I do not stand with the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action. But there is a silver lining.

As American higher education institutions grapple with forthcoming policy changes, there is newfound opportunity for internal reflection and creativity, a chance for administrators to involve current students in deep conversation about remodeling admissions. Now stands more than a test of our understanding of the extinct affirmative action in its nuances — there is also pressure to see how far colleges are willing to experiment to foster their said commitment to diversity. The truth is that for far too long in college admissions, recruitment of people of color and of first-generation, low-income students has rested on the bedrock of our mere presence and social enrichment rather than on our contributions to the political and intellectual climate of a college. Therefore, I hope that in the path forward, there will be space for condemning the ax of affirmative action not only because of its cut on diversity but also because affirmative action is a precursor for better admissions systems that we once didn’t find the need to explore.

A few of my friends know that I was never supposed to go to college. The idea that an Asian American family can possibly prioritize income and survival over education thwarts the narrative of a model minority, but mine did. Wherever I go, an intense gratitude for the people, programs and mentors who believed in me and chose me for opportunities greater than my background follows. I was one of many students who participated in QuestBridge, TRiO or LEDA (Leadership for a Diverse America) services — well-known programs that provide college access to low-income students — but somehow I was among the small fraction chosen for admission to an Ivy League school. My success story is the one that gets put in pamphlets to advertise my institution’s diversity. Not theirs. 

I represent only as much of the immeasurable Asian American experience as my own unique story, upbringing, and voice — and so do each of us to our respective cultural groups. The question then becomes: Are we unapologetically serving all minority groups, or are we basing our acceptances on racial tropes of the ideal Black, Asian American, Hispanic or white candidate? It takes a second for an admissions officer to say out loud that a student of color has been admitted, but it takes a lot more for them to send representatives to all parts of the country so they can understand the true racial, cultural and societal diversity of where students live. As the Supreme Court’s majority opinion stands, it is never enough — or okay — to base the racial and personal experience of a person entirely on the color of their skin, though that certainly is a crucial part of how others perceive us. 

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her dissent that “deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” and I also agree. On paper, race is a color. In life, race becomes a more fluid spectrum that considers the larger systems at play and how people interact with them, including our geographic region and income. 

It is time for colleges, especially elite ones, to stop serving as autonomous filters of America’s best students and become investors in them, with help from other organizations. I call on the federal government to be more committed to supporting and redesigning college access programs for low-income students — not only to hoist them over the bar necessary for entry but also to invest in students during their time at college. There is often fear on the institutional end that admitting a student who omitted their test scores risks them not being prepared to meet the academic rigor, for example, but more individualized attention and active tracking of a student’s progress will ensure that participants in these programs are actually meeting their goals long-term. We are all born at different points on the race track — and access to mental health, career development, and social counseling are paramount to leveling the playing field. 

Affirmative action might have created a standard in leveling playing fields, but with its axing, I encourage colleges that have not already partnered with the QuestBridge National College Match or the Posse Scholarship — colleges that heavily rely on independent recruitment, such as Harvard — to join these alliances. I encourage colleges to explore more programs that identify promising, low-income students. These programs attract more students of color and students from geographically underrepresented regions because they were founded on the complicated relationship that ties race, class and social mobility together.

For instance, the LEDA Scholars Program, which represents 49 states and Washington, D.C., has a racial breakdown of the following: 17 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, 28 percent Black, 36 percent Latinx, 8 percent Multiracial, 2 percent Native American and 9 percent White. Meanwhile, the QuestBridge College Prep Scholars Program, a “distinction that shows college partners that a candidate is competitive for admission,” has the following breakdown for its 2023 cohort: 46 percent White, 37 percent Hispanic/Latinx, 35 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, 22 percent Black/African American, 4 percent Native American. This breakdown would still be considered “more diverse” than many PWI institutions. Ninety percent of this CPS cohort had families that earned an annual income of less than $65,000, and there were more students from the South and Midwest, combined than from the West and Northeast — two geographic hotspots for America’s most elite colleges. 

For colleges that already have the aforementioned channels of admission, they must increase the number of available seats for these students and create opportunities for applicants to expand on their identity through specialized essay prompts. Discounted summer programs for high schoolers on college campuses, or a system similar to New York City’s Discovery program — which admits students with slightly lower test scores to a specialized high school if they complete a rigorous summer programming of classes — could be offered to expose them to future college environments, academically. If students are expressing interest in going to college, if they are saying that doing so changes their lives, we have to trust in them and answer their calls; we have to bring back confidence in millions of minority students across the country who currently feel, and have always felt, left behind. 

Still, in a post-affirmative action world, perhaps the most important kind of trust is that we need to have in ourselves. Admitting the fact that we, from institutional leaders to students to parents, all have much to learn and unlearn about diversity. The fight for ensuring that future generations can access more equitable admissions is most certainly a losing one if fought alone, and it should transcend the ugliest of partisan conflict. In a nation divided by law, the silver lining is to stand undivided as people, to constantly challenge each other with the intent of promoting beautiful, warm growth and not a cold proof of correctness.

BRIAN ZHANG is a junior in Davenport College. He is currently an Arts Editor at the News and can be reached at brian.zhang@yale.edu.