Quota vs. Merit: Takeaways from USA's experience with affirmative action for India

Last week, the US Supreme Court ended their affirmative action policy for college admissions, which had prioritized historically excluded groups like Native Americans, Hispanics and Blacks in admissions. What are the takeaways from this for India which also has a large, caste-based reservation scheme college admissions?

What is affirmative action?

Affirmative action refers to government policies that support the social and economic inclusion of particular groups that were historically discriminated against based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas like education and employment. In USA, affirmative action focuses on giving preference to historically excluded groups like Native Americans, Hispanics, Blacks, and women in education and employment. In India, affirmative action takes the form of explicit reservations or quotas for excluded groups like Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

The American Context

In the US, affirmative action for college education takes the form of giving preference to students coming from historically excluded groups in college admissions. For example, in undergraduate admissions to Harvard, race is considered twice in the admissions process. In the initial screening stage, race is one of the factors on which applications are assessed in addition to academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, and personal factors. In the final stage, when the list of students to be admitted is being finalized, race is a key determining factor in selection.

These affirmative action policies are most relevant for elite colleges which have low acceptance rates. Of the 1,600 registered colleges, only 100 colleges had acceptance rates of less than 30 percent. It is in these elite and highly competitive colleges that race could become a big factor in deciding whether a student is admitted to the college or not. This is important because admission to these elite colleges has a disproportionate effect on future employment and income.

The US Supreme court has discussed affirmative action for college admissions 5 times since 1960 , and 9 states have already passed laws to end affirmative action in their jurisdiction. Notably, in 2003, while ruling in favor of affirmative action, the Supreme Court stated that they expected “that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today”.

In 2023, for the first time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ending affirmative action. Some of the main arguments made against affirmative action were as follows:

• One of the main arguments against such ethnicity-based admissions was that these policies did not help to increase the overall number of people who could access college education. It only helped those who already had access to colleges to get into more elite colleges.
• It was also argued that these policies provided the same benefits to wealthy applicants from these minority groups and may not benefit those who actually experienced hardships. For example, research indicates that 71% of the black and Latino students at Harvard came from wealthy backgrounds. Only 16% of Harvard’s entire student body came from low-income families earning less than US$50,000 a year.

• Another argument made was that such policies may taint the accomplishments of successful students as future employers may link their success to their race rather than their intellect.
• Finally, it was also argued that minority groups were being supported at the cost of other groups and individuals, who could be more meritorious and also have experienced social and economic challenges.

USA’s experience in many ways is similar to India’s experience, and this is a timely reminder for India to review its own caste-based reservation system of affirmative action.

The Indian Context

India has a long history of caste-based reservations, dating back to 1882. The current caste-based reservation system for colleges has reserved seats for historically excluded groups like Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC). Specifically, in central government funded institutions, a total of 49.5% of the seats are reserved for these groups, with 15% of the seats being reserved for SC, 7.5% for ST, and 27% for OBC. State-government funded institutions have different reservations for these groups, with the percentage of reserved seats varying from 50% to 100%[1] .

In addition to this, in 2019, owing to pressure from lower-income upper castes, the BJP government added another quota, which reserved 10% of the seats in central government funded institutions for lower-income groups who were not from the SC/ST, and had a family income of less than INR 800,000/year (approx. US$10,000). In November 2022, Supreme Court upheld this reservation for economically weaker sections, but this is yet to be applied in colleges due to multiple factors like lack of clear guidance from UGC and lack of funds.

However, similar to the USA, massive challenges persist in India:

• Similar to the USA, reservations are not increasing the total number of minority students that are able to access college education. Across Indian universities, there is a huge challenge of reserved seats for SC, ST, and OBC lying vacant, even after the admissions criteria has been lowered for these categories. For instance, in 2021, across 45 central-government funded institutions, 40% of the seats reserved for SC and ST were lying vacant. Further, SC, ST and OBC have higher dropout rates – 48% of the students dropping out from IIT and 60% from IIM were from SC, ST and OBC categories.
• Till 2018, the wealthy SC/ST/OBCs were taking advantage of the reservations. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that only the disadvantaged sections amongst SC/ST/OBC (known as the “non-creamy layer”) will be eligible for the reservations and will need an additional certificate to show their eligibility status. In spite of this ruling, anecdotal evidence indicates that corruption has allowed the wealthier sections to continue to take advantage of these reservations.
• Finally, the private sector continues to remain reluctant to hire SC/ST/OBC students due to concerns about the ability and skills of the students.

Key takeaways from USA’s experience with affirmative action

Given USA’s experience with implementing and discontinuing affirmative action policies, here are a few takeaways for India:

• It is very challenging to increase representation of minority groups in colleges in the absence of affirmative action and reservations. In the 9 states in USA that abolished affirmative action prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the number of underrepresented groups admitted to colleges dropped sharply. Studies show that the ruling dissuaded students from underrepresented groups from applying to colleges. In order to increase enrolment of these groups, individual colleges had to spend billions of dollars over two decades, made test scores optional, and refined their communications and admissions processes.
• In order to increase representation of socially excluded groups in higher education, the government will have to provide quality early childhood education. At the college level, the learning disparities amongst these groups is already too vast to bridge. India’s National Education Policy (NEP2020) has a number of initiatives to support early education of tribal groups, including scholarships for female tribal students, reservations for SC/ST students in government-run schools, free school supplies, and establishing hostels in harder-to-reach areas, amongst others. However, these policies under NEP2020 are yet to be operationalized, and India’s public schooling infrastructure has anyway been struggling to provide quality schooling.
• And finally, affordable options for education financing are required. In spite of the reservations, the costs of higher education at elite universities may inhibit students from applying. The costs of college education in USA remain prohibitively high, and in India, the costs compared to the per capita income of minority groups is also rising sharply. There is a huge need for affordable options for education financing (vs. the recent trend of predatory pricing for education loans), and an increased in publicly and privately financed need-based scholarships to support students.

[1] In Lakshwadeep, 100% of the college seats are reserved for scheduled tribes.?