Liberty Exposed: Ending Affirmative Action Was A Win For Merit-Based College Admissions

Glowimages

Over the course of the year, conservatives have both gained and lost political ground, particularly in the courts. However, one of the greatest wins that occurred this year was the new ruling in regards to affirmative action. For conservatives, this is one of the greatest wins of 2023, and it’s important to recognize it.

In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled a new decision that changed the previous discriminatory practice of affirmative action: the overturning of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which allowed colleges to prioritize certain students based on their race. A clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The proceedings were brought forth to the Supreme Court through the case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its accompanying case, SFA v. South Carolina. Both of which argue that there is racial discrimination in the administration of these campuses. Negatives are affecting Asian American students in particular.

Education

Affirmative action essentially allows discrimination against individuals based on race. This is true, particularly in academia, where students of other races are disproportionately accepted more than others. Data collected through Harvard's admissions system shows the massive differences between students being accepted purely based on race. Within students that achieve the highest percent of GPAs and standardized test scores, the admission rate is only 12.7 for Asians and 15.3 percent for whites, compared to 56.1 for African American students. The margins increase when students are not as academically gifted, as students who are at the average level of test scores are still selected by ten times the rate. Students in the 50th percentile of academics get admitted to Harvard at a rate of 2.6 percent for whites, 1.9 percent for Asians, and 22.4 percent for African Americans. Based on these figures, an average African American student has a much greater chance of getting accepted into Harvard than even an Asian student in the top 1 percent of his class.

Many schools are already looking to establish loopholes. It is possible to use acceptance essays to curate students by race in order to maintain their diversity standards. This act will clearly be unconstitutional under the new Supreme Court ruling; however, this is likely not to stop universities from attempting. Hopefully all these issues will be ironed out in the future; however, in the meantime, this is still a tremendous step forward. The fact that the Supreme Court has already reversed this decision is remarkable.

Meritocracy

These disparities have now been theoretically made illegal by this new ruling. Which greatly improves the system of meritocracy in America.

These standards would not be exempted in any other system that was not merely trying to inflated their diversity numbers. In other meritocracy-based industries, such as professional athletes, 71.8 percent of NBA players were African American, as were 56 percent in the NFL. None of these institutions are criticized for being non-divers, and their fans do not care as they produce the highest level of sports and competition. With this Supreme Court ruling, education will have to follow a similar standard. When meritocracy is the measurement, it should be irrelevant if there is a diverse group of people based on their racial background

Schools, now like sports teams, will be forced to only care about the merits of their athletes, or in academic cases, the quality and grades of the students that they are expecting.

Court Opinion

This is a return to a meritocracy in education. Which is greatly needed as society and innovation predict the best and brightest of each generation. The argument for affirmative action is that present discrimination is necessary for the effects felt by past discrimination. This, however, creates the cycle of oppressing more people, and as Americans, we should stand up for the high ideals of the Constitution and the equal prostitution created by the 14th Amendment. Justice Clarence’s Thomas wrote in his opinion:

“While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages that have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equal under the law.”

The statements from Justice Clarence Thomas are very powerful and a testimony to conservative principles in the highest court in the land. The overturning of this ruling will greatly affect individuals of other races who were marginalized by the academic school system. The left will argue that affirmative action is required to help those who were discriminated against in the past by discriminating against others today. This idea is clearly racist and harmful to individuals who have no relationship to any past injustices.

Reflection

After everything that occurred within the last year, it is important to recognize some of the good that has come forth to promote conservative principles. The United States is at its best when applied to the greater ideals of its founding documents. It can be a country where uncontrolled characteristics do not define the individual but instead are judged by their merits and virtues. The overturning of Grutter v. Bollinger is a large step in the correct direction. Out of all the cases reviewed in 2023, this should be the most pleasing to conservatives. Hopefully, in 2024, we can accomplish a similar monumental achievement that will forward conservative principles for America.