Affirmative Action

Two Sides: Each month, the Alternative Currents team will give you both sides of a contentious issue. Brought to you by the Center for Tomorrow's Leaders. 

Written by Katie Chang. 

We’re back for another monthly installment of “Two Sides.” In this piece, we work together to identify two sides of a contentious issue, along with the primary document. 

This month, we’re looking at the pros and cons of affirmative action in college admissions. Defined in Cornell University‘s Legal Information Institute, “Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.”

This issue is even hotter than usual, as the United States Supreme Court just ruled in a landmark case on affirmative action. As the decision document summarizes, “Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are two of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States. Every year, tens of thousands of students apply to each school; many fewer are admitted. Both Harvard and UNC employ a highly selective admissions process to make their decisions. Admission to each school can depend on a student’s grades, recommendation letters, or extracurricular involvement. It can also depend on their race. The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” They decided that no, it is not lawful.

This month, I’d like to thank Fellows alumnus, Brandon Yee, for compiling these sources. He shared that he and his friends had a thought-provoking debate on this issue. That caught my attention, and I really appreciated that despite the fact that Brandon had a strong opinion on the matter, he listened carefully to the entire group. 

Happy reading! 

The Left: Ending Affirmative Action Would Be A Terrible Mistake

The Right: 10 Notes on the End of Affirmative Action

Primary Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf