“The reasons that I have for wishing to go to Harvard 是 several. 我觉得哈佛可以给我一个更好的背景和更好的人文教育比任何其他大学. I have always wanted to go there, as I have felt that it is not just another college, but is a university with something definite to offer. Then too, I would like to go to the same college as my father. To be a "Harvard man" is an enviable distinction, and one that I sincerely hope I shall 达到.”
The above was submitted as an application essay to what was then, 仍然是, considered one of the world’s top 机构 高等教育, 哈佛大学. The essay, a mere five sentences, helped get future president John F. 并有效地确保了年轻而富有的肯尼迪能够接触到这所常春藤盟校强大的校友网络，以及由此带来的“令人羡慕的声望”.
Elite universities have come to represent not only the best education money can buy, but also a means to acquire social status, 流动性, 和资本. Historically speaking, 然而, these spaces were reserved for white men. This began to change in the 1960s, 随着解决种族不平等和种族排斥问题的法律生效，全国范围内的工作场所和大学校园开始在某种程度上更具代表性. 考虑到一个人身份的各个方面的法律和政策的实践和主体, 比如种族, 种族, 性别, 残疾, 退伍军人身份, when it comes to allotment of employment and educational opportunities and resources, is known as affirmative 行动.
In the education sphere, 平权行动的第一次迭代包括配额，以确保黑人学生被大学录取, 但在 Regents of The University of California v. 巴克 outlawed this practice, universities nationwide began using a holistic approach in the admissions process, 这意味着他们在决定一个学生是否应该被大学录取时，会关注许多因素. 在某些情况下, one of the factors they consider is race—along with other factors such as home region, 学校, 的法律地位, and class—in an effort to produce a diverse environment composed of students from different 背景. 反过来, 这使学生能够接触到与他们不同的思想和背景.
10月31日, 2022, this practice of considering race in college admissions was challenged, 在最高法院质疑平权法案合宪性的两起案件中. 这两起案件都是由公平录取学生组织提出的，并声称使用平权法案, in elite universities such as UNC-Chapel Hill and Harvard respectively, 违反了第14修正案的平等保护条款和1964年的民权法案，该法案禁止学校接受来自 race-based discrimination. What made the Harvard case particularly notable, 然而, were the Asian-American plaintiffs being represented by SFFA. They argued that they were denied admission into Harvard—and similar 机构—because they, as Asian-American applicants, 是 held to higher academic standards than Black or 拉丁美洲人 students, and 是 often given low personal rating scores due to the racial biases of admissions 军官.
Since its inception in the 60s, 反歧视行动 has been at the center of four SCOTUS cases, with the most recent one in 2016, 费舍尔v. 德克萨斯大学 at Austin, being funded by Edward Blum, 创始人, and mastermind behind the 学生 for Fair 招生 (SFFA). Blum has a storied history of bringing cases before the Supreme Court and notably sponsored 谢尔比v. 持有人, the landmark case that curtailed vital voting rights protections. After an unfavorable ruling in 费舍尔v. 德克萨斯大学, 布卢姆积极而明确地寻找亚裔美国原告，继续努力破坏平权行动，并实现了他的目标, 布鲁姆通过SFFA赞助的哈佛案是少数族裔原告首次挑战平权政策 行动.
SFFA在口头辩论中认为，大学应该利用社会经济因素来实现培养多元化学生的目标，而不是种族意识 body. This approach, 然而, has been already attempted and has produced unsatisfactory results. Nine states (Arizona, 佛罗里达, 爱达荷州, 密歇根, 内布拉斯加州, 新汉普郡, 俄克拉何马州, and Washington) have banned Affirmative Action in public 机构. When 反歧视行动 bans took effect in California and 密歇根 respectively, 加州大学(UC)系统(加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)和加州大学伯克利分校(UC Berkeley)等学术名校的所在地)和密歇根大学(University of 密歇根)开始使用学生的社会经济地位作为种族的代表，并在提交给法院的文件中声明，以支持继续使用平权法案, 即使在大力招生的帮助下，利用社会经济地位在增加学生群体多样性方面也是无效的 努力.
尽管如此, SFFA和平权法案的反对者继续认为，平权法案是一种反向歧视，因此是不公平的，因为它让看似不合格的学生进入了严格的学术环境, universities 是 setting students up for failure and in doing so 是 robbing students who 是 合格的 点.
Such arguments present several weaknesses. 为一个, 这些论点很少有兴趣研究影响美国公立教育系统如何以及为何产生所谓“不合格”学生的系统性因素. 他们不会询问是谁创建了用来决定学生是否值得进入特定空间以获得知识或资源的指标, 他们似乎也不承认，通过给学生贴上“合格”和“不合格”的标签，它继续以种族化的方式给学生打上机会应得的标签.”
除此之外, 公众中关于平权法案的争议性争论，往往把责任错误地归咎于历史上被排除在外的群体，而不是那些在大学录取中确实得到优待的学生. 被归类为遗赠学生(其家庭成员以前就读于同一所大学的学生), 比如肯尼迪), 运动员, 优秀学生名单, and children of professors (known as ALDC), 精英学校的录取率是45%，而申请人只占6% 池. But this is r是ly categorized as an issue in the mainstream. 而不是, rhetoric about Black, 拉丁美洲人, 由于平权法案，土著学生只能被精英大学录取. SFFA在提起哈佛案时，将亚裔美国人视为一个整体，延续了有害的模范少数族裔神话, 这一切都是为了煽动种族分裂，把种族焦虑当作武器，为了白人学生的利益而颠覆平权法案，我敢说，是为了恢复白人秩序.
There is this false notion that 反歧视行动 only helps Black people, when in fact white women, in education and employment, have been the biggest benefactors of 反歧视行动. Affirmative 行动, if allowed to reach its full potential, is in the best interest of everyone. 一个更加多元化和包容的学习和工作环境，有利于物质和思想的创新和进步, and 反歧视行动 creates the space for this to occur. Affirmative 行动s is by no means perfect and it is not the end-all solution for discrimination, 但是，如果认为学生没有必要或不合适分享他们身份的各个方面如何影响了他们参与和理解周围世界的方式，那就太愚蠢了.
在我看来, opponents of 反歧视行动 such as Blum, who have spent significant amounts of money and energy in trying to destroy 反歧视行动, should do two things. 第一个, 他们应该集中精力问自己，为什么他们喜欢多元化的学习环境, 和不同的人在一起, 如此危险. Isn’t the whole goal of education to make people critical and independent thinkers? 和第二, 他们也许应该接受现实，尽管外表和宣言, the United States is not a meritocracy. 仅仅因为一个人在纸上做的每件事都是正确的，并且成绩优异，并不意味着他们得到了保证或欠了什么.
But that last part is just my opinion.