What College Admissions Still Needs to ‘Affirm’

In the debate around the role of “affirmative action” in college admissions, it is worth lingering on the term itself. I think it holds the most central, but too infrequently asked, question in this debate: What should still be affirmed by admissions?

Consider the “affirmative” part of “affirmative action.” In a 1961 executive order, President John F. Kennedy ’40 directed government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” To “affirm” something is to be proactive in lending it support. In this context, the object of “affirmation” is a disadvantage, a handicap.

In college admissions, there will always be a large number of applicants, many of them more than qualified, vying for a small number of spots in the class. So what impediments to success exist in today’s society that admissions offices should try to help rectify? How do these offices get more of the best candidates from all parts of society into their institutions? What, in short, do they still need to affirm?

One answer is that nothing actually needs affirming anymore. Affirmative action should be illegal because it is simply discrimination.

I don’t find this answer satisfactory, however. Diversity remains a worthy goal, and the status quo of admissions still leaves much to be desired. Higher education, a reliable portal to future success, should take the responsibility of fostering the next generation very seriously. To find the best students to be part of that next generation, from all parts of society and not just the very top, universities will need some type of affirmative action.

Perhaps the most popular answer to my main question is that race still needs to be affirmed.

I also find this answer unconvincing. Its proponents argue that there is still racism in society today. But this argument ignores all the progress made since Kennedy’s 1961 executive order. At some point, all students of all races must fight for admissions on their own, even under non-ideal conditions — because every race is capable of doing so.

Instead, saying that we still need to affirm race also misguidedly implies that some races need special help and reinforces that damaging racial stereotype. In this kind of debate, it is frequently cited that black and Latino students often need much lower SAT scores than white and Asian students to get into elite institutions. Those students are thus tailed by insinuations that they got in just because of their race.

But such insinuations are ridiculous because there are no inferior or superior races, intellectually or otherwise. Why don’t we make the people who would make such disparaging comments see this truth? It seems to me that supporters of race-based affirmative action are almost scared of seeing what will happen if such policies disappear. But the best vote of confidence that one could give to all races in college admissions is to assert that race does not need affirming anymore — that race is not a handicap to one’s chances.

Instead, there is a real handicap that satisfies the question of what remains worth affirming — socioeconomic status. We need to affirm people’s ability to move upwards in society. The class into which people are born should not determine their entire lives. In a time of increasing economic inequality and decreasing mobility, this concept, the American Dream, does need affirming. And for those objectors who would point out that race is often tied to class, as I believe is true, affirming class will still improve racial diversity on the whole.

Socioeconomic status can be a real disadvantage, and there shouldn’t be any shame in acknowledging that. Money makes possible many assets on college applications — private schools, sports teams, academic pursuits, musical pursuits, tutoring, service trips. Who is more impressive: a student whose application is in the, say, 75th percentile because she had to manage extenuating circumstances, such as helping to support her family or teaching herself advanced material because school did not offer enough challenges, or a student whose application is in the 90th percentile because she excelled in a environment catered to her? The answer should easily be the former, because applicants should be judged in respect to their circumstances.

Race is inborn and unchangeable, but socioeconomic status is inborn and changeable. This fundamental difference is why the latter is a more valid concept to affirm.

Picture an admissions evaluation as a ladder. The closer you get to the top, the higher your chance of getting in. By affirming something, college admissions is saying your ceiling is lower than other applicants’ because of it.

Affirming race says you need a boost because your race means you start off lower than others. Well, that seems mildly racist. But affirming socioeconomic status says you need a boost because at your class level, you started off lower than others — which you did. You can also overcome the disadvantage being pointed out. The given boost is a recognition of and investment in your potential, which was demonstrated not simply by how you were born, but by what you managed to do.

Judging affirmative action should ultimately require judging its societal implications. Thus, I think that having no policy is inadequate. But a policy that weighs race heavily is belittling. It is the primarily class-based policy that will be actually affirming, to individual students and to the overall American Dream.

Michelle I. Gao ’21, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Adams House. Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.