Much like Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, “I am the perfect affirmative action baby.” English is not my first language. My parents are Colombian immigrants who did not have the opportunity to attend college, and our family income is modest. I am also a Duke University alumna and am entering my third year at Harvard Law School.
Despite my history of academic excellence, my educational outcomes have unequivocally been influenced by affirmative action. Although I am incredibly grateful to have gained an education from these distinguished institutions, the reality is that I probably would have fared well even in the absence of these opportunities.
The harsh truth is that policies like affirmative action do not achieve educational equity because they concentrate on high-achieving students who have completed high school and possess the confidence and support to apply to prestigious universities.
Affirmative action fails to expand opportunities for the most vulnerable high school students, such as English learners and students with disabilities, who might never even obtain a high school degree or submit a college application. Both English learners and students with disabilities graduate high school at a rate of 71 percent within four years, compared to non-English learners and students without disabilities, who graduate high school at a rate of 87 percent. Among students with disabilities, Black students with disabilities are 1.5 times more likely to drop out of school than white students with disabilities.
Unlike these students, for me and many of my classmates who benefited from affirmative action, the odds of pursuing higher education were not overwhelmingly against us. Although we may have never imagined earning degrees from the prestigious institutions that have opened doors to exclusive circles and opportunities, for many of us, a college degree and a fulfilling career would have likely been achievable even without the support of affirmative action. Perhaps our state institutions might not have provided us with such generous financial aid packages, and landing a job on Wall Street after graduation with our liberal arts degree might have been more difficult, but we would have managed just fine.
First, most U.S. colleges accept over two-thirds of their applicants. Don’t get me wrong, a degree from an elite school can be life-changing, especially for first-generation and low-income students. But the same qualities that bring minority students to elite schools — high academic achievement, resiliency, persistence and creativity in the face of extraordinary circumstances — can make a student successful at any university.
Second, there is a misconception that students benefiting from affirmative action in selective institutions possess significantly lower academic qualifications compared to their non-minority peers, when, in fact, these students are similarly high achieving. According to 7SAGE Law School Admissions Predictor, one of the more reputable and accurate online law school admission predictors based on self-reported student data, an underrepresented minority student with a 3.9 GPA can only score four to five points lower on their Law School Admission Test (LSAT) than a white student to achieve a similar likelihood of getting into Harvard Law School.
Considering Harvard Law’s highly competitive median LSAT score of 174 out of 180 for its admitted students, an underrepresented minority student with a 3.9 GPA and an LSAT score in the 87th percentile faces a mere nine percent likelihood of being accepted. There is no question that the students getting into Harvard Law, regardless of race, are high achieving. Even without an affirmative action boost, these students will continue to be competitive applicants at most universities.
In my experiences, I have also recognized the high achieving nature and educational support received by many of my minority peers. Many of us graduated at the top of our high school classes, had multiple Advanced Placement courses on our high school transcripts, and were selected for gifted and talented programs at a young age. Growing up, many of us were fortunate to have had the guidance of at least one mentor, and to this day, a significant number of us are still in touch with at least one teacher. Indeed, we have had to overcome unique obstacles along the way, and we enter prestigious educational spaces with fewer resources than many of our white peers. However, to a certain degree, our success was not unexpected.
We should not judge our nation’s progress in providing equality of opportunity by the number of minority students represented in the graduating class of an Ivy League school. Instead, we should measure progress by examining the educational experiences of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable student populations in our country.
If affirmative action wasn’t expanding educational opportunities for our most vulnerable students, then what was its actual impact? In the Atlantic, Richard D. Kahlenberg credited affirmative action for creating a “multiracial aristocracy.” Many high achieving minority students graduating from elite schools go on to attain influential positions across a wide range of industries and thus diversify the American upper class. Undoubtedly, the social, economic and political capital provided by elite universities to a small group of minority students has a positive impact on communities of color as graduates from these institutions contribute to bringing about positive changes within their communities. Given this rationale, the benefits of affirmative action seem worthwhile, even if they are only accessible to a select group of high-achieving minority students.
But even this justification is rooted in industry elitism. Why are students of color required to attend prestigious universities, which are historically white institutions, to have a chance at securing positions of influence? If our society truly valued diversity, wouldn’t prestigious employers actively seek to recruit a greater number of students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-Serving Institutions?
There is no question that yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was a step backwards in promoting diversity in higher education, but perhaps it will encourage us to rethink what it means to achieve racial equity in education and will shift the burden of expanding racial diversity from educational institutions to employers.
Vanessa Agudelo is a third-year student at Harvard Law School and an aspiring education lawyer. She was previously a Diversity & Inclusion Analyst at Goldman Sachs.