College admissions must consider 'hard brain work'

Monday, May 1, 1995

College admissions must consider 'hard brain work'

By Marina Bogorad

I know that the topic of affirmative action has been chewed on for quite some time now. Let me chew on it a little more, for Lisa Martinez's "powerful" argument against it ("Anti-affirmative action camp's emotional arguments lack merit," April 25) made me hungry.

I just love the way Martinez shuts off the "rich-kids-have-problems-too" argument. "Must they raise two kids on a student's income?" Martinez asks, and then answers the rhetorical question herself: "Sorry, no." Wait a minute: The case is not closed yet.

Where were these "they" (who are so unfortunate with two kids and one miserable income) when they decided they were mature enough to provide for kids? Couldn't they have sat down and set their priorities straight first, by thinking, "Hmm, I'm still at school, with no more extra sources of income in the near future ... No, I just can't afford to have children right now."

I understand that sometimes the circumstances are compelling, accidents happen and abortions for some are out of the question, but these probably constitute only half of all the "two-kids-on-student-income" cases. If the other half did some serious thinking before making their choices, Martinez would be left without a significant part of her argument.

Let's reopen the argument right where Martinez ruthlessly shut it off. What, may I ask you, should the admission committee do with African-American applicants (or other people of color, for that matter) who happen to be rich? From a nice neighborhood without drive-by shootings or from a family without two kids on a student's income? Or is Martinez so racially biased she doubts the possibility of such cases? Should the admissions committee ignore race or social status? Affirmative action protects the underprivileged, but is it race alone that makes one underprivileged or should social status "override" color in these cases? These are a lot of questions for one admissions committee.

And don't even start with another rich-kid-complaining-about-affirmative-action motive. I am a recent immigrant from a family whose income was so low Martinez probably would have decided to organize a charity fund for us.

But I still remember my cousin (who immigrated 16 years ago) advising me not to apply to UCLA. "Just a waste of time," he argued. "You're white, so forget about it." After considering my counterarguments about having a 4.0 GPA and an active social life, he reasoned, "Let me put it this way. They have you and some African-American kid. Both you and that kid have a 4.0 GPA, high SATs and a busy social schedule. Guess who gets in?" And the expression on his face left little space for guessing.

Let me tell you, I applied and got in. But the question still stands: What in the world does race have to do with one's academic ability? Why can't you, Martinez, realize that the very essence of affirmative action is racial: It assumes that people of color are not academically capable of getting into a decent university without extra help, without this nice protection that pushes people of color through the admissions process.

What if we forget about color and face the admissions with what we acquired through hard brain work, not with what we initially got from nature? It is, after all, simply humiliating for people of color when it is assumed they can't compete with others on the basis of intellectual ability alone. It is your beloved affirmative action, Martinez, that assumes exactly that.

Bogorad is a first-year political science student.