• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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