the common accomplishments and achievements of their race, rather than those of the applicant pool as a whole. In addition, Harberson’s description is in line with the findings of a 2009 study by Bloomberg News, which discovered that Asian-American applicants needed to score a 1550 out of 1600 on the SAT exam in order to be on par with white applicants scoring a 1410 and African American applicants scoring an 1100.
“Nowadays, nobody on an admissions committee would dare use the term racial ‘quotas,’ but racial stereotyping is alive and well,” Harberson said in her op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. “For example, there’s an expectation that Asian Americans will be the highest test scorers and at the top of their class; anything less can become an easy reason for a denial.”
Defined as numerical requirements for the admission of specific ethnicities and races, the “racial quotas” mentioned by Harberson are not officially allowed in college admissions. However, it cannot be denied that certain schools prioritize diversity on campus. For instance, the fact that Columbia University’s percentage of admitted Latinos hasn’t changed over the past three years (15 percent) certainly raises suspicion. Furthermore, its percentages for other ethnic groups have never varied by more than 2 percent over the past three years. As a result, many believe that for universities like Columbia, one’s race is of higher priority than their extracurriculars or academics. It seems that rather than assembling the best students, colleges are more focused on assembling a picture-perfect class to flash in their brochures.
“Reverse discrimination is absolutely an issue in college admissions,” former Stanford University admissions officer Irena Smith said, according to Yale Daily News. “Especially at the nation’s top schools, first generation Indian-Americans or Asian-Americans are overrepresented in the applicant pools, and they feel that they are being edged out because of their racial background. This is a completely justified complaint.”
However, many argue that affirmative action does serve an important purpose: giving opportunity. Specifically, due to race’s near-perfect correlation to socioeconomic status, racial affirmative action currently allows individuals who live in poverty and lack access to good education and schooling to be given a second chance of sorts at the top colleges.
Regardless, the current system of using racial affirmative action in college admissions is controversial and constitutionally questionable, to say the least. Fortunately, there is a simple solution: colleges basing affirmative action solely on an applicant’s socioeconomic status rather than their race. Due to the accepted correlation between race and class, class-based affirmative action policies would not only promote genuine diversity on college campuses, but they would also ensure that opportunities are given to truly deserving individuals. Furthermore, socioeconomic status is significantly harder to feign than race and ethnicity. Therefore, by shifting their focus to the status and environment (and, by extension, the available resources and opportunities) of each student, colleges and universities will be able to more accurately assess the character of an applicant as an individual.
Given that there are other ways of promoting diversity on campus, the key to resolving racial stereotyping, dishonest applications and reverse discrimination lies in a race-blind admissions process. Correcting the college admissions process is of paramount importance for keeping the integrity of colleges and universities across the country intact. The status quo must be challenged, and the practice of reserving preference for a select few ethnicities must be stopped. Inaction will simply lead to history repeating itself, and American society shall find itself in an era of discrimination once more.
