When I applied to colleges four years ago, I immediately thought I was at a disadvantage. If I wanted to attend a top university, I couldn’t afford to be a mediocre student. I couldn’t afford not to participate in five different extracurricular activities and intramural sports. I had to do everything imaginable to stand out.

I attended a predominately white, upper-class high school that most would consider privileged. Did it prevent me from getting into the college I wanted? No. Did it make it more difficult? Yes. A student with high merits at my school had a tougher time getting into this University, while students of a minority race benefited from affirmative action.

I definitely wasn’t the only one who felt slighted. Looking back at it, I can’t imagine how much different the application process might have been if I had ticked off that Native American box or identified as gay or bisexual. For the latter point, does it matter? All for the sake of diversity though, so inclusion can be compared and advertised to competitors and prospective students.

There is nothing wrong with promoting representation, but standards should not be sacrificed in order to increase diversity. Students should be admitted primarily based on merit. Affirmative action’s original purpose was to even the playing field. It was meant to be a quick fix — not permanent.

When the Supreme Court overturned Brown vs. Board of Education in the 1950s, desegregation of schools was challenging to say the least.

For example, in 1965 Governor Wallace of Alabama, an infamous anti-integrationist, refused President Johnson’s request to use the state’s National Guard to protect a planned civil rights march. President Johnson resorted to calling up the National Guard himself and sending in additional federal troops to guarantee the safety of the demonstrators. 

The great lengths and resources the federal government employed to protect civil rights protestors demonstrated the nation’s commitment to racial inclusion. The policies implemented thereinafter prove the success of our commitment to increasing diversity in schools and universities.

The number of black students attending universities doubled in nearly a decade. Albeit, in 1978 the Bakke case brought forth a new problem of reverse discrimination. 

The Supreme Court found that states have a compelling interest to promote diversity through affirmative action programs. The root of the argument against such programs stems from this ruling; though, there are many forms of the argument.

Black America is not the same now as it was then. The energy wasted on arguing affirmative action could be better spent on improving the education system and focusing on those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Affirmative action must come to an end. Race should no longer be used as a factor in the admissions process for the sake of diversity. 

If racial representation without discrimination is the true goal, then we should focus on minimizing the income gap between the socioeconomic classes. We are living in a period where growing income inequality has a larger impact on diversity than any other factor.

Parents of wealth are focusing their resources more on early childhood development than the middle class and the poor. We have programs to tackle the gap between these classes, but we forget about the widening gap between the middle class and the rich.

Affirmative action programs do little to solve the structural inequalities minorities face.

The argument for affirmative action in the 21st century is growing thinner day by day. The president of the United States is black, but he didn’t get there because of his race. 

Unfortunately, racial divide existed in all facets of life during the 20th century. Corporations, schools, sports and government were all guilty of severe segregation. And this is why it is particularly difficult to move past.

In 2006 Michigan voters passed a law with 58 percent of the vote that bans publicly funded colleges from granting “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”However, a federal appeals court found this ban unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is preparing to release an opinion on Wednesday. 

The question we are faced with today, and one that former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor understood well, is whether affirmative action programs have met their goal of furthering diversity in universities.  

Justice O’Connor said in 2003, “The court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” 

However, the rapid increases in social connectedness has reached unprecedented levels. It has undoubtedly contributed to a growing acceptance of our differences where inclusion is no longer unnatural, but quickly becoming the norm. 

Our priorities and programs stuck in the past must be eliminated. O’Connor’s 25-year timeline should reflect a fluid society such as the present.

Tommy is a senior in Business. He can be reached at [email protected].

Follow him on Twitter @tommyheiser.