Affirmative action is ‘chance,’ not discrimination

Affirmative action is ‘chance,’ not discrimination

By Simone Robinson

Okay, I’ve had it. I’m through, you have finally forced me to
sit down and write to The Bruin. Yes, you’ve riled me before, but
this is it!

First of all, let’s get a few definitions straight.
Unfortunately, so many of us "educated" people throw around words
or catchy phrases so much they often don’t even know their
meaning.

There are those who may say I am arguing semantics, I don’t
care. But for the last time: there is no such animal as "reverse
discrimination!" And don’t try to say it’s in the dictionary. So is
"ain’t," and we know what every English teacher thinks about
that.

The following definitions are from the Random House College
Dictionary unless otherwise noted. Discrimination: "action or
policies based on prejudice or partiality;" discriminate: "to make
a distinction in favor of or against a person on the basis of the
group or class to which the person belongs, rather than according
to merit; show partiality." Affirmative action: "a policy to
increase opportunities for women and minorities, especially in
employment."

In "Defense of AAA," Herman Schwartz describes affirmative
action as "a public or private program designed to equalize hiring
and admission opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups
by taking into consideration those very characteristics which have
been used to deny them equal treatment." Nowhere does it say that
preferential treatment is given to people based solely on their
color or gender. I simply cannot understand why people try to use
affirmative action and "reverse discrimination" as if they are
synonymous. They’re not, so please, stop!

Before I continue, please let me emphasize that I am not saying
that affirmative action is a savior or the only means to achieve
equal opportunity. Only true acceptance ­ not colorblindedness
of multiculturalism ­ and tolerance for different cultures
will create it. Nor is the program perfect. But what I do argue is
that until a better program can be implemented (or when racism and
sexism cease to exist), it is ridiculous to completely erase a
policy that has aided minorities and women and whites from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds. To do this would close the door of
opportunity for a significant number of people who might benefit
when given a chance.

Please note the key word in the last paragraph: CHANCE. There
are so many of you out there who are misguided, thinking people of
color and women want handouts. Thinking that we think the
government owes us. Well, yes, the government does owe us. It owes
us the rights of our Constitution that guarantee us the right to be
judged on merit on a level playing field.

A l99l Gallup poll showed that well over two-thirds of African
Americans were against "preferential treatment." Even so, why did
it take the 19th amendment in 1920 for women to vote? Why did the
American government wait until the 1960s to protect African
Americans from white racists to vote? You talk about being judged
on merit when history has proven time and again that we are NOT
judged on merit.

Now, if you live in an idealistic and pluralistic society as
James Lebakken ("Is success in life a foot race or a state
lottery?"Jan. 23) would like us to believe, then his points of
argument are valid. And in all due respect, he brings up valid
points that are worth considering. However, let’s get back to
reality.

Racism has become a virus in American society. We can experience
it sporadically or regularly. It’s there. Unfortunately, those left
to deal with the consequences and effects of racist practices are
its survivors. (I say survivor instead of victim, because, as with
rape, the person raped is left to cope with the trauma).

Lebakken says it is not true that non-minorities (meaning
whites) have on average better opportunities than women and people
of color. Wake up! Do you think the government honestly thought
that in the 1960s, folks just wanted to use the same water
fountains? Try again. True example: I’ll be brief:

In high school, a teacher of my Latina friend told her to drop
calculus because "Mexicans just cannot do advanced math …" He
even offered to give her a C to drop. He told her to take home
economics instead. How often does this happen to your average white
male?

This is called being at a disadvantage, solely because of race.
Mind you, my friend is now a UCLA engineering major with a 3.3 GPA.
My friend was not given an equal chance because she was Latina. She
had to work even harder because of something beyond her control.
Now imagine having to deal with this your entire life on a regular
basis. And people wonder why people of color and women sometimes do
not do as well. Hey, red light! I am not trying to use
discrimination as an excuse, but I am saying you cannot downplay
the effects of discrimination or pretend it doesn’t exist.

If affirmative action is as successful as some whites claim it
to be, please show me some accurate figures that say so. The
unemployment rate for African Americans is three times as high as
for whites. For Latinos, it’s double. African Americans comprise
about 12 percent of total U.S. population, but at UCLA, they
comprise about seven percent of the total population. Statistics
for Latinos, Native Americans and some Asian Pacific Islanders are
about the same.

Actual numbers show that only about two percent of people of
color admitted to UCLA are aided by affirmative action. So stop
looking at us as if we don’t belong here. Plus, that 2 percent
still has to meet the minimum requirements (A-F, remember those?).
Maybe my Latina friend’s high school GPA would have been even
higher if her teacher had tried to work with her instead of against
her.

Another reason people like Lebakken and UC Regent Ward Connerly
have a problem with affirmative action is that it operates under
the premise that there is something fundamentally wrong with the
structure of American society. And that is that America has not
honored the "promissory note" (Martin Luther King’s speech) via the
Constitution for the rights extended to all Americans.

To say that dominant society is at fault for allowing racism,
sexism, classism (and any other "isms" you want to add), is in
effect to say that everyone is responsible for the mis-structure of
our society. No one wants to take the blame.

"I never owned a slave!" "I never raped a woman!" "Some of my
best friends are Asian!" All these excuses miss the point. You may
not be guilty of the above. You are more than likely not a racist,
but this person still benefits from the practices of our unequal
society and that’s where the main problem lies.

The majority of white males are automatic beneficiaries of
better opportunities based solely on their race and gender. Why is
it that there is never a fuss when an alumni’s child is admitted
simply because their parent attended a particular school or better
still, donated money. If you’re going to argue against
"preferential treatment" you’d better argue against it all
ways.

One last point to Lebakken’s article: his attempted basketball
analogy was an airball (pun intended) which completely missed the
target. For a society that exemplifies athletics as the only way
for African American males to be successful, athletics is seen as a
way out. Most white males are usually channeled into other possible
avenues of success. Ironically, the court (or field) seems to be
the only place where a person of color truly is judged by their
skills.

And so, let’s get the biggest misconception about affirmative
action out of the way. The purpose of affirmative action should be
to help qualified minorities and women gain access to education and
jobs they would not necessarily have a chance for.

Like I said before, affirmative action is not perfect. And
neither are we. But until races take responsibility to help change
our society, then we will only continue as we are now with constant
bickering, constant talk and no action.

Robinson is a senior sociology student.