1

The Ethical Implications of Affirmative Action in Admissions

AP Seminar
January 2023
Word Count: 1313
 2

According to a 2020 Monthly Labor Review from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics,

“ALDC applicants are shown a significant preference. A non-ALDC applicant would experience

the following increase in admission chances if she or he was in a different category: a fivefold

increase being a legacy, sevenfold if on the dean’s interest list, and a near certainty admission as

a recruited athlete” (Roach 1). This significant advantage given to ALDC applicants (those who

are recruited athletes, legacy students, on the dean’s list or related to a major donor, and children

of faculty members) has been evident for years, but recently it has come to a head with the

Harvard supreme court investigation into their discrimination against Asian-American students.

The struggle to make college admissions simultaneously meritocratic and representative of the

world’s diversity is a global uphill battle, fraught with corruption and shortcuts that have

worsened the issue and created ethical dilemmas as admission workers are forced to choose

whose dreams will be made a reality and whose will be deferred. When examining this issue

from an ethical standpoint, two distinct arguments on the subject emerge. A more radical group

favors the reexamination of the admissions process as a whole through increased affirmative

action at the expense of ALDC applicants while a more conservative body of thought proposes

that blind admissions would be best.

With the recent increase in college admissions due to the development of CommonApp

and other technological advances that promote applying to more schools, the volume of

applications as a whole has increased more than 41% just in the past 4 years according to a

Forbes article on the subject of applications (Nietzel 1). A similar trend was seen in applications

to CommonApp schools in particular, since applying has become more convenient and,

consequently, students have begun to cast wider nets when looking for colleges. With the

increased volume of applications comes the increasingly bitter debate over who gets to fill the
 3

limited number of acceptance spots in each given school, particularly in the case of Ivy schools;

the holy grail of college admissions. In response to a growing disparity between different

nationalities and ethnicities of students due to differences in wealth and connections, affirmative

action policies were widely implemented to help out the proverbial little guy and make sure that

we were offering a fair shot at higher education to everyone. In a 2022 Columbia Law Review,

four authors (who are professors of law at prestigious schools, some of whom also hold

administrative positions) assess the legitimacy and effectiveness of affirmative action both in the

college world and in professional environments. Looking at other law reviews by studying

13,000 articles on the subject, the authors determined that law reviews that adopted diversity

policies saw (on average) a 23% increase in median citations of their volumes in the following

five years (Chilton et al. 1). This positive benefit stretches beyond just other law reviews,

however, as seen in a Harvard Business Review article discussing how diversity promotes

innovation. The authors (most of whom are economists, specializing in the role of diversity in

the workplace) specifically analyze how a diverse workforce benefits companies, making them

70% more likely to report that the firm captured a new market. More importantly, diversity

promotes understanding, since a team member who shares a client’s ethnicity is 152% more

likely to understand that client (Hewlett et al. 2). By looking at how diversity benefits the

workplace, we can better understand how important it is to promote diversity through affirmative

action policies at the college education level of society. If diversity promotes understanding both

for workforces and their clients, we have a responsibility to support that since it fosters a better

connection between a person in need and the company they have come to for support. We as

consumers should be able to have that, especially when it comes to the field of law and legal

representation. Historically, the legal field has been lacking in diversity, despite the many
 4

benefits it offers. In an article from the American Bar Association on the subject of how to

promote diversity in law firms, the authors (both attorneys and well-educated individuals)

reported that the percentage of active attorneys who are Asian was at 2% in 2016 (Laffey, Ng 2).

The underrepresentation of these ethnic groups is staggering, and it can often cause defendants to

feel a disconnect with their lawyer since the attorney doesn’t share their perspective or life

experience. In law particularly, it is important for attorneys to understand their clients, and

without diversity, we simply can’t guarantee that that is the case. Looking at all three of these

perspectives on the issue of affirmative action, I believe that we have an ethical responsibility to

maintain and foster diversity at all levels of society in order to promote a better understanding of

clients in the workplace and a more comfortable environment on a wider scale.

This second portion of my paper discusses the flaws in our current approach to

admissions, namely the issues inherent in a colorblind approach. The affirmative action approach

to college admissions and the colorblind rhetoric of conservative opponents to the system are

diametrically opposed. Arguments from more conservative politicians seek to abolish affirmative

action, claiming that true equality will arise on its own if we simply ignore race as a factor

entirely. The central flaw in this way of thinking is assuming that we have already obtained

economic equality, which we most certainly have not. In his argument on the meaning of John

Marshall’s dissent in the Plessy v Ferguson supreme court case, author Douglass Reed (Professor

of Government at Georgetown University) asserts that “His dissent insisted black Americans are

entitled to the full fruits of citizenship. This re-articulation reveals that race-conscious policies,

particularly within public education, fulfill, rather than undermine, Harlan’s primary objective of

defending black citizenship” (Reed 2). By looking at the very phrasing of our constitution and

the supreme court rulings that have added onto its original intent, we can clearly see that the
 5

ideas of affirmative action are completely in line with the ideals of our nation: equality of

opportunity, quality of education, and diversity. There is also overwhelming evidence that the

affirmative action system is promoting diversity and even creating a significant shift in

demographics in US schools. According to a UNESCO Institute of Statistics report (found in an

article from the Journal of Economic Perspectives), the number of international students from

China has increased sixfold in the past 17 years, and the number of students from India has

increased 250% as well (Bound 5). By increasing the incentive for international students to apply

to US universities, we have essentially given people an opportunity that was not previously

available on such a wide scale. This globalization of education has led to more

interconnectedness and understanding between some of the major world powers despite the fact

that they remain in tense political relationships. A colorblind approach would completely

undermine these benefits and force us back into the situation we fought so hard to reform:

inequality of opportunity.

Generally speaking, the college admissions process and the higher education system as a

whole are renowned for their meritocracy and are seen as the crux of our democratic system of

representation. If everyone deserves a vote, everyone deserves an education so they understand

the rights they have been guaranteed by their government, and the capability to speak their mind

when they feel they have been treated unfairly. In the past, differences in educational opportunity

have created socioeconomic rifts between genders, social classes, ethnicities, and even religions,

and if the attacks on affirmative action policies continue and succeed, we may soon face a similar

threat even in our post-reform modern era. If we aren’t willing to fight for the oppressed and

guarantee education and aid, how can we call ourselves “The Land of Opportunity”?
 6

Works Cited

Arcidiacono, Peter, et al. “Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard: Journal of Labor

Economics: Vol 40, No 1.” Journal of Labor Economics, 1 Jan. 2022,

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/713744.

Bound, John, et al. “The Globalization of Postsecondary Education: The Role of

International Students in the US Higher Education System.” Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 2021, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fjep.35.1.163.

Butler, Dwayne M., and Sarah W. Denton. “How Effective Are Blinding Concepts and

Practices to Promote Equity in the Department of the Air Force?” RAND Corporation, 30

Dec. 2021, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA909-2.html.

Chilton, Adam, et al. “Assessing Affirmative Action's Diversity Rationale.” SSRN, 1 June

2021, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3856280.

“How Diversity Can Drive Innovation.” Harvard Business Review, 1 Aug. 2014,

https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation.

Laffey, Allison, and Allison Ng. “Diversity and Inclusion in the Law: Challenges and

Initiatives.” Americanbar.org, 2018,

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/jiop/articles/2018/diversity-and-

inclusion-in-the-law-challenges-and-initiatives/.

Nietzel, Michael T. “Some Good News on the College Application Front.” Forbes, Forbes

Magazine, 21 Nov. 2022,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/11/18/some-good-news-on-the-college-

application-front/?sh=3fc7fb427f70.

“Preferential Treatment for Admission to Harvard : Monthly Labor Review.” U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/beyond-bls/preferential-treatment-for-admission-to-har

vard.htm.

Reed, Douglass E. “Harlan’s Harlan’s Dissent: Dissent Citizenship, Education, and the

COO ...” JSTOR, RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2021,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/rsf.2021.7.1.09.

Stahl, Ashley. “3 Benefits of Diversity in the Workplace.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 9

Nov. 2022,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2021/12/17/3-benefits-of-diversity-in-the-workpl

ace/?sh=2d66e52d22ed.