The War on Affirmative Action: A Battle to Preserve Privilege

Winter 2025

Katharine Vo Hoang

Edited By: Ryan O’Donnell

The “persecution complex” refers to when people hold an unsubstantiated belief that another person or a group of people is trying to harm, threaten, or conspire against them in some way [1]. This is why people who are in historic positions of privilege feel forsaken when there are measures taken to equalize a power imbalance. This is only possible, because we live in a society where our material condition is indicative of how much work we put in and thus everything we have, we apparently deserve. For instance, when students with a competitive SAT score of 1500 who have historically benefited from systemic advantages in elite college admissions are no longer guaranteed admission due to policies designed to foster diversity, a moral panic ensues. Although these students are socialized to believe the system is tailored to serve their demographic, they interpret their rejection as betrayal. Seeking an explanation, they target affirmative action policies and marginalized communities as scapegoats. This distracts from the systemic inequalities that make affirmative action necessary in the first place and perpetuates divisive narratives. Affirmative action is defined as an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and for women [2]. At the same time, legacy admissions highlight the double standard in these critiques. Most students admitted into elite institutions benefit from their family ties to their schools, securing admission through policies that overwhelmingly favor wealthy, predominantly White families. A recent study of 12 highly selective, private, “Ivy plus” colleges determined that one of the advantages for students from high-income families is legacy admissions [3]. These mechanisms of privilege are rarely scrutinized, even as affirmative action that is meant to rectify historical inequalities are met with intense opposition. The pushback against affirmative action is not about fairness–it is about preserving privilege. As race-conscious policies have been expanded to address systemic inequalities, those accustomed from benefiting from an unjust system now see themselves as victims. The resentment has led to legal challenges that ultimately led to the dismantling of affirmative action, with wealthy, often white individuals at the center of these cases embodying a pattern of entitlement masked as a fight for “equality.” Selective outrage, rooted in a persecution complex, not only perpetuates existing disparities but also exacerbates social divisions by pitting individuals against one another. This distraction obscures the true systemic barriers to equality, such as legacy admissions and policies with specific systemic advantages for individuals, which ultimately hinders the progress to a more equitable society.

For decades, the legal system has recognized that racial disparities in education are deeply rooted in the history of the United States. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Supreme Court declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional, acknowledging that racial inequality in education was discriminatory [4]. The decision set a precedent for addressing systemic discrimination, but the recent ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) reveals just how far backwards the Court has evolved in protecting racial minorities. Where Brown acknowledged and sought to rectify historical injustices, today’s Court prefers to ignore it, embracing a dangerous approach that assumes racism is no longer a barrier to opportunity. The destruction of affirmative action contradicts the very principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which explicitly prohibits racial discrimination in federally funded programs, including education [5]. Affirmative action was always aligned with this act–ensuring that historically excluded communities had a fair chance at higher education. Yet, modern interpretations have twisted the meaning of equality, favoring those who already hold privilege while disregarding the barriers persistently faced by marginalized groups. 

The fight against affirmative action has consistently been led by those who refuse to acknowledge how the system has always worked in their favor. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Barbara Grutter, a white woman, sued the University of Michigan Law School after being denied admission, claiming that race-conscious admissions violated her rights [6]. Her lawsuit highlighted a common trend: when the system no longer guarantees success for those who always benefited from it, they suddenly view it as unfair. But the reality is that even without affirmative action, whiteness remains an advantage in education and employment. The Supreme Court upheld the university’s policy, recognizing diversity as a compelling interest [7]. However, the case itself foreshadowed future challenges, as it left room for further debate over race in admissions. That debate intensified with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013, 2016), when Abigail Fisher, another white woman, sued after being rejected from UT Austin. Despite not qualifying for the system of Texas universities’ automatic admission program for the Top 10% and noncompetitive statistics, Fisher refused to blame her own academic performance[8]. The irony? As a woman, Fisher herself benefited from affirmative action policies that historically helped women gain access to better opportunities in higher education. Can we blame education for her lack of knowledge instead? The lawsuits challenging affirmative action reflects a pattern of entitlement rather than a genuine fairness. Gutter and Fisher exemplify how the persecution complex operates. Instead of recognizing that no applicant is ever entitled to admission, they framed their rejection as injustice. Their lawsuits were not based on evidence of discrimination but on the basis that they deserved a spot, and race-conscious policies served as a secure scapegoat to blame for why it was unjustly taken from them. Though the Court ultimately upheld affirmative action in her case, the growing discomfort with race-conscious policies was clear. The decision planted the seeds for the eventual dismantling of affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard & UNC, which abandoned decades of legal precedent in favor of a “colorblind” standard that ignores the structural inequalities.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard & UNC fundamentally altered the interpretation of the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment in the Constitution, reframing it in a way that contradicts both prior legal precedent and the historical purpose of the amendment. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 during Reconstruction, a period following the Civil War in which the U.S. government attempted to rebuild the South [9]. This amendment intended to dismantle the legal foundation of enslavement and ensure that newly freed Black Americans had full citizenship rights. The Equal Protections Clause, a key component of the amendment, explicitly mandates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” [10]. The clause was designed to correct systemic racial inequalities, not to be manipulated as a tool to uphold white supremacy. It was never intended to be a tool to dismantle efforts to address racial discrimination. Rather, it was designed to ensure that laws and policies actively promote equal opportunity. By dismantling affirmative action without offering a constitutional framework for addressing structural racism, the Court undermines the very protections the clause was meant to guarantee. The decision effectively weaponizes the 14th amendment against the groups it was meant to protect, transforming it into a tool to persist racial disparities. 

The shift in the Supreme Court’s decision did not happen in isolation. It is a part of a larger pattern of legal strategy by conservatives to preserve existing oppressive systems while masquerading as a commitment to ‘neutrality.’ And Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard & UNC, is no stranger to being complicit. He famously wrote in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle (2007) that ‘the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race’, which is so bafflingly simplistic [11]. It’s almost like he is suggesting that the key to fixing systemic racism is…just stop having it exist, as if everyone can just have a collective enlightening moment. The first step is for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to become enlightened himself.

While it’s true that no one would argue against the principle of equality, Roberts’ statement fails to grapple with the complexities of systemic racism and historical inequalities that continue to shape society, which shows in how he rules in Students for Fair Admissions. In a remarkable twist of the core principles set forth by Brown v. Board of Education, Roberts asserts that schools are required to admit students “on a racially nondiscriminatory basis” in order to be in “full compliance” with the landmark 1954 decision [12]. This is a move so wildly at odds with the spirit of Brown that it almost feels like Roberts misread the case as if it were a critique of racial integration rather than an urgent call for it.  Brown was a direct response to the legal and structural barriers that prevented Black students from receiving equal educational opportunities. Affirmative action policies were later developed because of disparities that persist in educational access and opportunity. To argue that Brown mandates “colorblindness” is to ignore the fact and context of the decision itself, intended to recognize the structural racial inequalities embedded in American institutions. How do you fix a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it? Race neutrality does not eliminate any racial barriers, but just makes them invisible in the admissions process. A Black queer woman, for example, does not face separate, individual injustices for being Black, queer, and a woman; she faces a unique form of oppression that exists at the intersection of all three identities. This is why intersectionality is critical–affirmative action does not just account for race but also for the compounded disadvantages that arise when multiple marginalized identities intersect. Though as simple as it may appear that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike affirmative action was aimed at reducing barriers in college admissions, it is very dangerous how the Court delegitimizes the validity of race-conscious policies throughout the hearing. They hold the highest authority in interpreting the law and shaping national discourse, so it sends a powerful message when the majority asserts that race should not be a factor in decisions about education, employment, or other areas of public life. This message resonates far beyond the legal realm and influences the broader public consciousness, reshaping how people think about race and equality. Race is an undeniable factor in the experiences of people across America, and “colorblind” approaches only serve as a justification to discriminate against minorities passively. Until the Court recognizes the importance of confronting these systemic issues, true equality will remain elusive. 

The Supreme Court’s decision exposes why America would benefit from a more comprehensive education system, especially with Critical Race Theory (CRT). Perplexingly, justices of the highest court believe that race is simply a factor that can be ignored in society, even through all of the disparities that continue to persist today. CRT could have prevented this ruling by rejecting the myth of colorblindness and recognizing that racism is embedded in institutions, rather than merely an issue of individual bias. It would offer individuals to correctly interpret and understand cases like Brown as a call for racial justice, not race neutrality. Additionally, CRT exposes how the law protects white supremacy by dismantling affirmative action while preserving other racial advantages, such as legacy admissions. Most importantly, CRT provides a necessary foundation for privileged students and individuals to realize policies like affirmative action are critical to improve the impacts of white supremacy on marginalized groups instead of interpreting them as racial favoritism. If Roberts and the conservatives engaged with CRT instead of fearmongering it, they may end up realizing that their entire arguments are based on weaponizing a fantasy of meritocracy and artfully gaslighting communities of color into turning against one another. 

Conservative legal strategies rely on a fantasy of meritocracy, where all students supposedly compete on an equal playing field. However, it is privy to remember that not all students start on the same level playing field, but a possible solution lies in the elimination of privatized education, diverting full support and resources to the public education system. Eliminating private or charter K-12 education would promote a fairer and effective school system by forcing reinvestment into public education, ensuring that all students, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, receive equal access to quality education. The existence of private education, often justified as a matter of “choice,” ignores the fact that choice is only available to those who can afford it. When wealthy and influential families, however, can no longer choose to opt out of the public system, there is likely a stronger incentive to advocate for better funding and policies that benefit not only themselves, but in turn everyone. The current system, which primarily funds public schools through local property taxes, inherently advantages wealthier neighborhoods that can generate more revenue, while lower income areas–often communities of color–constantly struggle with a huge lack of funding, trapping students from fully being able to succeed. By shifting toward a centralized tax system, school funding would no longer be tied to zip codes. This is why it is imperative to advocate and vote for individuals engaged with reality–people that would act in the interest of the community and advocate for reinvestment rather than directing our taxpayer dollars toward war and corporate subsidies. This would allow for a more equitable redistribution of funds, especially for states with weaker economies. 

With an increase of reinvestment into our public education, academic outcomes would not only improve, but the culture within schools could transform into a thriving space for creativity, self-expression, and exploration. Well-funded public schools can prioritize arts programs, music education, theater, and STEM initiatives. Historically, most of which are blue states have higher median incomes, higher education rates, and more progressive policies [13]. This correlation shows that when communities prioritize education, they also become more open to examining systemic inequalities and in turn, adapt frameworks like CRT that help students understand the complexities of race, history, and social structures. For example, California–a state recognized for one of the highest education rates and highest median income–enacted legislation that all public high schools offer ethnic studies in 2021 [14]. By the class of 2030, students will be required to complete an ethnic studies course to graduate. However, as of March 2025, the future of this requirement remains uncertain due to the absence of allocated funding from the Legislature and Governor [15]. Consequently, some districts, such as Palo Alto, have postponed the adoption of ethnic studies courses in their high schools, citing the lack of funding [16]. Underfunded districts, already struggling with resource shortages, are unlikely to prioritize or effectively teach ethnic studies but not limited to CRT, as proposed for a possible solution, if they don’t have the staff, training, or materials necessary, which all circles back to the importance of funding for public K-12 education. 

Education often becomes a lower priority for communities when they are focused on surviving financially. States with lower education rates tend to have lower median incomes [17]. Most people do not have the privilege to pause, because they are consumed by the demands of survival in a capitalist society. With long hours, financial instability, and the constant pressure to make ends meet, there is little time or energy left for deep reflection, learning, and unlearning the biases they have been socially conditioned to accept. This vicious cycle highlights the urgent need for a public education system that is not only well-funded but also protected from privatization and political interference. All youth deserve access to the education that empowers them to thrive and shape society in ways that uniquely reflect their individual passions and talents. Education should be a right, not a privilege.

The complete elimination of privatized K-12 education would pave the way for truly merit-based college admissions, should all students genuinely have equal access to education. However, support for marginalized groups will still always be necessary. Regardless of their merits, they will always have to navigate systematic disadvantages. Nonetheless, with proper funding and investment in public schools, education would improve significantly, which would foster greater empathy and understanding of the world. While social media has repeatedly shown its power in radicalizing individuals or leading them down harmful paths, education does not fail to prove an immensely powerful tool for shaping critical thinking and guiding people toward more informed perspectives. Conservatives and corporations thrive on keeping people poorly educated; it’s easier to control individuals when they don’t have the tools to think for themselves and recognize who’s really pulling the strings. In short, education isn’t just about learning–it’s about gaining the power to recognize and challenge the forces that keep people oppressed.

The reality is that these systems aren’t broken–they are working exactly as they were designed to, keeping power in the hands of the wealthy and well-connected. That’s why we need to stop electing people who don’t care about systemic change and claim to fix “the economy” without addressing the deeper issues that keep people struggling. The Supreme Court and the government are complicit in perpetuating these social divides, and until we vote in people who are actually willing to challenge these structures, nothing will change.

It is also critical to recognize that the battle for equality in education is deeply connected to greater struggles against systemic racism, economic injustice, and white supremacy. The same people that attack affirmative action are the ones gutting reproductive rights, banning racial education, and criminalizing protests. Most importantly, we must refuse to be discouraged or demobilized. Those in power thrive on people accepting defeat and disengaging from the fight. But history shows that resistance works–even when the courts are stacked against progress, even when policies are rolled back, and even when the odds seem to be stacked against ourselves. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and even affirmative action itself were all hard-fought victories that came after decades of struggles, setbacks, and sacrifices. Change will take time, but it happens because people persist. The fight for equality in education is not over–it is evolving. And as long as people continue organizing, mobilizing, and refusing to accept injustice, there is always hope for change. 

At its core, the attack on affirmative action is not just about race–it’s about power. The resentment toward these policies stem from a fundamental belief that access to elite institutions should be reserved for those who have always had it. The Republican Party’s radical shift, especially under Trump’s presidency, has only deepened this hostility, as discussions around race and privilege have become politicized to uphold white supremacy. The recent Supreme Court decisions reflect this shift, prioritizing the interests of the privileged under the guise of fairness while failing to acknowledge the very real barriers that still persist for marginalized communities.

What many fail to realize is that affirmative action was never just for Black, Brown or Asian students–it also benefits white women, white queers, and other marginalized groups. It gave students from underrepresented backgrounds the chance to be recognized, to access spaces that would otherwise overlook them. Opponents of affirmative action–for example, Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist, often frames his attacks on affirmative action with a meritocratic narrative–arguing that individuals should be admitted to universities or hired based solely on their academic performance or skills, not their race [18]. Ironically enough, Blum’s plaintiff for landmark case Fisher herself was not admitted based on her academic performance. What’s particularly insidious about his attack on affirmative action, however, is how he hides behind students to push his political agenda and control the narrative. On the surface, it looks like a straightforward fight between an individual student or group of students seeking fairness and the institutions that allegedly discriminate. The general public recognizes the cases by the plaintiffs, unknowing Blum is the one pulling the strings, driving the legal strategy and using these students as the vehicle to push his broader political agenda. By positioning the student as the “victim” in the case, Blum diverts scrutiny from his own involvement, making it seem as though the case is about fairness for students like Fisher, rather than a strategic attack to dismantle race-conscious policies in education, though there seems to be a failure to imply that his conservative background and history of advocating against policies protecting racial minorities should raise flags to his true intentions. Abigail Fisher and Students for Fair Admissions became symbols of a much larger fight, but in reality, they’re just pawns in Blum’s game. 

Nonetheless, the truth is that the system of meritocracy itself is inherently flawed and has been designed to favor the very people this society was built for–the historically privileged and wealthy. If meritocracy were truly the concern, legacy admissions–policies that overwhelmingly favor wealthy, White applicants–would face equal scrutiny [19]. But they do not, because the persecution complex only activates when privilege is disrupted. The same individuals who claim affirmative action is unfair remain silent when their own demographic benefits from unearned advantages. They cling to test scores, GPAs, and extracurriculars as if these numbers alone should dictate success, ignoring the reality that these metrics were designed to preserve elitism, not meritocracy. Capitalism conditions people to believe that success is purely a matter of hard work, disregarding the fact that some start the race miles ahead while others are forced to overcome obstacles just to reach the starting line. Blum and others like him are not simply fighting for equal opportunity across all races; they are fighting to control the narrative of what “merit” means in American society, seeking to erase the historical context of racial discrimination and position white people as the default standard of success. 

At the heart of this debate is a refusal to acknowledge privilege. Those who have always benefited from the system see the balancing of power imbalances as a threat, because to them, true equality feels like oppression. The outrage against affirmative action isn’t about fairness–it’s about protecting an advantage in our capitalist society built on white supremacy. And for those who have built their identities around the certainty of their own superiority, the idea that they might have to compete on equal footing is simply too much to bear. However, it is also likely that individuals like Blum have lived in experience of privilege far too long to understand the complexity of race, class, and sex across America. This skews their idea of freedom and equality for all, ultimately cycling back to a refusal to acknowledge privilege and bridge their disconnection to society. 

The controversy surrounding affirmative action reveals how historical injustices remain to persist to this day. The “persecution complex,” where historically privileged groups perceive measures to ensure equality as unfair, has fueled opposition to policies like affirmative action, distracting from the true reason systemic disparities persist in education and beyond are not because of each other, but White supremacy. While affirmative action remains a polarizing issue, it is important to recognize how legacy admissions and unequal K-12 funding perpetuate privilege, allowing wealth and race to dictate opportunities instead of merit and potential. The unequal opportunities across education deprives countless students of their chance to succeed and perpetuates cycles that harm communities and individuals alike. As we consider the future of affirmative action and related policies that impact marginalized groups of people across the nation, it is imperative to focus on broader systemic reforms that will not only ensure that every student has a fair chance to succeed in this society, but expand the understandings of everyone on the true root of these inequalities that persist across the country. 

References

[1] Hartin, Travis. “Persecution Complex | Definition, Causes & Treatments.” Study.com, November 21, 2023 https://study.com/learn/lesson/video/persecution-complex-causes-treatment.html

[2] “Affirmative Action.” Encyclopædia Britannica, March 19, 2025 https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action

[3] Chetty, Ray, David J. Deming, John N. Friedman. “Diversifying Society’s Leaders? The Determinants and Causal Effects of Admission to Highly Selective Private Colleges.” October 2023 https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

[4] Justia. “Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka | 347 U.S. 483 (1954)” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/

[5] United States of America. “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Public Law, July 2, 1964 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf

[6] Justia. “Grutter v. Bollinger | 539 U.S. 306 (2003)” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/#307

[7] Justia. “Grutter v. Bollinger | 539 U.S. 306 (2003)” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/#307

[8] Justia. “Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin | 579 U.S. 365 (2016)” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/14-981/

[9] National Archives. “14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),” March 6, 2024 https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment

[10] Justia. “Equal Protections of the Laws” https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/06-equal-protection-of-the-laws.html

[11] Lemann, Nicholas. “Can Affirmative Action Survive?” The New Yorker, July 26, 2021 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/02/can-affirmative-action-survive

[12] Supreme Court of the United States. “Students for Fair Admissions, INC. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.” October 2022 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

[13] Venditti, Bruno. “Mapped: U.S. Median Income in Blue, Red, and Swing States.” Visual Capitalist, October 30, 2024 https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-median-income-in-blue-red-and-swing-states/

[14] Fensterwald, John. “California becomes first state to require ethnic studies in high school.” EdSource, October 8, 2021 https://edsource.org/2021/california-becomes-first-state-to-require-ethnic-studies-in-high-school/662219

[15] Fensterwald, John. “Renewed push to reshape ethnic studies with oversight and new standards.” EdSource, March 13, 2025 https://edsource.org/2025/renewed-push-to-reshape-ethnic-studies-with-oversight-with-new-standards/728155

[16] Tucker, Jill. “Silicon Valley school district abandons ethnic studies. Will other districts follow?” SF Chronicle, Jan 17, 2025 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/palo-alto-school-district-kills-ethnic-studies-20040583.php