Dating back to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, affirmative action was created to ensure equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless of race, gender, disability, age, or ethnic origin. President John F. Kennedy first implemented affirmative action in Executive Order 10925, which created the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (PCEEO). The PCCEO enforces policies aimed at remedying historic segregation, discrimination, and unjust treatment of minority groups in the workplace and university environments [1]. 

One of the most influential yet controversial applications of affirmative action is its historic presence in the undergraduate college admissions process, particularly regarding its treatment of prospective minority students. In the past twenty-five years, as the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court has rotated, affirmative action has been viewed from two different perspectives. Left-leaning Supreme Courts view affirmative action as a guideline to foster diversity on university campuses, while right-leaning Supreme Courts view it as a constitutional violation of equal opportunity [2]. These same beliefs also reflect across the general public. Some believe that affirmative action is necessary to ensure diversity on college campuses, but others cite it as a catalyst for counter discrimination, encouraging college admissions based on demographics rather than merit [3]. Those who view affirmative action as counter-discrimination also believe that the policy undermines student work; or, alternatively, that it prioritizes admittance based on diversity. As a result, they argue that it fails to consider the academic, extra-curricular, and social achievements of other applicants. Although affirmative action has instigated controversial political discourse and alternative opinions in both the federal government and the general public, the solution to this debate does not lie in minority quotas, the removal of personal essays about experience, or a greater emphasis on an ethnic checkbox. Rather than deciding whether affirmative action should be implemented, the government should invest in K-12 education, mitigating the effects of race on academic achievement and precluding the need for affirmative action entirely.

The absence of elementary school funding in school districts composed primarily of students of color is overwhelming, and their lack of resources is directly connected to poorer academic performance. Data from The Education Trust indicates that districts with a majority of students of color receive 16% less state and local revenue than white-majority districts [4]. Districts with the most non-native English learners receive 14% less revenue than districts with the fewest non-native English learners [4]. Additionally, high poverty districts, most often correlated with individuals of color, receive 5% less state and local revenue than their wealthier district counterparts [4]. In disadvantaged school districts receiving less investment, a common issue arises: underperforming students. The 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a nationally representative assessment given every two years in public primary and secondary schools to measure reading and mathematical skills, reported that Black and Latino students exhibited large decreases in performance scores compared to white and Asian-American students of the same age [4]. Insufficient resources in the school districts of minority communities not only reflects inequity in funding and investment but also has the clear effect of diminishing student achievement, which demonstrates that a lack of funding is a systemic inequity and a barrier to minority student success.

This underperformance, stemming from a lack of resources in elementary and secondary schools, affects students as they apply to college, particularly in standardized testing. Intended to be a standardized predictor of undergraduate success, the reintroduction of these examinations instead creates an unfair advantage for wealthier applicants, who can afford expensive tutoring programs [5]. It is important to note that these scores are not simple indicators of intelligence; rather, they are benchmarks that top universities use to admit students, with the median ACT at Brown University a 34-35 and the median SAT a 1540 [6]. Research presented by professors from Harvard and Brown finds that, among students in the bottom 20% of the income distribution, only a quarter take the SAT or ACT, and of those who do, only about 2.5% score a 1300 or higher [7]. Conversely, among students from high-income families, 80% or more take one of the two tests, and of them, about 20% score a 1300 or higher [7]. This disparity is rooted in a variety of factors that directly affect minority students, who are often low-income. These factors include a lack of instructional time in schools, lower salaries for students teaching in minority districts, and most importantly, the inability of these families to afford expensive tutoring for standardized tests. Without these foundational resources in schools or the monetary means to acquire a tutor, the success of minority students on the SAT or ACT is systematically hindered. Though these tests may be intended to create an equitable, standardized measurement for future success, the structural roadblocks that minority students confront in attempting to score well on these tests demonstrate another profound inequity in the education system for these individuals—an inequity that affirmative action cannot solve.

These structural inequities in resources for different K-12 schools led to the push for affirmative action in undergraduate university admissions. However, the Supreme Court’s stance on the issue has varied. In the 2016 case Fisher v. The University of Texas, Abigail Fisher, a white female denied admission to the University of Texas, sued the University for considering race in the admissions process. She argued this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” [8]. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Texas in a 4-3 decision, finding the university’s admissions process legal because it emphasized a holistic review process, did not demand minority quotas, and was thoughtfully described as the only way to meet the institution's diversity initiatives [9]. Alternatively, in the 2023 case of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court ruled in the opposite direction. Students for Fair Admissions—a nonprofit organization that advocates “colorblind” admissions—sued Harvard College over their admissions process, arguing that Asian Americans and white individuals were discriminated against in favor of “underrepresented” minority applicants. Because this case governed an action that triggered strict scrutiny, the Court initiated the highest level of judicial review. This standard requires the law to be narrowly tailored to “a compelling government interest,” and is applied when a law either harms a fundamental right or involves suspect classifications such as race, religion, or national origin [10]. Under strict scrutiny review, the court found that Harvard’s admissions practices were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest, ultimately finding Harvard in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment [11]. Although these two cases had different outcomes, both focused on the implementation of affirmative action rather than recognizing that the root causes of inequality lie within the education system. 

In this way, affirmative action is the structural bandaid that neglects the twelve years of education students received before even opening a college application. By incorporating affirmative action into the holistic review of undergraduate applications, universities ignore the national issue that led to the need for affirmative action in the first place: the lack of resources and funding available to minority students. Because such amenities would create an equal playing field for all prospective students and ensure fairness in the college admissions process, focusing on affirmative action in lieu of strengthening primary and secondary education is unproductive and counterintuitive. In considering socioeconomic and racial demographics during the application process, some argue that universities engage in counter-discrimination against non-minority students, accept students who may not be prepared to attend university, and neglect the fact that affirmative action will not solve the problems it intends to. In a post-Students for Fair Admissions country that has outlawed affirmative action in undergraduate admissions, the solution does not lie in a continued debate over the policy, the re-institution of test-optional applications, the discontinuation of of a demographic checkbox for race on the application, or the overturning of the 2023 precedent set by the Supreme Court altogether. Instead, the solution lies in investment in primary and secondary education in minority school districts [12]. 

As demonstrated above, a lack of funding in K-12 schools in minority districts directly contributes to lower scores on nationally representative exams and an inability to adequately prepare for standardized tests, two of the most important and predictive components for success in an undergraduate degree. Affirmative action does not help these issues, failing to level the playing field across different racial and socioeconomic groups. A study from the Learning Policy Institute outlines that decreases in funding lead to lower test scores, a widened achievement gap between white and black students, and a loss of teachers [13]. However, the source also outlines that in providing these resources to primary and secondary schools in underserved districts, students demonstrate greater improvements in reading and math, greater achievement gains in summer school and tutoring programs, and a narrowing achievement gap between low and high socioeconomic districts [13]. The Public Policy Institute of California provides similar results: sustained spending in the education system increases test scores, graduation rates, and college attendance [14]. 

If equipped with the resources to succeed before entering the world of college admissions, minority students will be able to compete on an even playing field, and the debate over affirmative action will become irrelevant. If students of low and high income backgrounds alike are both supplied with adequate education, resources, and funding, the need for reparative attempts at equity that often become counterproductive will be precluded. Inequality is rooted in K-12 education, and an active effort to increase the support these districts receive will have substantive effects on the outcomes of student achievement. If these educational disparities are addressed earlier in the academic careers of individual students, performance in school and on standardized testing in minority districts will improve, the debate on reparative policy in admissions can settle, and the structural bandaid of affirmative action will no longer be necessary.