Conservatives often complain about Affirmative Action and diversity and inclusion policies. They believe it puts unqualified or incompetent individuals, especially African Americans, in positions of power—particularly in higher education. Conservatives argue that Affirmative Action contradicts the values of merit and hard work. When conservatives gripe at Affirmative Action, they usually use it to mean race-conscious admission into higher education. For the sake of agreement, let us entertain the idea that Affirmative Action provides an advantage to Black students during college admissions purely based on their racial background. But is it truly just a racial advantage when one delves deeper into the educational disparities faced by African American students? African Americans grapple with significant discrimination in grading, which underscores the necessity for some added consideration during the college admissions process. A study titled “Experimental Evidence on Teachers’ Racial Bias in Student Evaluation: The Role of Grading Scales” serves as a telling illustration of this issue. In this study, teachers were presented with identical essays: some attached to names typically associated with African Americans and others to names commonly linked with white Americans. The unsettling outcome? Essays attached to African-American-sounding names received lower grades. The study explicitly states, “I found evidence of racial bias in teachers’ evaluations of student writing when scored using a vague relative grade-level rating scale.”
To argue against Affirmative Action by invoking the sanctity of meritocracy rings hollow. Such studies challenge the very foundation of the argument by illustrating that GPAs—often held as sacrosanct markers of academic prowess—can be tainted by racial bias. In light of such findings, it becomes apparent that Affirmative Action is not an antithesis to merit but a countermeasure to existing prejudice, thereby helping to level an uneven playing field.
The notion of meritocracy assumes that individuals have equal opportunities to succeed and that their accomplishments are solely a result of their own efforts. However, the educational landscape in the U.S. paints a different picture for many African American students and other students of color.
In addition to this, African American students, on average face more adversity in high school and are more likely to attend under-funded schools with fewer resources. Across the U.S., districts with the highest number of Black, Latino, and Native students receive considerably less state and local funding: as much as $2,700 less per student. For a district of 5,000 students, this translates to a staggering $13.5 million deficit in resources. An analysis titled “Equal Is Not Good Enough” reveals that schools serving the majority of students of color receive less funding. African Americans are also more likely to be taught by less experienced and credentialed teachers.
When evaluating the merit of African American students’ standardized test scores, it is essential to contextualize their achievements within a backdrop of systemic inequities. A lower score achieved by an African American student who may not have had access to the same resources, funding, or tutoring as a white student and who is subjected to racial bias in grading is in many ways, a testament to remarkable perseverance and capability. The premise of meritocracy rests on assessing individuals based on their achievements relative to their opportunities. In an environment where students of color consistently receive fewer resources and face more adversities, achieving a score that’s even close to their more advantaged peers is a remarkable feat. Therefore, comparing their scores without accounting for the disparity in resources is not only unjust but also a flawed interpretation of merit.
The Myth of Meritocracy: Jamal and Alex’s Stories
Imagine two students: Jamal, an African American young man growing up in a housing project, and Alex, a white teenager from an affluent suburban neighborhood.
Jamal’s day starts with the sound of sirens echoing through the narrow alleys of his neighborhood. The remnants of a past defined by redlining—policies that segregated African Americans and systematically starved their communities of resources—are glaringly evident. His housing project, a towering, crumbling edifice, is a direct consequence of decades of racial bias in housing policies. Every morning, as he makes his way to school, he walks past graffiti-covered walls that mark territories for gangs: the byproduct of a criminogenic environment born from economic neglect and despair. Every corner holds a potential threat, from stray bullets to omnipresent drug deals. Yet, despite these daily dangers, Jamal remains laser-focused on his dream of higher education. His resources are scarce: the local library, with its limited collection and outdated computers, is his only refuge for study. Tutors, SAT prep courses, and extracurricular activities are luxuries far beyond his reach.
Alex, on the other hand, wakes up to the chirping of birds in his spacious suburban home. The tree-lined streets of his neighborhood are a stark contrast to Jamal’s surroundings. For Alex, dangers on the way to school are unheard of. His journey is adorned with well-manicured lawns and neighbors waving hello. His school boasts state-of-the-art facilities, offers AP courses, and has a robust sports program. After school, Alex attends his SAT prep course, taught by a seasoned instructor who provides personalized feedback. In the evenings, he has access to a private tutor for any academic challenges he encounters. His weekends are filled with club activities, community service, and hobbies that would bolster his college application.
When both students eventually take their SATs and Jamal scores slightly lower than Alex, is it just to say Alex has more merit? Jamal’s score is not only a reflection of his academic abilities but a testament to his resilience and determination against overwhelming odds. His journey to that examination room was fraught with challenges Alex never had to face. While Alex’s achievements are commendable, the true essence of merit should take into account the mountains Jamal had to climb—both literal and metaphorical—just to sit for that test. Comparing their scores without acknowledging the chasm of disparity in their circumstances is an egregious oversimplification of their individual journeys.
Jamal, against all odds, manages to secure a score of 1050 on his SATs. He’s ecstatic—knowing that he achieved this despite the challenges he faced daily: from the violence of his neighborhood to the limited resources at his school. This score was the result of many late nights at the community library, self-study sessions, and trying to grasp test-taking strategies from online forums with limited internet access.
On the other side of the town, Alex, with all the resources at his disposal, manages to score a 1250 on the SATs. The journey to this score included weekend SAT prep classes, mock test sessions under timed conditions, one-on-one consultations with an experienced SAT tutor, and a myriad of online resources and prep books he could easily access.
When colleges or any observers look at these two scores side by side, Alex’s score is undeniably higher by 200 points. However, the context changes dramatically when considering the backdrop against which Jamal achieved his 1050. While Alex’s score is commendable and a result of his hard work within his environment, Jamal’s score signifies a monumental achievement against a backdrop of adversity.
The gap of 200 points might seem significant, but it is crucial to recognize the weight of resilience, tenacity, and sheer determination that Jamal’s 1050 carries in contrast to Alex’s 1250. If both were given the same resources and opportunities, would the scores remain the same? This stark contrast reiterates that evaluating scores without considering personal circumstances doesn’t truly capture the potential or capabilities of students.
The Reality of Affirmative Action
The data from Harvard, one of the most elite institutions in the world, paints a compelling picture. According to a survey by the Harvard Crimson, legacy students made up 36% of the class of 2022. Furthermore, documents from the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College case revealed that nearly 70% of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white.
This data can be seen as suggestive evidence that the legacy application system, at least at Harvard, acts as a de facto form of racial discrimination favoring whites.
To fully understand the implications of this data, one must consider the historical context. For much of America’s history, African Americans faced systemic discrimination in their pursuit of higher education. Jim Crow laws, societal prejudice, and outright racism denied many black students access to top universities. It was only in the latter half of the 20th century that desegregation began in earnest, and even then, the path was fraught with challenges.
Given this history, there are simply fewer Black alumni from elite institutions like Harvard. This means that subsequent generations of African Americans are less likely to benefit from the legacy system—simply because their forebears were excluded from these institutions. The discrimination of the past thus cascades into the present, where white students are disproportionately favored in legacy admissions.
Let’s cut through the sugar-coating and confront the glaring hypocrisies in the arguments against Affirmative Action. Those who cry out against these policies, wielding the flag of “meritocracy,” are conveniently ignoring the stark imbalances that have tainted the very concept of merit in America. It’s a sheer mockery to brandish the term “meritocracy” when systemic disadvantages have consistently stacked the odds against African American students.
Research unequivocally shows racial bias in grading. But what do detractors do? They look the other way, clinging to their comfortable fictions while vilifying policies meant to level the playing field. When faced with the undeniable hurdles that African American students navigate, like underfunded schools and biased grading, the silence from these critics is deafening.
And let us talk about Jamal and Alex. One’s journey is riddled with socio-economic minefields, while the other’s is paved with privileges. And, yet, some have the gall to scrutinize Jamal’s achievements under a microscope—questioning every step while giving Alex a free pass because of his “higher” test scores! This isn’t meritocracy; it’s willful blindness.
Perhaps the most galling part? The sanctimonious brigade lamenting about Affirmative Action conveniently forgets the legacy admission system’s stark favoritism. The audacious double standard is evident: while white students continue to benefit from the past’s privileged structures, African Americans are told to “earn their place” without any helping hand.
In short, attacking Affirmative Action while ignoring the deep-rooted biases and privileges entrenched in the American educational system isn’t just misguided—it’s sheer hypocrisy. Those genuinely concerned about meritocracy should first address the uneven grounds on which this so-called “race of merit” is run. Anything less is empty rhetoric.