On Oct. 6, a column was published in Student Life called “Racism and Affirmative Action.” Its central point is that “[a]ffirmative action is a fundamentally racist concept, and its implementation goes against racial equality.” The author argues for a “racially-blind, economically oriented alternative” to replace current affirmative action policies. This opinion, while drawing valuable attention to a need for socioeconomic diversity on college campuses and reduction of socioeconomic disparities in society in general, neglects the continuing role of race in the United States.

Before detailing a few reasons why affirmative action is important, we would like to address some claims made in the column. First, the author misrepresents the argument for affirmative action: “Either whites have oppressed minorities to the point that they are noticeably lower on the economic totem pole…or minorities are noticeably lower on the economic totem pole than are their white counterparts.” While the first half of this claim has truth to it, the latter half insinuates that the current economic condition of minorities is a product of mere happenstance—a claim out of historical context at best, a sign of racial bigotry at worst. Accuracy aside, the author appears to miss the point that affirmative action is about race, not economics. Affirmative action was created to correct for racial, not economic, inequality.

Second, the author overlooks other instances of preference within the college admissions process. He makes the claim that “the fact that—all things being equal—a black college applicant will be accepted over a white one is racist by definition.” Not only does this treat college admissions, a holistic process, as something very rigid, but also it fails to acknowledge factors such as legacy. The fact that, all things being equal—and even when they are not—an applicant whose parents went to the school in question will be accepted over one whose parents did not is unequal by definition. This line of reasoning could be applied to several factors—musical talent, athletic ability or geographical location. The fact that, all things being equal, an applicant who grew up in a remote village in the Arctic will be accepted over someone from Westchester County, N.Y., is unequal by definition. The University has a vested interest in creating a diverse atmosphere that fosters the humanistic traditions of intellectualism through the representation of different people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Some may question the fairness of this process. However, the lines that define “equal” and “fair” become blurred when the experiences of and opportunities available to minority students are considered.

Given that the author supports preferential treatment of low-income students during the application process, we might conclude that he would broadly support policies that correct social inequalities that affect access to higher education. He claims: “[a]ffirmative action makes the assumption that minorities are disadvantaged—itself having dubious moral implications.” What really has dubious moral implications is the insinuation that systemic racial inequalities—divorced from socioeconomic factors—do not exist, and that they are of no detriment to minorities. A discussion of how they permeate nearly all facets of society would be too lengthy for this editorial, but, rest assured, plenty exist within the educational system. In just one example of this, an Indiana Education Policy Center Report compared seven different studies ranging from the late 1970s to 2000 and found consistent racial disproportionality in the discipline of students, independent of socioeconomic status. Specifically, black males were suspended at three times the rate of their white counterparts, and black females were suspended at four times the rate. As Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez noted, “students of color are disproportionally affected by zero-tolerance policies—a fact that only serves to exacerbate deeply entrenched disparities.”

Perhaps the greatest obstacle minorities face is having to overcome the low expectations their teachers and administrators can have of them. I, Ola, felt this personally upon arriving to a new middle school. I remember my mother made a specific point of sending in records of my and my brother’s grades and enrollment in a gifted program. In a meeting with our new guidance counselor, however, my mother was pointedly asked: “Do they speak English? Do they need to be placed in a special education class?” Never mind the fact that this guidance counselor did not see it worth his time to read the files that my mother sent him. For my brother and me to be so readily dismissed, and have our individual potentials underestimated based of preconceived notions because of our skin color, could have easily served as a psychological impediment to our success.

The opening of a discussion about affirmative action and systemic inequalities is most welcome. We must be careful to ground such a discussion in a historical context, however, in order not to distort the issue and engage in diatribe. One must remember, for example, that women have in fact been the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action. Or that numerous Supreme Court precedents exist that limit the extent of affirmative action’s influence. Or that, most importantly, post-racial rhetoric in a still racially charged society can prove to be dangerous. As former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative action program in a racially neutral way and have it be successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible. In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”