The Issue Isn’t Black and White: Racism in the education system should be fought at an earlier level, rather than relying on affirmative action plans.

Americans are realizing that their universities slapped a Band-Aid on discrimination when affirmative action — the policy of favoring groups regarded as disadvantaged — was implemented in the ‘60s and called it good. 

What was created to favor historically disadvantaged Black, Hispanic, American Indian and American Asian minorities in the college application process has become a deeply flawed system that fails to make up for institutionalized racial injustice in America’s education system. 

Affirmative action is outdated and ignores the issue of discrimination at its core. It’s better than allowing universities to become clouded with white legacy students, but it also shouldn’t be our permanent solution. 

In recent months, its flaws have grabbed the attention of students and the Supreme Court alike.

SCOTUS heard two cases on Oct. 31 that challenged the race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, brought to SCOTUS by the anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions.

The group argues that these universities’ admission policies are racially discriminatory against white and Asian students who may get overshadowed by Black or Latino applicants in their college admissions process. Lawyers arguing against this group claim that affirmative action is essential in decaying racial inequity in the education system, according to the New York Times.

While two sides are arguing for this case, affirmative action isn’t simply a two-sided issue. Though it’s well-intentioned, affirmative action doesn’t reach the root of the problem and is not the solution we should settle on. 

Although seeking out marginalized applicants can make universities appear more diverse and can be form of reparations for slavery and government mistreatment of minorities, it negatively affects other minority groups like Asian Americans — contradicting its efforts.

White students will never be racially discriminated against, which Students for Fair Admissions is arguing. However Asian American students are targets of racism, meaning that, according to affirmative action standards, they should receive an upper-hand. 

But due to high standards and stereotypes that academically pressure Asian American students from a variety of backgrounds, the assistance they’re supposed to receive from affirmative action is reduced.

Affirmative action is doing the opposite of its intention by holding Asian Americans to a higher standard than other marginalized groups that are equally disadvantaged by our government. This is just one reason why it needs to be replaced.

Banning affirmative action means that it needs to be replaced with reparations for centuries of discrimination against minorities, the elimination of legacy admissions, free college and funding for marginalized communities. These solutions actually tackle racial discrepancy at its core, rather than treating it like a surface-level issue, which affirmative action currently does. 

Black, Latino and American Indian minorities suffer from a lack of government funding and support for their communities’ public schools, which can cause a lack of preparation for higher education and leads to the lower college success rate of minority students, according to edtrust.org.

Two-thirds of minority students still attend schools that are mostly minority and are located in central cities that receive far less funding than neighboring, suburban schools, like the Kansas City Public School district, where 54% of their students are Black, 27% are Hispanic, and 11% are white, according to Brookings. 

In comparison, 84% of East’s students are white, according to greatschools.org. The difference in these statistics is that East is significantly more privileged than these urban schools due to Prairie Village’s high income rates, and has a higher graduation rate amongst students. 

This discrepancy in diversity stems from Kansas City’s history of segregation and the lack of funding or resources to actually fix it, which is the issue that affirmative action attempts to hide. 

Marginalized applicants not reaching the standards of their white competition is not an issue of college admissions counselors being directly racist. It’s an economic issue.

Due to the historical implications of segregation and racial discrimination, marginalized communities lack the resources — technology, laboratories, tutoring — assisting with success in higher education. Lowering the standards for minority applicants doesn’t fix the lack of ACT tutors at their high school.

If more resources were implemented in lower education — like teacher support, safer learning environments or family counseling — minority students will have the same opportunities and preparedness as their white, privileged counterparts.

The wealth gap stemming from racial disparity is a blaring issue, especially in Kansas City where Troost Ave. is practically begging us to redistribute wealth. Resources need to be implemented at the elementary level, so Black, Hispanic and American Indian students can prepare for higher education — rather than getting through the admissions process only to fall behind in higher education due to a lack of preparation. 

Affirmative action succeeds at making prestigious universities appear to be a diverse representation of our general population. But the fact that the admissions process needs to be tampered with in order to show this diversity in higher education should be a wake up call that marginalized students and their communities are hurting.