Maintaining a Meritocracy: The Case for Affirmative Action

Maintaining a Meritocracy

“Started from the bottom,” noted famous rapper Drake, “now we here.”  That’s the purpose of a meritocracy, defined as the “holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability”.  It is an American ideal for any one of us to achieve our greatest dreams on the sole basis of our merit, and empowering oppressed groups by creating more room for them in schools is key to honoring that ideal.  Today I proudly defend Affirmative Action’s role in upholding a meritocracy and providing fair opportunities for Drakes somewhere to lift up American people everywhere.

But why Affirmative Action?  Why discriminate against some to benefit others?  Why not simply look at students’ scores rather than races and leave it at that?  While many argue that Affirmative Action is essentially reverse racism, this could not be further from the truth.  It’s quite simple, actually: according to one accredited law professor, “black unemployment, poverty, and homelessness are twice that of whites. Wealth accumulation for blacks is one-twentieth of what it is for whites. Similar disparities exist for Hispanics. Racial profiling in the criminal justice system is rampant”.  So, as Drake explained, not everyone is starting from the same place.  As one of the many long-term results of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation, discrimination against people of color has left us in a constant game of catch-up.  Black people were not able to purchase the same housing as their white counterparts throughout the twentieth century, as systemically, the Federal Housing and Veterans administrations often forced builders to deny African-Americans the sale of homes.  According to Richard Rothstein, research associate of the Economic Policy Institute, “whites who were permitted to buy benefited from ensuing decades of equity appreciation; this wealth helped finance college for their children and was later bequeathed to them.  Black families, prohibited by federal policy from buying into these initially low-priced suburbs, lost out”. Even as late as the 2007 housing crisis, black people were disproportionately targeted “for exploitative subprime loans and exposed to foreclosure — more than whites.”  Thus we see that these people of color are already made to start with less average stability in their lives, and it passes through generations, creating a cyclical problem. One now-Harvard professor accredits Affirmative Action for changing his life. To uphold a meritocracy, race-based Affirmative Action is necessary for equalizing those who have started with less and those who have been privileged to benefit from more; and clearly, it is races that are being targeted and made to lose out, thus the policy needs to be “race-based”.

Just look at us: in Los Altos High School, less than 1.8% of students are black.  And when we see who is coming in through the back entrance, from buses or skateboards or walking, versus those driving through the front entrance with our nice new cars and thousand dollar bikes, it’s clear as day; this is not equitable.  This is a generalization, but it holds quite representative.

It’s hard, though, to give up a privilege we have been offered our entire lives.  And I could stand here and argue that if Affirmative Action is supposed to bridge these gaps and help minorities, well—I’m an Asian-American and I have only been hurt by this policy.  Consider the Harvard case most recently in the news, where Harvard was reported to have created quotas for Asian-American students as well as unquantifiable, non-academic gauges like “personal ratings” that allowed admissions officers’ own racial and gender preferences to take center stage.  I would say most definitely my older brother was hurt by this kind of thing last year when he applied and got rejected from most of his top colleges, nevermind his high SATs nor his perfect GPA.  And nonacademic gauges are entirely unfair and subject to racism, but they do not fall under lawful Affirmative Action, which is why Harvard was sued.  Yet, what my brother and myself do understand are the quotas: our family has not been barred from purchasing affordable housing, and Asian-Americans statistically make much closer to the white man’s dollar, if not more, than any other minority.  We have been represented in politics, in high-level business positions, something that other people of color still aggressively fight for today. So we must accept that we have these advantages and understand that we have benefitted and will continue to benefit from diversity making it up to such high positions.

At the end of the day, however, we will all be waiting for our college admissions and we might be annoyed to find that some with lower scores than ourselves got into colleges we were rejected from.  Firstly, I’d like to disprove just how much people of color are said to benefit from Affirmative Action: in most Texas schools, fewer than 10% of applicants will be considered under the policy.  In fact, white people with lower scores than their colored counterparts took significantly more of those spots at the University of Texas at Austin. But additionally, whether it be their parents’ income and subsequently decided neighborhood or the harsher treatment of African-American/Latino students, people of color are often not given access to the same resources as their white counterparts in high school.  Of course, then, they cannot be judged solely based on these scores and grades. But, what about the white students, you might ask? How is it their fault that they were supported by their parents and that their classmates were not to the same extent?  Well, Susan, how is it the fault of students of color that people in high positions are constantly rooting for their families’ downfall and never giving them the chances to advance in life?

We need Affirmative Action.  As Drake would say, “Started from the bottom, now we here.  Started from the bottom… now the whole team here.” And it’s Affirmative Action that gets the whole team here.