Race-based program still necessary

Letter to the EditorRace-based program still necessary

Editor:

This is in response to Sonja Gedeon’s Oct. 3 column. Although
she

affirms support of affirmative action, her arguments actually
undermine the

program.

Gedeon’s language, when referring to "hate, bigotry and
other

manifestations of the darker side of man," support the

ideologies of white supremacy that persons of color are inferior
and

negative.

History tells us that affirmative action was implemented not for
the

purpose of achieving diversity, as Gedeon maintains, but as
a

means of addressing a particular historical pattern of racial
oppression —

specifically, the institution of slavery and Jim Crow laws and
their

contemporary outgrowths against people of African descent.

Affirmative action was (and where it exists, is) a token effort
to

attack institutionalized racism. Never was it intended to deal
with the

issues of sexism, homophobia, heterosexism or disability-related
biases

(regardless of what some proponents say). Fundamentally,
affirmative

action, in principle and practice, was and must remain a
race-based

program.

The use of diversity did not come up until the Bakke Supreme
Court

decision, in which Justice Powell prevailed over Justice
Marshal’s

historical argument. Powell, in essence, would concur with
Gedeon when she

writes "could it be that they (the opponents of affirmative
action) do not

realize that individuals bring diversity to the [university]
community by

virtue of their ethnicity or gender?" By moving away from race,
the Bakke

case said that affirmative action was no longer necessary for
historical

redress or to address present inequalities.

How can we as proponents support and use the rhetoric of the
Supreme

Court case that lead to its demise? To do this is to internalize
oppressive

ideologies and become the promoters of racial hierarchies.

Inherent in the diversity argument is the inclusion of white
women. Not

only is this contrary to the roots of affirmative action (race)
and its

designed effect (racial oppression and inequalities), it
promotes the

maintenance of racial hierarchies. White women, by virtue of
their racial

classification, enjoy a social position above all others except
white men.

When you include them in this system they advance at the same
rate (or

higher) as everyone else, yet the gap remains the same (or
grows).

Affirmative action is a tool used by its recipients to empower
their

oppressed and underdeveloped communities. It is incumbent on us
to

understand that only indigenous entities can provide for our

self-determination. Without this we are doomed to remain
confined in our

oppressive state.

I am not at UCLA to serve the University or anyone else, except
people

of African descent. If others happen to benefit, all the better.
Educating

my oppressors is not my primary objective. Rather than fight
for

representation and acceptance by our cultural and economic
oppressors, we

should stand up right and affirm our own action.

J. Jioni Palmer

Nommo

Editor in Chief

GPAs & SATs do count

Editor:

In response to Sonja Gedeon’s column from Oct 3: What’s wrong
with

basing college admissions on GPAs and SAT scores, anyway? Aren’t
those far

better indicators than race of who will be the most
successful

academically?

If you believe this type of system will contribute to the
"annihilation

of social progress" by threatening diversity, you’re implying
one of two

things. Either you’re giving in to the "Bell Curve" theory by
suggesting

that African Americans’ and Latina/os’ GPAs and SAT scores are
too low to

merit consideration by UC admissions (unlikely), or you’re
becoming

hysterical in your attempt to preserve a racial spoils system
(very

likely).

UC is not an open-admissions institution and, hopefully, never
will be.

I consider it a privilege to be attending UCLA; nobody owes it
to me or to

any other student.

As long as the primary purpose of a college education is to
prepare for

post-education employment, I say, let only the most qualified
people in,

regardless of ethnicity. Or is that racist, too?Mike Cooper

Third-year

Business Economics