Judged unconstitutional, Affirmative Action, a minority preferential policy of the United States with a history of more than 60 years since 1961, is expected to disappear. There is also an analysis that the policy for securing diversity should differ from the past.

According to the New York Times (NYT), the US Supreme Court ruled on June 29 in favor of the Student For Fair Admissions (SFFA), which filed a constitutional complaint against the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Harvard University (HU) for discriminating against white and Asian applicants. It is against the Constitution to give preferential treatment to ethnic minorities, which are Africans and Hispanics.

Affirmative action is a policy that benefits people in disadvantaged positions in the US for reasons such as race, gender, religion, and disability. The bill, which began in 1961 with the progressive President John F. Kennedy, was intended to restore the rights of African Americans which were taken away by slavery in white-centered American society. It has expanded to the realm of college education over time, and races have also expanded to include Indians, Hispanics, and Asians. The later president, Lyndon Johnson, issued a new order in 1965 that expanded coverage throughout the entire federal government, and each university in the US introduced this policy in succession. 

■ Controversy over Reverse Discrimination in the US

This policy enabled the status of minorities in the US to rise through higher education. According to the data submitted by HU during the constitutional amendment process, more than 40% of universities and 60% of elementary and secondary education institutions in the US considered race in selecting freshmen. The biggest beneficiaries of this policy are identified as African Americans and Hispanic students. HU introduced this policy in 1965 under an executive order, and the number of African Americans freshmen in the first year increased sharply by 51%p from the previous year. 

However, controversy over reverse discrimination arose as white and Asian students were pushed out by a relatively low-performing minority competitor. Several lawsuits have been filed, but in 1978, the US Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action was constitutional and maintained its position in the 2003 appeal, as well. However, affirmative action in the US has been constantly on the agenda, and since 1996, beginning in California, states that prohibit alternative action in college entrance examinations have started to increase. Currently, nine of the 50 states in the US, including Florida, Michigan, California, and Washington, have banned affirmative action. At the University of California, Berkeley, the number of African Americans and Hispanic freshmen halved within two years after the 1996 ban on affirmative action.

Protests spread around HU in the US on July 1 after the judgement of it being unconstitutional. Opinions on the unconstitutional ruling were sharply divided because the range of benefits of affirmative action were different, even within the same minority race. According to a poll conducted by ABC in June, 52% of respondents supported the Supreme Court's decision, while 32% opposed it. By race, 60% of Whites and 58% of Asians voted for the Supreme Court decision, while only 25% of African Americans voted in favor. Except for the representative beneficiary race, more than half voted in favor of the unconstitutional ruling.

Opinions in the US court are also divided. According to a Washington Post (WP) report on June 29, Chief Justice John Roberts said, in his sentencing, “For too long, universities have mistakenly concluded that skin color, not skill or learning, is the standard for assessing an individual's identity. Students should be treated according to their individual experience, not race.” On the contrary, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal proponent of minority views, said, “Equal educational opportunity is a prerequisite for achieving racial equality in the US The ruling is a setback to decades of precedent and significant progress.”

The opinions of the students who are the actual parties are not narrowed. Lee Ye-Bin (Economics, University of Minnesota), a student studying in the US, claimed, "I don't think this bill fits the current era as it came out decades ago." In fact, A white student in her college consulting firm had good specs and very high-test scores, so she could enter the Ivy League but could not be admitted because of racial quotas.

On the other hand, an African-American student A, a participant in Pusan National University (PNU) Language Education Program, said, “The affirmative action seems to be positive because it provides opportunities for minority students to attend college that they would not have even thought of applying for.” In addition, referring to the legacy system that benefits the children of alumni at the time of enrollment at private universities, she added, “As long as the legacy system is continuously implemented, affirmative action should be legal.”

■ Starting to Change in the Aftermath

According to the ruling, the admission system is changing rapidly at Ivy League universities in the US. Brown University President Christina Paxson said on the school's website on June 29, “During this summer vacation, we will focus on developing our admissions system through a thorough legal review of the Supreme Court's ruling.” On August 3, the HU school newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, said, "We have drastically revised the freshman self-introduction question by the unconstitutional ruling. I will emphasize questions about their own identities and growth background." This is interpreted to solve the school's racial diversity problem differently.

Scholars suggest looking at the world's controversial affirmative action from various perspectives. They also emphasize changes in social awareness over the passage of time. Shin Ji-Eun (Prof. of Sociology, PNU) said, “It should be noted that some of the people who criticized affirmative action were minorities. This means that those who can benefit the most also think that it is fair to win a good reward by trying hard.” She continued, adding, “It will be necessary to approach social minorities differently from the past while maintaining the intention of promoting social diversity and correcting the “unlevel playing field”.” 

Affirmative action is not unique to the US. Various affirmative action policies have been implemented in each country, such as the UK and India's “affirmative action,” Sri Lanka's “standardization,” Malaysia and Indonesia's “Son of the Land,” and Nigeria's “Federal Characteristics.” Minority preferential policies in Korea include a women's quota system, a mandatory employment system for the disabled, preferential treatment for children of national merit, special admission to college entrance examinations, and a regional quota system.

Reporter Lim Chae-Kyung

Translated by Lim Chae-Kyung