[#permalink]
22 Jan 2007, 14:37
I recall a satire piece from when I was at UCLA, that said it was no longer in vogue to call people Hitler when you disagreed with them in a debate. It was now more trendy to call people Saddam. It was a joke, of course, meant to make fun of people that referenced either name because they were unable to argue and debate without grandstanding and invoking the atrocities of millions of dead. It's insulting to those that died, and those that must read/listen to it.
That aside, I'm quite certain that nothing that I said was bigoted. One might argue that slavery hundreds of years ago has a greater continuing effect than indentured servitude and slavery from 150 years ago (I did in fact agree that African American slavery was worse), but arguing for either side is not bigoted. One might argue that coming across the Mexican border to take menial jobs is more of a disadvantage than spending a month in a shipping container from China (as two of my 1st cousins did), but it is not bigoted to argue for either side. My family is 1 generation removed from being among the millions slaughtered by the Japanese around the time of WWII (two uncles, civilians, were murdered there). Is it bigoted to argue that I should not be on the "wrong" side of affirmative action?
My point is that if you are for affirmative action, you should be for it in all circumstances, and not just when it benefits you. So, affirmative action should not benefit rich African Americans at the expense of poor African Americans, Hispanics & Asians, but it does.
Regarding team ownership, just from personal observations, maybe 1/30 teams turns over every three or more years. That would be about a 1% turnover in ownership - and as I recall the most recent ownership group In Charlotte is in fact African American owned. Based on overall demographics, if the next 10 teams are turned over to white owners over the course of the next 30 years, the proper representation under affirmative action has been served. In terms of athletes, 20% of the NBA turns over each year (roughly 90 athletes). How many of them will be Asian? Far less than overall representation in the population.
I'm against affirmative action, in all cases. I was against it when I applied to college. I didn't understand why my perfect GPA, along with a perfect score in every AP test offered at my high school (Physics, Biology, Math, English, History, Chemsitry & Government), along with a high 1500s SAT, along with 2 league tennis championships, 2 first place science fair finishes, school representation in physics and academic competitions and on, were not enough to get me into Princeton, Harvard or Stanford. An African American girl from my high school made it to Stanford the year before me, her GPA was far from perfect, and her SAT was 300 points lower. Was she at a disadvantage because her parents were engineers in the defense industry and mine worked 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week to run a restaurant? Did the seat at Princeton & Harvard go to the child of a Mexican migrant worker or an African American janitor? No, I'm sure it did not. Affirmative action does not generally benefit those people.
You're right, even though my parents worked 80-100 hours a week, and even though I paid for college and law school by working 35-45 hours a week, with my background I can still be considered at almost any school, but what about the children of my aforementioned cousins (the ones that arrived in the shipping container)? Which side of affirmative action should they be on? One arrive just over 10 years ago and worked his way up from a laborer to now own a home repair business. The other arrived about 8 years ago and saved enough money doing menial labor to open his own restaurant. Their kids? Well, like me they will probably start working at their family businesses at about 13-14. They will not go to private school, they will not have SAT tutors, they do not have educated parents, they won't even learn to speak English until they get to school. Will they be given the chance to succeed on their own merits in school, when they apply to college, or when they look for a job? Is it bigoted to suggest that they should not bear the burden of affirmative action? Perhaps, on the other hand, it is bigoted to say that others should benefit at their expense.
Everyone will have to adjust of Obama or Hillary is elected President. It's something that has never happened before. Will it be particularly difficult for me? No. I'm actually quite well acquainted with friends across many cultures. I was the "least Asian" of my Asian friends at UCLA, founded a chapter of a general college fraternity (that originated in the South) and worked my way into the role of director of recruitment for the Inter-Fraternity Council. I'm quite capable of accepting people of all cultures. But honestly, I don't believe Obama has a chance to be elected in the near future. That's not my personal preference one way or the other; it's just an observation based on the national political landscape. Hillary, I do believe she has a chance, but only if...wait for it...she can continue to gain appeal with older white voters.
Do not try to put words in my mouth by saying that I argued for the need for lack of diversity. I did not. My point was, to say it again, that affirmative action is a zero sum game. For each person that benefits, another person must suffer. In itself, this is not wrong - I agree that it is OK to help some while others bear the cost. The real travesty is that those that benefit and those that suffer are improperly "selected" through affirmative action. An inner city African American or Hispanic kid has almost zero chance of benefiting from affirmative action because they are pooled together with the children of African American and Hispanic doctors, lawyers and engineers. The "rich white kids", the ones that grow up with all the advantages, are not the ones that bear the burden of affirmative action because they have access to private schools, tutors, stable environments & role models. The ones that will bear the burden are those that do not have access to these things. They are also the ones without a voice in the debate because, ostensibly, they are not affected.
close
