55. Who’s Really Harmed by Affirmative Action?
When the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, the news cycle was full of headlines: “Asian American Students Win.” “Harvard Discriminated Against White Applicants.” Suddenly, people who had never thought about Equal Protection were talking about fairness and harm.
Social media lit up. TikTok and Reddit feeds filled with students and parents saying versions of the same thing: “If Harvard hadn’t done affirmative action, I’d be there right now instead of State U.” It became a narrative shorthand for a sense of unfairness.
The Myth of the “Stolen Seat”
This isn’t new. In 1978, Allan Bakke, a white engineer, sued UC Davis Medical School, arguing minority applicants took “his spot.” The school ultimately conceded he would have been admitted without affirmative action—just to avoid dismissal for lack of standing. But the reality was messier: dozens of white applicants with higher scores were also rejected.
Fast-forward to Jennifer Gratz, rejected from Michigan’s undergrad program in 1995, and Barbara Grutter, rejected from its law school. Both argued affirmative action cost them admission. But Michigan received thousands of applications for a few hundred spots. Even without race-conscious policies, odds were stacked against almost everyone.
What the Data Actually Show:
Most white applicants rejected would have been rejected even without affirmative action.
Race-conscious admissions mostly shift who is considered among highly qualified applicants, not the overall number of seats.
And yet, post-SFFA data tell an important story:
Harvard and UNC saw immediate declines in Black and Latino enrollment.
White and Asian American enrollment increased.
To some, that looks like proof affirmative action was giving “unfair” advantages. But the data suggest something different: affirmative action mainly determined which equally qualified students filled the last few seats—and often broadened access for first-generation and low-income applicants, including many white students. In other words, it wasn’t about letting “unqualified” people in; it was about widening who gets a fair look when qualifications are already strong.
Legally, plaintiffs don’t have to prove they would have been admitted to claim harm. The Court says it’s enough to show they were denied an equal chance to compete—like being excluded from a job interview, even if someone else would likely have gotten the job.
And here’s the kicker: while race-conscious admissions are now gone, legacy admissions remain, a policy that disproportionately benefits wealthy, white families and gives their children a boost no one else can access. If fairness means an equal shot, why do we keep the one policy that gives some applicants a head start simply because of their last name?
Why It Feels Personal
So why does the “stolen seat” story resonate? Because rejection stings, and visible policies—like race-conscious admissions—give rejection a face. In the wake of SFFA, high school counselors report parents emailing, “My kid didn’t get in because of affirmative action.” One counselor told me, “It’s never because their child chose four AP classes instead of seven, or because 50,000 kids applied. It’s because of race.”
The Deeper Question
That tension between the feeling of harm and actual measurable injury has always haunted affirmative action. Is fairness about identical treatment for individuals, or about expanding opportunity for groups historically excluded? Bakke, Grutter, SFFA all circle that same question.
I think the question of "Is fairness about identical treatment for individuals, or about expanding opportunity for groups historically excluded?" is a great one. The consensus amongst a group that both values diversity for diversity's sake and that understands how systemic harm and the law can interact would likely be "both". The point is opening the other side of the double door, not shutting the one already wide open to non-marginalized applicants. I think this also gets to the notion that some day in the future, affirmative action will disadvantage white applicants in a tangible way, not just in a way that they surmise is/has been happening. Were that to be the case, this is where I think it's important to explicitly say, "We value diversity for the sake of diversity" and not JUST "We value affirmative action as a remedial measure". When you add this first assertion, you also soothe the fear of non-marginalized groups who envision a future where they see an education ban with their name on it. When it's made clear that measures will forever be taken to ensure diversity BECAUSE of the value of diversity for everyone, you effectively promise that SHOULD that feared day come where the racism is (literally) reversed, then affirmative action will benefit currently non-marginalized populations too. Understandably, this creates the potential for a body of scholarship to ignite revealing that reverse-racism is real and affirmative action is harming white students. I welcome that. I welcome a credible study that demonstrates that affirmative action is tangibly harming white students. And should that be the case, I welcome a dialogue that gets to the core of the systemic harm facing minority communities in this country and actions that should and could be taken in the name of equity AND equality. The idea that it should be an aim for students to be treated the same (equality) and that students who have been placed at a disadvantage should benefit from a remedy (equity) are not mutually exclusive. I think the potential harm that we want to avoid is in treating these aims as such.