AFFIRMATIVE DISSATISFACTIONAffirmative action does more harm than goodBySarah R. SiskindThe Supreme Court is in the midst of hearing a suit against the University of Texas at Austin byAbigail Fisher. She maintains she was the victim of an admissions process that elevates skin color above academic qualifications and gives unfair advantage to minorities.But who counts as a minority in affirmative action? Unfortunately for Ms. Fisher, adorable gingers are not considered a minority (despite red hair occurring in only1-2 percentof the world population). So clearly, not just any minority can qualify as a minority.Perhaps affirmative action is meant to help those who have historically been discriminated against. It would be hard to overlook women and Jews when considering historical punching bags. However, women and Jews are indeed overlooked in the affirmative action policies of most schools.Perhaps affirmative action attempts to help those groups heavily correlated with lower incomes. One of the strongestcorrelationswith lower incomes is held by those with lower centers of gravity. As if short people didnt have it bad enough: being refused at roller coasters, being unable to stand in the shallow end of pools, and now, being denied affirmative action. At least they dont have to stand in the back for pictures.Finally, what about intellect? Perhaps our universities are in dire need of diversity of intelligence. Counter to most stereotypes, ugliness is highlycorrelatedwith poor intellectual performance by traditional measures, though I dont know how many qualified applicants will be willing to put that down on their application.Race-based affirmative action attempts to target these groups: the discriminated against, the poor, and those with unique experiences and intellectual merits. However, affirmative action is fundamentally flawed because it uses race instead of targeting these groups themselves. Less academically qualified applicants should be treated as such, unless they come from poorer households and therefore do not have access to the same amount of resources as other applicants. However, this would be class-based affirmative action, not race-based.Helping those with primarily low academic qualifications into primarily academic institutions makes as much sense as helping the visually impaired become pilots. How would you feel if you were assured before going into surgery that your surgeon was the beneficiary of affirmative action in medical school? I do not see why higher academic institutions should lower their standards for admission.In a way, I am the product of a sort of affirmative action, and it takes a terrible psychological toll. My father went to Harvard College, which makes me a legacy. I am kept up at night by the thought that simply because my father has attended and donated to the University, I might have taken the spot of a more qualified applicant. My name is not exactly Sarah Wigglesworth Hurlbut Coop, but I am still a legacy, and the thought of its bearing on my admission is somewhat terrifying.This is not a partisan issue. Many Democrats have, in confidence, heartily agreed with my position. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, has flatlydeniedproposals for affirmative action in the competitive application process for elite public high schools: You pass the test, you get the highest score, you get into the schoolno matter what your ethnicity, no matter what your economic background is. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts stated it succinctly in adecisionconcerning affirmative action: The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.The libertarian in me gags at the thought of infringing a private institutions selection criteria, but the aspiring lawyer in me points to the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits race-based discrimination. This amendment has since been somewhat modified with the 2003 Supreme Court case upholding the University of Michigans use of affirmative action,Grutter v. Bollinger. In sum, the status of affirmative action has been in something of a legal flux. In the current case of Fisher v. University of Texas, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, so a tie is possible, which would favor the defendant and uphold the status quo of legal affirmative action.Even if affirmative action rights the injustices of widespread discrimination, as proponents allege, what about the beneficiaries down the line? As Supreme Justice Clarence Thomasargued, employers will likely regard a minority candidate with greater skepticism if their alma mater engaged in affirmative action. This wouldnt be racismit would be simple logicand that is what makes it all the more nefarious. Im not saying racism doesnt exist. Racism persists, despite over a century of incredible progress, but affirmative action imbeds racism in the lives of future generations.A comment by user BrownAndProud:You know what keeps me up at night Sarah? The knowledge that no matter how hard I work, how much I learn, and how well I do here at Harvard the fact that my admission to the college was based on Affirmative Action will always mean to you, and those that agree with your views, that I am de facto less qualified and less intelligent than those students who did not directly benefit from AA. The facts that I got a perfect score on the SAT, straight A's in high school, and volunteered at local middle schools as a mentor for over 300 hours, while holding a job at McDonald's- will mean nothing when compared to the hundreds of other qualified applicants who also did all this, AND many other amazing things I could never imagine having the resources to achieve (working in labs, playing instruments, creating small business etc.)What it comes down to is the unjust truth that when an equally intelligent and qualified applicant stood beside me in the eyes of the admissions office, I was chosen because of the color of my skin. They could have flipped a coin to decide between me and that white applicant who also had a perfect score on the SAT, but instead they chose what appears to you an equally random selection criteria- but an infinitely more unjust method to all those "minorities" that don't get a fair shake. I'm sorry this seems unfair to you. Life isn't fair in admissions criteria, it seems, just as life wasn't fair when I had to walk myself to my local public library to prepare for the SAT using past, written-on editions of prep books. If I had asked my parents who were struggling to pay the rent and the electric bill on 16k a year for money to take a prep course, they would have laughed at me, so I did the only other thing I could do. I made the best of what I could with what was given to me. And I continue to do the same here at Harvard, everyday.Some day, you'll come to terms with your anxiety and self-doubt about being admitted unfairly as a legacy. You'll decide that you are worthy of what was handed to you and move on to be successful and fulfilled in whatever career you choose- and no one will ever question you because the fact that you were a legacy does not necessarily have to be common knowledge. I will never be able to hide the color of my skin, and I will graduate from here knowing that the stereotypes you threw so lightly around in this Crimson piece are the realities I will face for the rest of my life. I could come to terms with my self-doubt and know that I am equally qualified as any of my peers that now sit beside me in class- but the fact remains that the world will see me as a less qualified doctor, pilot, lawyer, etc. This is most unfair, but we make the best of what we can with what we have and move forward working twice as hard against these stereotypes, and working to dismantle them when people like you continue to perpetuate them.Don't worry, I'm up to the challenge and qualified to meet it. And I sleep better at night knowing that the white applicant whose place I "stole" is probably doing quite well at Yale.