This summer, the United States Supreme Court decided in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (UNC) that higher education institutions could no longer consider race as a factor in admissions, thus severely limiting affirmative action programs. In California v. Bakke, it was ruled that affirmative action programs must not result in harm to non-minority applicants; however, as in the cases of Harvard University and UNC, many affirmative action systems failed to meet non-discrimination requirements. White and Asian American applicants were particularly negatively affected, as colleges relied on faulty stereotypes to promote unjust discrimination. Furthermore, there is no proven correlation between enforcing racial quotas and promoting a school’s cultural diversity. So , educational institutions, employers and legislatures should put a higher emphasis on a candidate’s merit rather than promoting diversity.

Quotas are a violation of the Constitution. In the case of affirmative action, educational institutions and employers recruit qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities and covered veterans. As a result, there is an increase in diversity, equality and social mobility. But these benefits come at the cost of discriminating against those who are not part of protected classes and violating the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. In the case Fisher v. University of Texas (UT), UT was required to admit students with grades in the top 10% of Texas highschools. For the rest of their applicants, race was a determining factor. Abigail Fisher was one of those applicants.  Fisher claimed she was not accepted due to not being in the top 10% of her highschool and for being white. The Supreme Court ruled that such discrimination was not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause; however, admissions cannot utilize a racial quota without violating the Constitution. In that same court case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that race was merely one factor of many that colleges considered in admitting students. However, not all college applicants are alike: Some who are considered to be privileged applicants are not necessarily more advantaged than those considered to be minority applicants.

Considering factors irrelevant to a candidate’s merits can lead to counter-discrimination and an overall decline in an institution’s performance. Perceptions of unfairness from affirmative action programs can result in a decrease in applications, impaired work ethics and a decline in professional commitment. Schools are more likely to be successful by electing applicants with a diversity of ideas and those that can excel in their academic programs. But selecting students based on stereotypical assumptions about race, gender and disability can end up erasing the efforts of students who were fairly admitted to their school of choice, undermining the value of merit and hard work. Quotas increase the possibility of recruiting unqualified candidates, and in the case where they fail to adapt to the college atmosphere, schools can suffer from high dropout rates. In a society which values educational excellence, applicants should be evaluated based on merit to prevent unqualified applicants from taking the place of qualified ones.

Adopting quotas can, in fact, promote stereotypes and discrimination. Quotas often force recruiters to accept unqualified candidates just to fill available spots. Providing unfair advantages in areas that have a huge impact on one’s life—such as education, employment and government positions—based on criteria irrelevant to one’s skill and beyond one’s control—such as gender, race and disability—can foster the stereotype that certain applicants are incapable and can only succeed with additional help. These stereotypes can lead to workplace tension by perpetuating the thought that unqualified candidates are stealing opportunities from those who are more qualified, as well as by undermining the voices of minority candidates. We should instead focus on changing the recruitment process to exclude bias as much as possible and on providing more resources and opportunities for people to succeed.

Educational and professional requirements for acceptance into school or the work force exist for a reason. By focusing on merit, schools and companies can select the most qualified people for the position. The best method of combating discrimination is by providing more opportunities for people to succeed and to reject the social stereotypes that have hurt generations of students and workers alike.