Last month, the California State Senate took the first step in yet another attempt to defy the will of the electorate it serves and repeal Proposition 209, which prohibits the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in admissions to UC and CSU schools. Affirmative action has been a contentious issue at UC Berkeley since the passage of Prop. 209 in 1996. All UC Berkeley students, however, conservative and liberal alike, should work to ensure that race-conscious admission policies do not return to the University of California.

The moral and constitutional arguments against affirmative action are fairly straightforward. It is impossible to claim any semblance of fairness when the members of one race are given preferential treatment over the members of another race. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” Chief Justice John Roberts once wrote, “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to how treating people differently based on their race can possibly be construed as “equal.” It follows that race-conscious admissions are a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Supporters of affirmative action often brush such concerns aside, claiming race must be considered in college admissions for various reasons: in order to overcome a lack of resources among certain minority groups, to combat institutional racism or to meet the need for some vague and abstract concept of “diversity” — as though the social, cultural and intellectual differences between individuals is predicated entirely on the melanin count in their skin. It has been repeatedly demonstrated, however, most recently by Stuart S. Taylor and Richard H. Sander in their book “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It,” that race-conscious admissions in college and law school harms the very individuals they are meant to help, resulting in numerous minority students who are unprepared for the institutions to which they are accepted, who gravitate away from STEM majors and toward less rigorous programs and who flunk the bar exam at higher rates.

But perhaps the strongest argument against affirmative action is its staggering long-term social cost. Race-conscious university admission policies distract from the underlying problem, enshrine injustice and unfairness in public education and actually reinforce the idea that one race is somehow intrinsically inferior to another. The blanket assumption that every member of one race — no matter his or her socioeconomic background, previous education or personal experiences — requires some form of aid in order to compete with the members of another race is, for lack of a better word, racist. Indeed, it is the very definition of institutionalized racism, the rallying cry of affirmative action advocates.

If all members of a certain race are given preferential treatment, regardless of other factors, it will perpetuate the idea that members of that race are inferior to their peers and did not succeed on merit but “only got in” because of the color of their skin. The implications of this should be obvious: Employers will seek to avoid hiring those they perceive as unprepared, and society will view them as academically and intellectually inferior. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said he placed a “15-cent sticker” on his diploma from Yale Law School after finding it more difficult to find employment than many of his white peers after graduation, in large part due to assumptions that he was only at Yale because of his race. Such a stigma is incredibly destructive, and affirmative action will only make it a permanent part of our society.

This is not to say that we should be satisfied with the status quo. Far from it. One of the many failures of affirmative action is that it seeks to do little more than treat a symptom, leaving the disease to fester. Long-term solutions for the real issues — poor public education, breakdowns in social structure, etc. — are required, although some form of immediate, temporary relief that does not cause more harm than good is likely necessary.

The most common short-term remedy offered by conservatives is the consideration of socioeconomic factors in the admissions process. The consideration of these factors can help a potential admit who has demonstrated the ability to succeed at UC Berkeley overcome financial and environmental disadvantages beyond his or her control.

But even if we make small adjustments to admission policies to reflect socioeconomic hardship, we must remember that this is not a permanent solution. Meaningful improvement and reform must be made to K-12 education throughout the country. Such reform will not come easily, nor will it come quickly. But it will not come at all if we expend our energy fighting over a bad policy that not only harms many of the most vulnerable in our society but also actively perpetuates injustice and racism.

As students and future alumni of UC Berkeley, we have a vested interest in ensuring the continued success and reputation of the University of California, even long after we have graduated. The best way to do so is to work together to resolve the fundamental problems that might prevent the best and brightest from entering our school, rather than perpetuating a failed, racist policy.

Jacob F. Grant writes the Thursday political column. Contact him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @Jacob_at_Cal.