Reservations at Harvard dead? 👀
What does the recent Supreme Court ruling mean for MBA aspirants?
Affirmative action is officially dead, killed by the United States Supreme Court.
Last Thursday, the court released opinions on cases arising from challenges to the admissions processes at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The UNC case, Students For Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina, alleged discrimination against White and Asian-American students; while the Harvard case, Students For Fair Admissions Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College, alleged discrimination against Asian Americans under a similar approach, which allows race and ethnicity to be considered as part of a candidate’s personal rating.
The court ruled in both that race-based admissions violates the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment.Â
How will this affect business schools, many of whom have reported minority data with improved granularity and enthusiasm in recent years?
Obviously, the full impact of this decision will take some time to be felt, but on the surface of it, many schools have responded immediately to underline their commitment to diversity in their cohorts. Kellogg and Tuck both came out to say that trust and community across different groups makes for better leadership and stronger teams – and that they will continue to admit equitable and diverse cohorts.Â
Specifically when it comes to b-school, affirmative action has been crucial in creating programs that accurately reflect the diversity of the culture milieu of the time. Race-conscious admission practices have helped graduate management education programs educate talented students representing a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
This also affects Indians, who – while not an underrepresented group in the US b-school circuit – are also victims of rising climate of intolerance and xenophobia in the US. It also weakens access to groups within groups – women, religious minorities, queer people and so on. The past decades of affirmative action have finally led to one of b-schools best achievements: near gender parity and entering classes that look and feel like the general population outside. All the progress that has been made stands to be lost with this action, with universities now having to navigate compliance with the judgment while simultaneously trying to build diverse and equitable classrooms.Â
Both of our reads this month are about this monumental decision- and we look at both sides of the argument.
Let’s dive in 🤿
For Affirmative Action
Affirmative action has been a topic of intense debate for many years, particularly when it comes to its implementation in higher education institutions. Last Thursday, the court released opinions on cases arising from challenges to the admissions processes at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The UNC case, Students For Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina, alleged discrimination against White and Asian-American students; while the Harvard case, Students For Fair Admissions Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College, alleged discrimination against Asian Americans under a similar approach, which allows race and ethnicity to be considered as part of a candidate’s personal rating.
The court ruled in both that race-based admissions violates the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment.Â
There are valid points on both sides of this argument – in this piece, let’s explore some of the reasons affirmative action has been a tool to right past wrongs.
Such policies aim to address historical inequalities and ensure that underrepresented groups have equal access to educational opportunities. By considering race, ethnicity, and gender during the admissions process, higher education institutions can create diverse and inclusive student bodies. Historically marginalized groups have faced significant barriers in accessing quality education due to socioeconomic, racial, and cultural factors. Affirmative action acknowledges these systemic disadvantages and aims to level the playing field. This doesn’t mean that such candidates are undeserving or under performing, just that they don’t have access to tools and resources that would otherwise get them through the doors of these clannish and WASP-y institutions.
Affirmative action also helps students belonging to wealthy or otherwise privileged backgrounds. It enriches the educational experience by exposing them to diverse viewpoints and backgrounds – giving them the opportunities to question their biases; a key skill going into the workplace.
Since the reality of our world is that certain educational institutions carry global recognition and bring with them greater opportunities, wealth and respect – affirmative action is key for students from low-income backgrounds to have equal opportunities for higher education. This affords them the chance to break the cycle of poverty and provides a pathway for social mobility.
The key question here is- What if this comes at the cost of more deserving Asian applicants?
Against Affirmative Action
The flip side is that there are valid concerns regarding its effectiveness and potential drawbacks.Â
As exhibited in this verdict, one of the fundamental concerns raised against affirmative action is that it undermines the principles of meritocracy. Critics argue that higher education institutions should prioritize admissions based on individual merit, academic achievements, and abilities rather than considering race, ethnicity, or gender. Supporters of a purely merit-based system believe that it ensures fairness and rewards hard work and talent. This however, obviously presumes that everyone starts from the same level, which we know not to be the case.Â
Opponents argue that affirmative action perpetuates a form of reverse discrimination, where individuals from historically privileged groups may face disadvantages in the admissions process. Indeed, in a situation where a 40th percentile Latinx student is preferred to a 99th percentile Asian student, it can feel unfair. The cherry on the cake is that even after all that, access is just the first step. Assimilation of those who are beneficiaries of affirmative action is very difficult, with them being made to feel doubtful and dubious about their own abilities, and alienated from and resented by the majority student body.Â
The last and final piece of criticism levels that affirmative action is just a band aid solution – the need of the hour is to address educational disparities in a holistic manner. These include focusing on improving early education, implementing outreach and support programs, and offering scholarships and financial aid to students from underprivileged backgrounds. Such approaches aim to tackle the root causes of inequality and provide equal opportunities for all without resorting to preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity.
As Indians, we have a unique insight into this idea of reservation – with many from privileged groups railing against it as an unfair and outdated policy, meant to appease certain social groups for political gain. However, the persistence of the very same institutions – caste, class, gender – hold large swathes of our society back and limit their access to key opportunities that are essential to break cycles of poverty in our country.Â
Where do you guys stand on this? Is affirmative action an important tool for social justice, or is it unfair and unjust in how it privileges certain groups over others?
What are we reading at Base Camp?
Higher education is US’ super-drug - exclusionary and expensive
Threads won’t kill Twitter if its boring
‘Zuck is a Cuck’ - Musk meltdown as Threads hits 100m users
Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter- Base Camp.
If you liked this newsletter, share it with your people. If you didn’t like it, reply and tell me why so we can make it better. If you are targeting Tier 1 MBA/Masters programs and need some advice, feel free to schedule a call 👋
See you next month!