Affirmative action has been shown time and time again to improve diversity. Despite this, polls show reluctance to use race in admissions. 

First of all, non race-based alternatives to affirmative action have been shown to fall flat. One popular suggestion is to create a version of affirmative action based on socioeconomic status, but a literature review of studies comparing class-based and race-based affirmative action plans found that race-based programs are significantly more effective, and that switching to a class-based system could cut diversity in half at top institutions. 

The review also concluded that there doesn’t have to be a tradeoff between race- and class-conscious programs. In fact, schools with race-conscious programs are significantly more likely to take socioeconomic status into account in admissions, and these programs can be expanded if need be.

University of California schools eliminated affirmative action around 20 years ago, and have never been able to recover the level of diversity they had under the program. This isn’t for lack of trying: they significantly expanded programs for low income students and still weren’t able to get a student body that was even close to representative of the state’s population.

But why is this? While minorities face many problems related to wealth inequality, race-specific discrimination is pervasive across classes. 

One report notes racialized wealth disparities, but also isolates several other factors that contribute to the education gap. One of these is ongoing residential segregation, which combines with school districting to push minorities of a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds into under-resourced schools. 

Another is implicit biases on the part of teachers and administrators. These biases significantly affect teachers’ evaluations of students. For example, even when Black and white students objectively performed at the same level, Black students were 40% less likely than white students to be placed in algebra. This phenomenon starts as early as kindergarten, where teachers reviewed the competency of white and Black students differently, even when they objectively performed equally well. 

These biases also extend to discipline. The study noted that Black students were more likely to be suspended for subjective reasons than white students. Again, this can start as early as in preschool.

These problems present themselves in the data too. A study of 1.1 million students found that race is the most important determiner of SAT scores. Although socioeconomic status also has a significant effect, there are major score differences based on race even among people with the same socioeconomic background. What can explain this but specifically race-based discrimination in the education system? 

This data also presents a disadvantage in its own right. Even with the growth in test-optional policies, some students will always have standardized test scores as a convincing extra credential to include on their resume. 

It’s pretty clear that there are educational roadblocks that uniquely affect racial minorities, and that affirmative action is the best remedy we’ve found so far in college admissions. Yet, there are a few counter-arguments to consider.

One is Asian discrimination. This is a common argument, but it tends to misconstrue any discrimination against Asian-Americans in admissions as the fault of affirmative action. By nature, affirmative action only boosts applicants with disadvantaged backgrounds rather than actively adding negative elements or perceptions to the resumes of other applicants. The discrimination critics of affirmative action refer to is actually reflective of the implicit biases present in a deeply subjective admissions system. 

This same anti-Asian bias existed even more extensively before affirmative action, when white applicants were routinely arbitrarily preferred over Asian ones. The ongoing problem of discrimination in a subjective admissions process can only be improved by defending the precedent set by affirmative action, which can always be expanded to counteract new forms of race-based bias that come to light in the data.

There’s also the argument that affirmative action isn’t politically feasible. Setting aside the point that it’s survived more than 40 years of court challenges, political feasibility isn’t a reason to scrap the policy and implement an alternative before we absolutely have to. If court doctrines like race-neutrality don’t allow the best policymaking, we should change those doctrines, not the policy. As long as we conclude that affirmative action is the best way forward, we should fight to defend it.

While it may be hard to swallow the idea that so many race-based barriers still exist in the educational system, the evidence is clear. Affirmative action doesn’t unfairly benefit people based on race — it pulls them back to a more equal footing and offers them hope for a better future.