The fundamental principle of a free and open society is that individuals should be judged based on their own actions, character, and capabilities rather than the groups to which they belong. When institutions prioritize demographic categories over individual merit, they erode the foundations of fairness and competence that civilization relies upon. The case against affirmative action rests on the realization that good intentions do not guarantee positive outcomes. Evidence suggests that race-conscious policies often harm the very individuals they aim to assist while simultaneously degrading the integrity of critical professions.
A society functions on trust in the competence of its experts. When a patient visits a surgeon or a client hires an attorney, they operate under the assumption that the professional has met a rigorous, objective standard of excellence. Affirmative action policies undermine this assumption by introducing a secondary, non-meritocratic variable into the credentialing process.
This danger is particularly acute in high-stakes fields like medicine. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges indicates significant disparities in the academic credentials of matriculating medical students when sorted by racial categories. For the 2023-2024 cycle, the average MCAT score for Black students was 505.7, placing them in the 66th percentile. In comparison, the average score for Asian students was 514.3 (88th percentile) and for White students was 512.4 (83rd percentile). Similar gaps exist in GPAs, where the average Black student held a 3.59 total GPA compared to a 3.83 for Asian students.
These are not trivial differences. A gap of nearly an entire standard deviation in standardized testing suggests a substantial disparity in foundational scientific knowledge. When medical schools lower standards to engineer specific demographic outcomes, they signal that diversity metrics are prioritized alongside, or perhaps even above, objective competence. This creates a rational basis for patients to question the qualifications of their providers. Such disparities inevitably lead people to judge doctors by the color of their skin rather than their credentials alone. True meritocracy would eliminate this skepticism by ensuring that every degree represents the same high standard of achievement, regardless of the holder’s background.
One of the most insidious consequences of affirmative action is the cloud of suspicion it casts over high-achieving minority professionals. In a strictly meritocratic system, a high-status degree is an unassailable proof of capability. However, when preferential treatment is known to exist, it devalues the accomplishments of those who succeeded without it.
Affirmative action renders the degrees held by members of beneficiary groups less valuable in the eyes of the public and potential employers. This is not an expression of prejudice but a reaction to the incentives created by the policy itself. If an institution is known to have lower requirements for certain groups, an observer cannot easily distinguish between a candidate who met the highest standards and one who was admitted due to a preference. Consequently, truly exceptional individuals from minority groups are denied the full recognition they deserve. Their hard-won achievements are unfairly conflated with the results of social engineering.
The psychological toll of this dynamic is significant. It robs successful individuals of the certainty that their achievements are purely their own. Furthermore, it fosters resentment among those who are passed over despite having superior qualifications. This resentment is not born of racism but of a violation of the basic human expectation of fair play. When the rules of the game are rigged to favor specific groups, social cohesion fractures.
Beyond the social stigma, race-conscious admissions often inflict direct harm on the intended beneficiaries through a phenomenon known as “mismatch.” By artificially boosting students into elite academic environments for which they may not be adequately prepared, universities set these students up for failure.
Scholars such as Richard Sander have documented how this dynamic operates in law schools and other competitive programs. A student who might have thrived and graduated at the top of their class at a mid-tier university is instead placed in a top-tier institution where they struggle to keep up with peers who possess stronger academic foundations. This mismatch often leads to lower grades, higher dropout rates, and lower pass rates on professional licensing exams like the bar.
The tragedy of this system is that it takes promising students and places them in positions where they are statistically likely to underperform. Evidence from the University of California shows that when racial preferences were removed by Proposition 209, graduation rates for underrepresented minorities who enrolled rose by about 4.4 percentage points off a pre‑reform base of 62.4 percent, a gain researchers attribute partly to better matching of students to campuses where their preparation fit the curriculum. Instead of producing more minority scientists, engineers, and doctors, affirmative action often produces more dropouts or graduates with lower class rankings who struggle to compete in the job market; for example, one analysis of roughly 6 500 law students finds that students with LSAT scores around 150–152 had only a 22 percent first‑time bar‑pass rate at an “elite” law school but a 51 percent rate at a slightly less‑selective school and a 79 percent rate at a non‑elite school admitting similarly credentialed students. The focus on elite credentials ignores the reality that genuine skill development requires an environment where the student is competitively matched with the curriculum, and the UC data indicate that once students are better matched, a significant share of the improvement in minority graduation rates arises from that improved fit rather than from looser academic standards.
The only way to eliminate racism is to stop acting as though race is a relevant category for distributing opportunities. Policies that attempt to correct historical wrongs by committing present-day discrimination merely perpetuate the cycle of racial thinking. They enshrine the idea that individuals are defined by their lineage rather than their choices.
A free society relies on the belief that individuals are responsible for their own lives. Affirmative action replaces this individual responsibility with group-based entitlement. It treats individuals as interchangeable units of a racial collective rather than as unique human beings with their own talents and ambitions. This collectivist mindset is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of liberty and equal protection under the law.
True equality requires the removal of all state-sanctioned barriers and special privileges. It demands a system where the rules apply equally to everyone. When institutions focus on merit, they encourage excellence and foster a culture where success is determined by hard work and talent. Abandoning affirmative action is necessary to restore the value of academic credentials and to build a society where individuals are judged, as they should be, solely on the content of their character and the quality of their work.
