Shifting our focus from racial to socioeconomic affirmative action might be a better approach, considering it’s not about race but rather opportunity and financial circumstances that shape one’s future. Take, for instance, wealthy families who can afford expensive SAT tutors, giving their children a substantial advantage over those from poorer backgrounds. This inequality was highlighted during the pandemic, affecting schools like Lowell High and TJ High, leading to widespread disappointment.
The controversy extends to college campuses too. For example, the Berkeley College Republicans (BCR) at the University of California held a pastry sale to protest proposed legislation allowing race and gender considerations in admissions. The sale priced pastries based on race, aiming to critique how Caucasians and Asians must achieve higher to gain entry into UC Berkeley. Initially, I was angry, but I later realized that the event was trying to make a broader point about admissions fairness, though in a manner many found distasteful.
Being Asian and applying to schools is particularly tough. Despite Asians making up 46% of UC Berkeley’s population—significantly higher than their 14% representation in California—the hypothetical cost of pastries for Asians should be higher, reflecting the tougher competition they face due to over-representation.
The whole pastry sale, while meant to spark discussion, unfortunately, ended up offending and demeaning the achievements of minorities. It’s a flawed method of protesting policies that are seen by some as discriminatory.
In broader terms, many agree that basing college admissions on race or gender is discriminatory. My friends from various backgrounds believe that race shouldn’t dictate college admissions, advocating instead for measures that elevate socioeconomic status as a factor. This is because socioeconomic disparities cut across racial lines and can profoundly impact educational and life opportunities. For example, a child from a wealthy family has access to resources and extracurricular activities far beyond the reach of a child supported by a single parent earning $28,000 a year.
The question then arises: why aren’t more schools using socioeconomic criteria for admissions? It’s arguably a more relevant measure today than race. The reliance on generalizations based on race rather than tangible financial information is both lazy and ineffective, considering the ease of assessing income and assets, a common practice among banks and landlords.
In essence, the discourse around affirmative action, whether at Berkeley or elsewhere, reflects broader societal struggles with race, privilege, and education fairness. While efforts like the BCR’s pastry sale aim to challenge these issues, their approach can sometimes obscure the message they intend to convey, leading to further controversy and misunderstanding.
