College application season is underway, and one controversial subject remains a major topic of discussion: affirmative action. After longstanding debates surrounding the practice, the Supreme Court voted to overturn affirmative action in late June. For the first time in decades, race cannot be considered as a factor in the college admissions process, threatening future diversity at public and private universities in the U.S. 

Originally introduced in 1961, affirmative action intended to reduce discrimination in job applications based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This seemingly beneficial concept has been a source of ongoing controversy from white Americans and, unexpectedly, various minority groups — especially Asian Americans, many of whom feel disadvantaged in the college admissions process. 

Most recently, the ethicality of affirmative action was brought to the Supreme Court in 2020, as Harvard University was sued for alleged race-based discrimination against Asian American applicants. In the context of this case, the reversal of affirmative action may appear to be a “win” for the AAPI community, considering its generally higher levels of academic achievement. However, this decision threatens equal opportunity for Asians and other minorities, especially those of lower socioeconomic status. In reality, conservative opponents of affirmative action benefit most from the ruling, as the plaintiffs took advantage of Asian Americans — using the stories of Asian Americans as “evidence” of unfair admissions practices — to add credibility to their longstanding anti-affirmative-action agenda. 

As an Asian American, I feel that AAPI students and families who oppose affirmative action have viewed it from a limited perspective. Rather than establishing a system where “less-deserving” applicants were chosen solely based on their background, affirmative action simply accounted for racial or socioeconomic barriers that may have affected a student’s opportunities in high school. When given the same resources and circumstances, the “less-accomplished” student may have had the ability to match or surpass another applicant’s accomplishments. Affirmative action, in theory, took these differences into account to encourage a more informed comparison between applicants.

When personal feelings are involved, it can be easy to misinterpret the goals of affirmative action. Many Asian Americans viewed affirmative action as an obstacle which unfairly favored “other” minorities in the college admissions process. However, this belief makes a generalization of the Asian American population as a whole, overlooking AAPI groups who do not fit the stereotype of privileged, middle- and upper-class East Asians. The idea that affirmative action hurts “Asians” furthers the misconception that Asian Americans are a monolith, overlooking the struggles of marginalized subgroups, be it in terms of ethnicity or socioeconomic status. With the dismantling of affirmative action, underrepresented or under-resourced minorities, including those within the AAPI community, may experience even lower levels of representation on college campuses. 

Some opponents of affirmative action believed that the policy undermined the value of merit and personal achievement in the admissions process, supporting a “color-blind” approach instead. However, this perspective presents an inherently privileged view. While “equal” treatment may seem appealing, in reality, this strategy will only further disadvantage minorities by overlooking the two centuries of racial inequality in the U.S. In a country with such deeply rooted racial structures, race and generational socioeconomic consequences must be recognized in order to create a more equitable system. To suddenly ignore race as a defining factor would be negligent, as people of color have historically faced systemic barriers that may shape their current socioeconomic status — and whether they have access to educational opportunities, testing services, extracurricular activities, and other resources that may impact the appeal of a student’s profile. Erasing this essential historical context for differing economic and educational circumstances could bring further inequality to current practices.

Though affirmative action was not a perfect solution, it was a necessary precaution to ensure equal — or somewhat equal — opportunities for people of color. Without this protective policy in place, will private universities continue admitting a diverse group of students? How will underrepresented or under-resourced minorities be affected by this change? The reversal of affirmative action also brings other admissions practices — such as the valuation of legacy status — into question. The aftereffects of this Supreme Court ruling will become clear as class demographics and acceptance data are released for the 2023-2024 application cycle.