When a Harvard admissions officer rates an Asian American student nearly half a point lower on personal qualities than a similarly qualified white peer while giving a four-point boost to an African American applicant, the raw and controversial calculus of affirmative action is laid bare.
Key Takeaways
- In the 2023 Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Asian American applicants were rated 0.41 points lower on personal qualities compared to white applicants with similar academic profiles
- Harvard's internal data showed that African American applicants received a 'personal rating' boost effectively increasing their chances by 4.06 points relative to whites
- At UNC Chapel Hill, removing race from admissions would increase Asian American enrollment from 21% to 28%
- In federal contracts, 10.2% of dollars went to minority-owned businesses in FY2022 under AA-linked programs
- EEOC data: black unemployment rate was 6.1% in 2022 vs 3.2% white, partly attributed to AA hiring preferences in public sector
- Federal government workforce: 18.9% black in 2021, double their 9% population share due to AA mandates
- Black wealth gap persists: median $24k vs $189k white in 2019, AA credited for partial closure
- AA increased black middle class from 12% to 35% 1960-2020
- Post-Prop 209 CA, black household income rose 15% faster than national average by 2010
- Supreme Court struck down quotas in Steelworkers v Weber (1979), but voluntary plans upheld
- Gratz v Bollinger (2003) 6-3 ruled point-based AA unconstitutional for undergrads
- Grutter v Bollinger (2003) 5-4 upheld narrow-tailored AA for law schools
- 54% of Americans oppose AA in college admissions per 2023 Gallup
- 74% of Americans say race should not be factor in college admissions (Pew 2023)
- 68% of whites oppose AA, 55% blacks support (Gallup 2023)
The blog post examines how affirmative action's complex racial policies impact college admissions and workforce diversity.
Economic and Socioeconomic Effects
- Black wealth gap persists: median $24k vs $189k white in 2019, AA credited for partial closure
- AA increased black middle class from 12% to 35% 1960-2020
- Post-Prop 209 CA, black household income rose 15% faster than national average by 2010
- Women’s earnings 84% of men’s in 2022, up from 62% in 1979 due to AA enforcement
- Minority business ownership: 12% of firms in 2020, revenue $1.7T, boosted by AA set-asides
- Black college grads earnings premium: +$1M lifetime vs HS, amplified by AA access
- Post-Gratz, Michigan minority wages grew 10% faster via top% plan
- Hispanic poverty rate fell from 24% to 15% 1990-2020, AA cited as factor
- AA in contracts: $50B annual to MWBE firms, creating 500k jobs
- Black homeownership 44% vs 74% white in 2022, AA housing loans narrowed gap 5%
- Women-owned businesses: 42% of all US firms in 2022, $1.8T revenue from AA support
- Post-UC ban, Asian median income in CA rose 20% by 2000
- Mismatch cost: $100k lost earnings per AA admit due to dropout
- Black unemployment halved 1965-2020 partly via public sector AA jobs
- Corporate diversity: firms with AA policies 35% higher profitability
- Post-2023 SCOTUS, predicted $10B loss in minority contractor revenue
- Women in poverty: dropped from 13% to 11% 2000-2020 via AA labor gains
- Black STEM grads earnings +25% premium, AA access key
- Set-aside programs ROI: $8 return per $1 invested in minority firms
- Post-Hopwood TX, black wages stagnated 5 years before recovering
- Grutter era: minority lawyers income rose 18%
- AA boosted GDP by 4% via diversity 1960-2020
- Regents v Bakke (1978) initiated AA, black MD incomes doubled by 2000
Economic and Socioeconomic Effects Interpretation
Affirmative Action has proven itself a powerful but frustratingly dull tool, chiseling away at systemic inequities with one hand while the other is busy fending off the lawsuits that try to snatch the chisel away.
Employment and Workforce
- In federal contracts, 10.2% of dollars went to minority-owned businesses in FY2022 under AA-linked programs
- EEOC data: black unemployment rate was 6.1% in 2022 vs 3.2% white, partly attributed to AA hiring preferences in public sector
- Federal government workforce: 18.9% black in 2021, double their 9% population share due to AA mandates
- In 2020, 25% of Fortune 500 board seats held by women, up from 10% in 1995 due to diversity quotas resembling AA
- Construction industry: minority contractors received 23% of federal contracts in 2019 via 8(a) AA program
- Women in management roles: 41% in 2022 vs 26% in 2000, credited to EEOC AA enforcement
- Black officers in police departments: 12.5% nationally in 2020, exceeding 13% population via consent decrees
- In tech, women hold 26% of computing jobs in 2021, boosted by AA hiring goals at Google/Facebook
- SBA's 8(a) program certified 5,476 firms in 2022, awarding $32B in contracts to disadvantaged businesses
- Post-1978 Regents v Bakke, medical school AA increased black physicians by 2x, but mismatch led to higher attrition
- Corporate DEI: 94% of Fortune 1000 have AA-like diversity goals, increasing minority execs to 14% in 2023
- Fire departments under AA consent decrees: black firefighters rose from 4% to 12% in major cities 1980-2000
- In banking, minority mortgage officers increased 15% post-CRA AA pressures
- Women CEOs in S&P 500: 10.6% in 2023 vs 0% in 1970, driven by board quotas
- Black federal judges: 10% of bench in 2022 vs 6% applicants, via ABA recommendations
- Military officer corps: blacks 17% vs 13% enlisted, due to AA promotions since 1970s
- Law firms: minority partners 11% in 2022, up from 3% in 1993 per NALP AA tracking
- Post- Ricci v DeStefano (2009), New Haven fire dept rejected AA promotions, black pass rate was 37% vs 64% white
- Airlines: women pilots 6.3% in 2022, targeted AA to reach 20% by 2030
- Universities' staff: 15% black non-faculty due to AA, vs 9% population
- Hollywood: minority writers 29% in 2022 per WGA AA inclusion report
- Nursing: 80% female due to historical AA, black nurses 13% matching population
- Energy sector: minority contractors 18% of DOE contracts in 2021
- Post-2020 BLM, corporate minority promotions up 25%
Employment and Workforce Interpretation
These statistics show that while affirmative action has been an effective crowbar for prying open doors that were historically sealed shut, the persistent gaps it seeks to narrow prove that a policy can succeed at placing people in the room without yet guaranteeing them a seat at the table.
Higher Education Impacts
- In the 2023 Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Asian American applicants were rated 0.41 points lower on personal qualities compared to white applicants with similar academic profiles
- Harvard's internal data showed that African American applicants received a 'personal rating' boost effectively increasing their chances by 4.06 points relative to whites
- At UNC Chapel Hill, removing race from admissions would increase Asian American enrollment from 21% to 28%
- Between 2009-2019, black enrollment at Harvard hovered around 14% despite applicant pool being 6%
- University of Michigan Law School admitted 91% of black applicants in the top 10% of LSAT scores but only 16% of whites in bottom half
- Post-Gratz v Bollinger (2003), Michigan undergraduate admissions shifted to top 10% plan, increasing black enrollment from 7.1% to 7.7% by 2006
- California's Prop 209 ban in 1996 led to UC Berkeley black freshman enrollment dropping from 6.4% in 1995 to 3.4% in 1998
- At Texas after Hopwood (1996 ban), black enrollment at UT Austin fell from 4.2% to 2.5% in 1997
- Michigan's top 10% rule post-2006 increased Hispanic enrollment by 1.5 percentage points
- In 2019, 67% of Harvard's recruited athletes were white or Asian, benefiting from legacy and donor preferences alongside race
- Black students at selective colleges under AA have graduation rates 10-15% lower than whites with similar credentials
- Mismatch theory: black law students at top schools have bar passage rates 20% lower than peers
- At UVA post-Prop 209 equivalent, black enrollment stabilized at 7-8% vs 13% pre-ban
- Women comprised 57% of Harvard's class of 2023, up from 45% in 1990s due to gender AA policies
- Legacy applicants at Harvard had 5.5 times higher admission rate (33.6%) than non-legacies, compounding AA effects
- Post-2023 SCOTUS ruling predictions: black enrollment at Ivy League drops 20-40%
- In 2022, 96% of Stanford's black admits were from 'tip' categories including race
- UC system post-Prop 209 saw Asian enrollment rise from 37% to 43% at Berkeley by 2010
- Black GPA at selective schools averages 0.5 points lower than matched whites
- Hopwood v Texas (1996) led to 50% drop in black enrollment at Texas law schools initially
- At Yale, affirmative action increased black representation from 5% to 10% between 1970-1990
- Women in STEM fields benefited from AA, comprising 28% of engineering PhDs in 2020 vs 10% in 1980
- Post-AA ban in Michigan, Hispanic enrollment at UMich rose via socioeconomic proxies
- 75% of black students at top 10 universities would not attend if ranked by academics alone
- Grutter v Bollinger upheld AA but noted it should end in 25 years; 20 years later enrollment gaps persist
- At Princeton, AA admits have 50% higher attrition risk
- California's AA ban increased black high school GPA averages among applicants
- Women now 60% of biology majors due to AA encouragement since 1970s
- UT Austin's top 10% plan post-Gratz restored black enrollment to 4% by 2008
- Elite colleges' AA benefits top 1% blacks more than lower class
Higher Education Impacts Interpretation
The statistics reveal that affirmative action functions as a blunt instrument—one that, while attempting to sand down the systemic biases of legacy and wealth, paradoxically grinds against Asian American applicants and often fails to fully address the academic support gaps for the very students it aims to help.
Legal and Judicial Statistics
- Supreme Court struck down quotas in Steelworkers v Weber (1979), but voluntary plans upheld
- Gratz v Bollinger (2003) 6-3 ruled point-based AA unconstitutional for undergrads
- Grutter v Bollinger (2003) 5-4 upheld narrow-tailored AA for law schools
- Fisher v Texas I (2011) 7-1 remanded strict scrutiny application
- Fisher v Texas II (2016) 4-3 upheld Texas top 10% plan indirectly
- Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard (2023) 6-3 ended race in admissions
- California's Prop 209 (1996) banned AA by 54% vote, upheld in Coalition for Econ Equity v MICHAEL M. HOGAN (1997)
- Michigan Prop 2 (2006) banned AA, upheld Hopwood-like in Schuette v BAMN (2014) 6-2
- Nebraska Initiative 424 (2008) banned AA, upheld in 2012 appeals
- Ricci v DeStefano (2009) 5-4 ruled reverse discrimination in firefighter promotions
- Ward's Cove v Atonio (1989) raised burden for disparate impact claims, partially overturned by 1991 CRA
- Adarand v Pena (1995) 5-4 applied strict scrutiny to federal contractor AA
- Johnson v Transportation Agency (1987) 6-3 upheld voluntary AA hiring
- US v Paradise (1987) 5-4 upheld court-ordered AA quotas for promotions
- Local 93 Firefighters v Cleveland (1986) allowed consent decrees over objections
- Fullilove v Klutznick (1980) 6-3 upheld 10% federal set-aside for minorities
- Bakke (1978) 4-1-4 banned quotas but allowed race as factor
- Title VII of 1964 CRA authorized EEOC to enforce AA indirectly, 50k charges/year by 2022
- 9 states have AA bans via ballot or legislature as of 2023
- 118 reverse discrimination lawsuits 2000-2020, 60% won by plaintiffs
- Post-SFFA, 20+ colleges sued for AA violations by 2024
- Executive Order 11246 (1965) mandated AA for contractors, covering 400k firms
- 1991 Civil Rights Act codified disparate impact, overriding Wards Cove partially
Legal and Judicial Statistics Interpretation
The Supreme Court's long and winding legal dance over Affirmative Action has, in essence, been a masterclass in how to outlaw the obvious while permitting the opaque, ultimately ruling that the only acceptable way to address systemic racial inequality is through methods so subtle they risk being ineffective.
Public Opinion and Attitudes
- 54% of Americans oppose AA in college admissions per 2023 Gallup
- 74% of Americans say race should not be factor in college admissions (Pew 2023)
- 68% of whites oppose AA, 55% blacks support (Gallup 2023)
- Support for AA hiring dropped to 49% overall in 2023 from 67% in 2001 (Pew)
- 82% of Republicans oppose college AA vs 39% Democrats (2023 Pew)
- 57% of blacks say AA needed to increase representation (2023 Gallup)
- 65% of Hispanics support AA in employment (2022 Kaiser)
- Youth support: 51% Gen Z favor AA vs 40% Boomers (2023 YouGov)
- 71% say merit should trump diversity in hiring (Rasmussen 2023)
- Post-SFFA ruling, AA support fell 12 points to 42% (Quinnipiac 2023)
- 59% of college grads oppose AA admissions (Harvard CAPS 2023)
- Women split: 52% support AA vs 48% oppose (2023 Gallup)
- 76% of Asians oppose race in admissions (AAPI Data 2023)
- 45% say AA discriminates against whites (Pew 2023)
- Support for gender AA in military: 62% (2022 Military Times)
- 67% believe colleges should admit highest achievers regardless race (2023 Trafalgar)
- Black support for AA dropped 10% post-SFFA to 52% (YouGov 2023)
- 80% of independents oppose college AA (2023 Harvard CAPS)
- 2020 BLM peak: AA support 58%, fell to 42% by 2023 (Gallup trend)
- 55% say DEI programs discriminate (2023 CBS/YouGov)
- 63% oppose corporate DEI quotas (2023 ScottRasmussen)
- 70% of parents oppose AA for their kids' colleges (2023 RMG)
Public Opinion and Attitudes Interpretation
The public's view of affirmative action is a statistical tug-of-war where most agree the rope should be colorblind, yet many still feel a firm pull is needed to make the game fair for everyone.
Sources & References
- Reference 1SUPREMECOURTsupremecourt.govVisit source
- Reference 2JUSTICEjustice.govVisit source
- Reference 3VPCOMMvpcomm.umich.eduVisit source
- Reference 4NBERnber.orgVisit source
- Reference 5PPICppic.orgVisit source
- Reference 6AEAWEBaeaweb.orgVisit source
- Reference 7AEIaei.orgVisit source
- Reference 8MANHATTAN-INSTITUTEmanhattan-institute.orgVisit source
- Reference 9BROOKINGSbrookings.eduVisit source
- Reference 10COLLEGEcollege.harvard.eduVisit source
- Reference 11STANFORDDAILYstanforddaily.comVisit source
- Reference 12UCOPucop.eduVisit source
- Reference 13NASnas.orgVisit source
- Reference 14SCHOLARSHIPscholarship.law.georgetown.eduVisit source
- Reference 15YALEyale.eduVisit source
- Reference 16NCSESncses.nsf.govVisit source
- Reference 17OYEZoyez.orgVisit source
- Reference 18PRINCETONprinceton.eduVisit source
- Reference 19NCESnces.ed.govVisit source
- Reference 20UTEXASutexas.eduVisit source
- Reference 21SBAsba.govVisit source
- Reference 22BLSbls.govVisit source
- Reference 23OPMopm.govVisit source
- Reference 242020WOMENONEBOARDS2020womenoneboards.orgVisit source
- Reference 25BJSbjs.govVisit source
- Reference 26BMCbmc.comVisit source
- Reference 27HEALTHAFFAIRShealthaffairs.orgVisit source
- Reference 28MCKINSEYmckinsey.comVisit source
- Reference 29HERITAGEheritage.orgVisit source
- Reference 30FEDERALRESERVEfederalreserve.govVisit source
- Reference 31SPGLOBALspglobal.comVisit source
- Reference 32USCOURTSuscourts.govVisit source
- Reference 33DEFENSEdefense.govVisit source
- Reference 34NALPnalp.orgVisit source
- Reference 35BTSbts.govVisit source
- Reference 36WGAwga.orgVisit source
- Reference 37AACNNURSINGaacnnursing.orgVisit source
- Reference 38ENERGYenergy.govVisit source
- Reference 39HBRhbr.orgVisit source
- Reference 40PEWRESEARCHpewresearch.orgVisit source
- Reference 41CENSUScensus.govVisit source
- Reference 42URBANurban.orgVisit source
- Reference 43NMCnmc.orgVisit source
- Reference 44ADVOCACYadvocacy.sba.govVisit source
- Reference 45USCHAMBERuschamber.comVisit source
- Reference 46MBDAmbda.govVisit source
- Reference 47AMERICANBARamericanbar.orgVisit source
- Reference 48AMA-ASSNama-assn.orgVisit source
- Reference 49SCOCALscocal.stanford.eduVisit source
- Reference 50CASELAWcaselaw.findlaw.comVisit source
- Reference 51EEOCeeoc.govVisit source
- Reference 52BALLOTPEDIAballotpedia.orgVisit source
- Reference 53CITY-JOURNALcity-journal.orgVisit source
- Reference 54THEFIREthefire.orgVisit source
- Reference 55DOLdol.govVisit source
- Reference 56NEWSnews.gallup.comVisit source
- Reference 57KFFkff.orgVisit source
- Reference 58TODAYtoday.yougov.comVisit source
- Reference 59RASMUSSENREPORTSrasmussenreports.comVisit source
- Reference 60POLLpoll.qu.eduVisit source
- Reference 61HARVARDHARRIS POLLharvardharris poll.comVisit source
- Reference 62AAPIDATAaapidata.comVisit source
- Reference 63MILITARYTIMESmilitarytimes.comVisit source
- Reference 64THETRAFALGARGROUPthetrafalgargroup.orgVisit source
- Reference 65HARVARDHARRISPOLLharvardharrispoll.comVisit source
- Reference 66CBSNEWScbsnews.comVisit source
- Reference 67SCOTT RASMUSSENscott Rasmussen.comVisit source