Affirmative Action Was Wrong. But Harvard Shouldn’t Abandon Diversity.

Last week, Harvard finally released the demographic data for the Class of 2028, and it doesn’t look good. Following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down race-based affirmative action last summer, the share of Black students in the freshman class fell from 18 to 14 percent.

While the data may appear to support Harvard’s argument that affirmative action is necessary to preserve a diverse student body, it does not truly justify the sweeping racial preferences Harvard employed for decades.

Some supporters of affirmative action point to its reparative effects, arguing the policy corrects for America’s historical oppression of Black people. The other argument — the one Harvard used in court — is that affirmative action promotes a diverse student body, helping us benefit from each others’ unique perspectives.

It’s true: Diversity is immensely valuable when crafting an animated, supportive campus community. I’ve had the most engaging, insightful conversations of my life at Harvard, in large part because my peers are different from me.

Nevertheless, although Harvard’s affirmative action policy had noble goals, the University pursued them the wrong way.

Admissions is a zero-sum game — giving someone a leg up inherently hurts someone else. Behind every admissions decision where race was a “tiebreaker” is a student who was denied Harvard’s opportunities solely because of the color of their skin.

Though affirmative action may have improved diversity, it did so at a cost. And it wasn’t just bad for those it disadvantaged — it also inherently demeaned those it was meant to help, reducing them to a “diverse” racial identity tasked with helping teach their “‘less diverse” peers. I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas on very little, but we can agree on this.

There are better ways to achieve diversity.

Beyond ending policies like legacy admissions and athletic recruiting — both of which overwhelmingly favor wealthy white applicants — Harvard should favor applicants who demonstrate resilience through overcoming true hardship.

Last year, Harvard took a step in the right direction, changing its supplemental essays to more specifically ask about students’ life experiences.

These essays allow Harvard to continue considering the individual context of each application. Not everyone can be captain of their debate team or start a nonprofit; for many, graduating high school while supporting a family or caring for younger siblings is an accomplishment that says far more about one’s qualifications than any amount of involvement in varsity sports or club leadership ever could.

These essays are a step towards a more flexible approach to addressing applicants’ myriad backgrounds and adversities, preventing Harvard from offering an unfair advantage to wealthy students with underrepresented identities who have nonetheless benefited from the privilege that money can buy.

While the new application has its flaws, perhaps it worked: Harvard saw a smaller decline in Black enrollment than some of its Massachusetts peers like MIT and Amherst College.

Race shouldn’t be ignored; the problem is considering race qua race, or race for its own sake. Harvard shouldn’t disadvantage anyone because of the color of their skin — in fact, it can do the opposite and level the playing field. Racial barriers are just one of many important challenges Harvard ought to consider in its admissions process.

Harvard should look like America. Affirmative action was a narrow-minded, easy way to get there — Harvard was squashing a bug with a sledgehammer, harming countless others in the process. The Supreme Court, for all its flaws, did us a favor — it took away Harvard’s easy way out, forcing it to consider more targeted solutions.

Now, Harvard must step up to do its part.

Rohan Nambiar ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Leverett House