OPINION & EDITORIAL
‘Neutral’ policies sustain inequality
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- We need a second opinion (February 13, 2007)
- Affirmative-action decision a missed opportunity (October 1, 2003)
- UW must eliminate race factor (December 7, 2006)
- No place for race (January 18, 2007)
- Summer preview: Affirmative-action ruling (May 8, 2003)
by Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Following bans in California, Washington, and Michigan, arguments about affirmative action are abound, stating admissions should be solely based on merit or other "justifiable" need-based qualifications. Critics beg the question, "Why consider race?" Why not consider race? It is as much a part of how minorities experience and are treated by society as gender, socioeconomic status, and additional factors that are viewed as "legitimate."
Regardless of race, minorities too are subject to the same admissions criteria as their classmates. We do not simply check a racial code and receive a "Get into College Free" card. We fill out the application. We have our accomplishments. We are qualified. When we are chosen amongst applicants, our competitors are not people of a higher rank; they are individuals of the same standing.
Strip the system of affirmative action, and opponents argue that the end result is equal prospects for all. However, this so-called level playing field is a mountain of white privilege. Invisible as this privilege may be, it is ubiquitous in our society. Open a magazine or textbook, turn on your television, go into any store, and you'll always find a representation of white culture. For whites, your faults are not attributed to your race. When you achieve, it is not on account of your ethnic group. The vast majority of the authority figures you encounter in businesses, universities, or government bodies will share your racial background. You are given more credibility, more respect, and more opportunities for advancement.
Let's look at the world through a minority lens. From the beginning, you are more likely to be incarcerated or live in poverty. You are assumed to be at risk, your behavior criminalized and assumed to precede juvenile delinquency. You are less likely to obtain a high school diploma and even less likely to continue on to college. Many lack access to the resources or guidance needed for plan for postsecondary education. This is the definition of "equality" we are expected to accept.
The bottom line is this: race is relevant. To call for "race-neutral" admissions is to be ignorant of the rampant inequality that endures against those who do not fit the characteristics of the ideal. The glitch is not just an unsuccessful education system, which fails to endow urban youth with satisfactory preparation for college, but also a society which holds minorities in low regard. The only way to end the very discrimination which reinforces the need for affirmative action is to support the entry of underrepresented groups at the university level. We cannot break cultural boundaries and facilitate discussion on such pressing issues, when certain ethnic groups are not admitted into the establishment. Although I wholeheartedly wish that at some point in the future affirmative action will be rendered unnecessary, minorities are still susceptible to societal forces, whether evident or invisible, that keep us from being equivalent. Admittedly, the policy gives precedence to one group over another; nonetheless, it is done in an effort to increase diversity, decrease prejudice, and undermine the influences that bar the underrepresented from higher education. In a word, its aim is not discrimination but inclusion. When applied correctly, the method will end social barriers and prevent the need for additional policies in the future. Ultimately, terminating affirmative action would return us to the discriminatory platform on which we began and perpetuate the inequity that divides our nation.
Erin Perkins, Junior, Legal Studies & Criminal Justice
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 6:12am):
"The bottom line is this: race is relevant."
So you ARE a racist?
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 7:24am):
As long as minorities feel better having a crutch, the crutch will remain. No matter what, "whitey" still holds the key to their success.
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 9:35am):
Acknowledging the existence of race and racism is not racist.
Would you say acknowledging the existence of sexism or heterosexism is sexist or heterosexist?
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 10:24am):
Basing your treatment of someone based only on their race is racist.
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 10:24am):
Minorities are more likely to be incarcerated because they are more likely to commit crimes.
The University of AR actually had lower ACT requirements for black students. In CA, it is illegal to give black grade school students a test to determine if they should be put into remedial classes because 40% of the students would fail.
College is a place to learn a skill, not a place to "represent your race." It is no consolation to the black students who don't get in that their "brothers" got in. I don't care if the whole college is Chinese. Would you visit a doctor who got into college because he filled a quota? There are plenty of white students who don't have opportunities. There is a view held by some minorities that it is somehow my fault that they are poor, simply because I am white and they are not. If you are going to make the broad statement that whites oppress blacks, then I shall make the broad statement that blacks are the ones joining gangs, doing drugs, and shooting each other. But it's racist when I say that, yet it's ok for you to make one sided claims.
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 11:39am):
Race certainly is relevant, Erin! And racism against non-minorities is still racism! Why not have quotas for professional sport teams, too? Just for the sake of inclusion?
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 12:11pm):
I've never been a fan of affirmative action and this editorial sums up why: there is an enduring sense from the African American community that they are unable to raise their social status due to systems and stereotypes that are "ingrained" in society today. It's a call of being helpless, that unless there are special rules and regulations in place, minorities cannot be expected to meet stated requirements for admission. My view is that this argument is baloney based simply on personal experience, having plenty of friends and acquaintences that were some how able to "make it" without special treatment, but through good ol' honest hard work and determination.
And another thing is that bothers me about editorials like this is when the writer hides behind the "minority" monicker when clearly they are talking about African Americans. I've never seen anyone write a passionate piece saying the Asian or Latino communities are being oppressed by the same institutions that are supposedly holding African Americans down.
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 12:36pm):
"Would you visit a doctor who got into college because he filled a quota?"
Nope, that's why I don't care to see a black doctor. This attitude will continue until quotas are gone, and maybe for a generation afterward.
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 1:40pm):
Why even show preference to people from Wisconsin? If UW-Madison is truly dedicated to academics it wouldn't lower standards for in-state admissions. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 6:35pm):
1) Quotas were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 2003. No affirmative action program includes quotas, except in the case when companies have blatantly discriminated against women, people of color, the elderly, etc. Universities do not use quotas.
2) It is illegal to admit people into schools or hire people who have not met the basic qualifications for that school or company. The decision is never between more qualified and not qualified.
3) Affirmative action can get you in the door, but it's not going to give you a degree. In order to get a PhD or any degree, one must still do the work. To say that you do not trust black doctors because of their race is not logical(afterall, they still had to meet the same qualifications as their white peers.) It's just racist.
Would you not see a white female doctor, then? White women have benefited the most from affirmative action. Are they not qualified, as well?
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 10:06pm):
"White women have benefited the most from affirmative action."
Is that why there are so many more women than men going to college?
Anonymous (December 13, 2006 @ 12:19am):
The solution to the problem is simple: castrate all the white males.
Anonymous (December 16, 2006 @ 10:27pm):
The amazing thing about the term "racist" is that the uninformed assume that acknowledging the existence of race means that you are "racist." Race is here. It exists. It affects people. Deal with it. Racism implies a hatred for individuals based on unfair criteria. Affirmative action does not use hatred as a basis for deciding between candidates. No one is turned away, because admissions boards hate white people. As the article states, "its aim is not discrimination but inclusion." Don't throw around a term if you're not willing to understand the full implications of it.
No one is arguing for quotas, just a higher representation of minorites and an equal opportunity for inclusion, which they don't currently have. Even if the goal of education is to provide knowledge, it does so in a manner that does not give a fair opportunity to the entire population. People don't apply to college in an effort to "represent for the brothers." They do so to gain oppportunities they don't have, which they cannot do when they aren't given a "level playing field."
For whatever reason, the public assumes the word minority automatically refers to African Americans and the dichotomy between black and white. Perhaps you need to expand your own limited views on the situation of the minority population in America if this is so. Every minority group (this includes women and ethnic groups) has its limitations, and affirmative action acts to correct them. The only person pinpointing the black population is you.
Why the race of the article's author is even an issue, the world may never know. All that matters is that the minority is heard. Do you want quotas for each underrepresented group, when topics of race are discussed? Would you instead prefer that they don't speak up at all and passively watch issues concerning their well-being being argued without their involvement? Let people speak their minds. This is America; people have opinions. Regardless of their race, they can voice them. If they choose not to, that's their own problem.
The article clearly does not blame whites for oppressing groups. It points out the obvious incongruities between the opportunities certain ethnic groups have.
Proponents of affirmative action are not seeking to permanently establish a system to give preference. They are asking to break barriers that keep them from having equal opportunities. Those who support the policy agree that once it's done it's job, affirmative action can be abolished. The moment society gives its entire population a fair chance without discriminating on the basis of race and gender to enter any institution, it will be deemed unnecessary. If you don't like the idea of race-based policy, what do you suggest? No matter what you suggest, you will still take rights from one group and give them to another. No matter what you propose, there will be contention. Equality is always a matter of contention, because no one ever wants to give up their privileges.
Now, we can either jointly push for equality so we don't need policies like this, or we can continue the discriminatory exclusion of others and go on foolishly believing that everyone always has the same opportunities 100% of the time. It's your choice. Castration is completely optional.
