An Honest Discussion On Affirmative Action: Why It Matters and How It Fails

In his recent article, Jeb Allen ’27 critiques diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, including affirmative action, as performative measures that perpetuate racism. He claims such initiatives are “creating a society antithetical to the American Dream.” The American Dream insists that anyone who works hard enough in this country can achieve success and live a happy and fulfilled life. However, this dream has always been more attainable for some than others. Factors such as wealth, education, and race all shape access to opportunity. True fairness doesn’t mean pretending those factors don’t exist. Sometimes, true fairness means treating people differently.

Take our country’s justice system for instance. If we treated everyone identically, we would convict minors as harshly as repeat adult offenders for the same crime. Would this align with a rigid interpretation of “equality?” Yes. But would this be fair or just? Absolutely not. True fairness requires the consideration of systemic disadvantages, historical injustices, and the different starting points from which people enter society.

Another example: Amherst, like many other institutions, considers factors other than academic merit in admissions, including athletic recruitment. If admissions were based purely on academic merit, there would be no advantages for recruited athletes. However, with over a third of the student body participating in varsity sports, Amherst has clearly decided that recruited athletes add significant value to campus life. This recognizes the diverse ways different students can contribute to a community beyond test scores and GPAs.

Colleges commonly regard factors such as geographical diversity and gender balance to create a representative student population. Should they not have the right to extend this preferential treatment to historically underrepresented communities in academia?

Allen presents medical school acceptance rates by race, revealing statistics that show Black and Hispanic individuals with lower MCAT scores and GPAs being admitted at higher rates than white and Asian students with the same academic profiles. He argues that medical schools should admit “the most qualified doctor imaginable,” suggesting that the students who fit into this category are those with the highest MCAT scores and GPAs.

However, this perspective ignores barriers to entry such as historical differences in access to educational and financial resources. It also overlooks how traditionally dominant groups have benefited from systemic advantages rather than pure objective merit.

Consider two students: the first, a white male from a wealthy background who attended private school his entire life and then an Ivy League university, scoring in the 90th percentile on the MCAT; the second, a Black student from an underfunded public school who attended community college before transferring to a university, scoring in the 80th percentile. While Allen might argue the first student is more “qualified,” the second student demonstrated greater perseverance and arguably shows even greater potential. Their achievements didn’t come from built-in advantages, but by overcoming systemic barriers the first never had to face — imagine what they could do if given the same resources and support.

The Princeton Review offers MCAT prep courses starting at $3,499, promising, “Score 515+ on the MCAT or add 15 points, depending on your initial score, or we’ll refund your money.” A good MCAT score isn’t just a measure of intelligence or hard work — it can be bought through expensive tutors and prep materials.

In his book “The Tyranny of Merit,” philosopher Michael Sandel argues meritocracy falsely suggests that success is earned entirely through individual talent and effort, making the winners arrogant and those left behind feeling devalued. The irony is that many white male conservatives who denounce DEI initiatives do so from a position of privilege that our country’s outdated idea of meritocracy helped sustain. A society that ignores the barriers that have long excluded marginalized groups from positions of power is not truly meritocratic — it simply gives an even greater upper hand to those already advantaged.

Journalist Adam Serwer describes his concept of the “racial contract” as “a codicil rendered in invisible ink.” He argues that while openly racist regulations no longer exist in America, that does not mean racism itself has disappeared — it may just be more insidious. Though laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legally prohibit racial discrimination, actually proving that such discrimination exists in today’s society is incredibly difficult. This is because structural racism is often embedded in normalized inequalities, making it difficult to detect and even harder to dismantle. Under these circumstances, treating everyone the same would not be fair. While the United States prides itself on equality and democratic values, these very foundations have produced exclusion and systemic injustice.

However, like Allen, I do not believe affirmative action is the perfect solution. Legal scholar Stephen L. Carter highlights how affirmative action fails to help the poorest Black Americans. Instead of assisting the entire Black community, affirmative action typically benefits those closest to the middle class, leaving behind the most disadvantaged. He notes, “America has two [B]lack communities, really, and one of them is falling further and further behind.” Rather than addressing systemic issues such as increased crime and high school dropout rates, affirmative action allows politicians to pretend they’re tackling racial inequality without confronting deeper structural problems.

Many white people hold that affirmative action discriminates against them, despite white women having been its primary beneficiaries. However, this argument often comes from those who are not lower-class white individuals — a group who I believe is largely overlooked and excluded from this conversation. Just as Carter describes the divide between middle-class and impoverished Black Americans, a similar divide exists among white Americans, where affluent white students compete with their lower-income counterparts.

The Supreme Court had similar apprehensions about early forms of affirmative action in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), where Allan Bakke sued the University of California, Davis Medical School for setting aside slots for underrepresented minorities. The Supreme Court rejected three of UC’s justifications for using race in admissions, ruling that affirmative action could not be used to correct historical discrimination, reduce racial disparities in medical professions, or address the shortage of doctors in underserved communities. The one argument the Court found acceptable? The use of race-based affirmative action policies for “obtaining the education benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body.”

Despite affirmative action, higher education remains majority-white, leaving white people to reap the most from these “education benefits.” By this logic, it’s as if minority groups are mere props to heighten white people’s educational experiences.

The long-standing debate reached a consensus in 2023 when the conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled against the use of race-based admission in higher education. This decision left institutions like Amherst to rethink how they pursue campus diversity. Amherst has already seen shifts in its admissions demographics, raising concerns about whether this ruling truly made admissions fairer, or simply reinforced pre-existing disparities.

But are we better off now? If affirmative action was deemed unfair, then why do other forms of preferential admissions — like legacy status and athletic recruitment — still exist that particularly favor privileged groups? The inconsistency in what is acceptable suggests that our country’s current definition of “fair” is subjective and politically charged. Now, DEI policies take on an even larger role, attempting to fill the gap of affirmative action’s absence, but will they be enough to achieve true equity?

Finally, while I do not entirely agree with Allen’s article, I also do not agree with how some students responded to it. On Fizz, an anonymous social media platform, users posted screenshots of his article, ripping it apart, leaving hateful and threatening comments, and personally attacking him. These reactions reflect a dangerous tendency of our generation — to hide behind screens, commenting with hostility and vengeance rather than engaging in meaningful discourse. In a time of increasing political sectarianism and polarization, we must be open to hearing different opinions, listening more and Fizzing less.

The conversation regarding affirmative action is complex, and I don’t think there’s a clear solution to solving education inequity. However, I do believe that affirmative action, at its best, acknowledges disparities and seeks to level the playing field — not by eliminating standards, but by broadening access to opportunity.