Affirmative Action, a policy initially conceived with the noble goal of remedying historical discrimination and promoting diversity, has become one of the most contentious issues in modern society. While its proponents focus on the benefits of representation and systemic correction, a deeper, more critical examination reveals a complex reality where the policy’s unintended consequences can be profoundly detrimental, particularly to the very individuals it seeks to protect. This post argues that, for those who are the supposed beneficiaries of these policies, a strategic avoidance of environments governed by Affirmative Action may be the wisest path forward.
What is Affirmative Action?
Affirmative Action, in the United States, refers to policies and practices that aim to increase the representation of historically disadvantaged groups, particularly women and racial minorities, in areas like employment and education [1] [2]. Its roots trace back to the Civil Rights era. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 in 1965 required federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” [3]. Over the decades, this concept evolved from ensuring non-discrimination to actively considering race or gender as a factor in admissions and hiring decisions to achieve diversity goals.The policy is fundamentally rooted in two main rationales:
1.Compensatory Justice: To make up for past and ongoing systemic discrimination against certain groups.
2.Diversity Benefits: To enrich educational and professional environments by bringing together people from different backgrounds and perspectives [4].
However, the implementation of these policies has generated significant controversy, leading to numerous legal challenges, most recently culminating in the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision that effectively ended race-conscious admissions in higher education [5].
The Mismatch: Being “Relatively Out of Place”One of the most compelling arguments against the current application of Affirmative Action is the concept of mismatch. This theory posits that when a student or employee is admitted to an institution or hired for a position primarily due to preferential policies, they may be placed in an environment where their qualifications are significantly lower than their peers [6].
At best, this creates a situation where the individual is “relatively out of place.”Consider a student admitted to a highly selective university with academic credentials that would have placed them in the top tier of a less selective institution. In the highly selective environment, they may struggle to keep up with the pace, face intense academic pressure, and find themselves at the bottom of the class [7].
This is not a failure of the individual, but a failure of the system that placed them in a mismatched setting. The result can be:
Lower Academic Performance: Students who might have excelled and graduated with honors at a slightly less competitive school may instead receive lower grades, struggle to complete their degrees, or switch to less demanding majors [8].
Erosion of Confidence: The constant struggle and comparison to higher-achieving peers can lead to a significant drop in self-esteem and confidence, undermining the very success the policy was meant to foster.
Increased Stress and Attrition: The pressure of being consistently behind can lead to higher stress levels and, in some cases, a higher dropout rate than would have occurred at a school where the student was academically better matched [9].
For a protected individual, choosing an environment where they are genuinely competitive, rather than one where they are preferentially admitted, often leads to greater success, higher grades, and a stronger foundation for future professional life.
The Injustice: Denying Deserving People of Their Rightful Positions
The second critical flaw in Affirmative Action is the inherent injustice it imposes on individuals who are excluded from opportunities solely based on their race or gender, despite being objectively more qualified.The user’s perspective highlights a fundamental principle of meritocracy: that positions in society—whether in education or employment—should be awarded based on merit, skill, and hard work. When a policy mandates that a less-qualified candidate be chosen over a more-qualified one to satisfy a diversity quota, it results in a clear ethical violation:”At worst it denys deserving people of their rightful positions in society.”This denial of a “rightful position” affects two groups:
1.The Excluded: Highly qualified individuals who are not members of the “protected” group are denied admission or employment simply because their demographic is already sufficiently represented. This creates resentment and fuels the perception that the system is fundamentally unfair [10].
2.The Protected (But Undermined): The policy also subtly undermines the achievements of the protected individuals who are genuinely qualified. Their success is often viewed through the lens of preferential treatment, leading to a lingering doubt about whether they truly earned their spot. This “stigma of incompetence” can follow them throughout their careers, diminishing their hard-won achievements [11].
A Path Forward: Seeking True Meritocracy
The most effective strategy for any individual, regardless of their background, is to seek out environments where success is determined by unambiguous merit.For those who are the intended beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, the best way to ensure their achievements are unassailable and their future is built on a solid foundation is to avoid institutions and companies where preferential policies are known to be heavily applied. Instead, they should:
Choose the Best Fit, Not the Highest Rank: Select educational institutions where their academic profile places them in the top 25% of the incoming class, maximizing their chances for academic success and confidence building.
Let Merit Speak: Focus on building a resume and skill set so exceptional that their admission or hiring is undeniable on merit alone, making any consideration of race or gender irrelevant.
Demand Unquestioned Achievement: True empowerment comes not from a policy that grants a seat, but from the confidence that the seat was earned through superior performance.
Affirmative Action, despite its good intentions, often creates a system of relative disadvantage for its beneficiaries and a system of clear injustice for the excluded. By prioritizing environments where merit is the sole currency of success, individuals can secure a future where their achievements are their own, free from the shadow of preferential treatment.
References
[1] Britannica. Affirmative action | Definition, History, & Cases. https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action
[2] History.com. Affirmative Action: Definition & College Admissions. https://www.history.com/articles/affirmative-action
[3] UCI Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. Brief History of Affirmative Action. https://www.oeod.uci.edu/policies/aa_history.php
[4] The Week. The pros and cons of affirmative action. https://theweek.com/news/society/958504/pros-and-cons-of-affirmative-action
[5] Supreme Court of the United States. 20-1199 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
[6] Stanford Magazine. The Case Against Affirmative Action. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-case-against-affirmative-action
[7] The Week. The pros and cons of affirmative action. https://theweek.com/news/society/958504/pros-and-cons-of-affirmative-action
[8] Santa Clara University. Affirmative Action or Negative Action. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more-focus-areas/resources/affirmative-action-or-negative-action/
[9] University of Alabama School of Law. Ten Arguments Against Affirmative Action: How Valid? https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=fac_working_papers
[10] The Week. The pros and cons of affirmative action. https://theweek.com/news/society/958504/pros-and-cons-of-affirmative-action
[11] Stanford Magazine. The Case Against Affirmative Action. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-case-against-affirmative-action
