by Benjamin L. Rousch
There is a new movement developing on campus. It is centered around preserving some special privileges given to certain minority groups. The members of this movement believe that some applicants to the University should be held to lower academic standards because of their sex or the color of their skin. One of the groups involved in this movement apparently advocates extreme measures if these special privileges are taken away. This group is known as BAMN (the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary).
Part of BAMN's published political program is to "build a militant ... movement that uses any means necessary, including ... building occupations and strikes to defend affirmative action." Yet BAMN also plans to "Use democracy to build the movement ..." A militant democracy? This type of contradiction is typical of BAMN, a group which refuses to debate intelligently, or even to recognize the validity of others' arguments. Any dimwit can be militant, or use force to control peoples' beliefs. It takes intelligence and wisdom to argue rationally. It seems that BAMN is not willing to use their minds, the very minds which got them admitted to this fine institution, in a discussion of affirmative action. BAMN is the type of group which can discredit the entire pro-affirmative action movement. The fight for affirmative action would fare better without BAMN and its 'militant democracy.'
Most of the groups which advocate the special privileges are willing to engage in reasonable and logical debate. They present their arguments with civility and intelligence. BAMN, however, violently shouts down any opposing viewpoint or argument with closed ears, and closed minds. They are unwilling to join in a peaceful, logical discussion about affirmative action. What is the excuse they give for being so irrational? They believe that their "rationality will fall victim to the dull force of [their] enemies." If the arguments presented by BAMN were logical, they would stand up to any "dull force," including a logical rebuttal. It is obvious, then, that BAMN's "rationality" must be flawed.
A glaring example of BAMN's flawed logic is the slogan plastered on all of their literature: "No Resegregation of Higher Education." I asked Jessica Curtin, a prominent member of and mouthpiece for BAMN, why they believe that the elimination of the racist and sexist privileges afforded by affirmative action would cause the resegregation of higher education. She replied with an email which was printed as a 'Letter to the Editor' at the Michigan Daily. Within the letter, she gives examples of colleges in California and Texas which have experienced a decline in minority applications and enrollment since the elimination of their affirmative action policies. What is not taken into account is that there has a been a general drop in college applications for all races, not just minorities. Undoubtedly, some of the minorities who would have applied to the colleges without affirmative action policies decide, instead, to apply to schools with lower admission standards. With respect to minorities, a college which has lower admission standards does not imply that it is a "lesser" institution, but it does imply that it is a college which grants preferences based on race or sex. Thus, many minority students do not bother to apply to the non-affirmative action schools because they are more likely to be admitted to the preference-granting colleges. Thus, until all universities have eliminated their affirmative action programs, the statistics pointing to lower minority admissions are not valid.
So, Ms. Curtin still has not explained why eliminating affirmative action will segregate higher education. She has only presented examples which have been shown to be invalid in the present situation (some schools without race- or sex-based lower admissions standards, and some schools retaining affirmative action). She gives no other reason why lack of affirmative action policies will segregate higher education.
What are some of the other arguments for keeping in place the outdated and racist system of college admittance created by affirmative action? They say that minorities are underprivileged at the level of primary education. I do not debate this statement. It is obvious that the inner-city schools are not of the caliber of suburban institutions, and that a disproportionate number of minorities attend the inferior urban schools. However, affirmative action proponents believe that because of their underprivileged situation, minorities should not be held to the same academic standards as the "privileged" majority. Thus, because of the inferior education offered to minorities, they cannot be expected to perform as well on standardized tests, and they will obviously have a lower GPA.
If this is truly the case, then the obvious way to bring all high school students up to the same level of possible education excellence is to attack the problem at the source. We should restructure the primary education system so as to give all students an equal opportunity for a good education. Addressing the problem of unequal education at the high school level will provide a more permanent fix. In the current situation, affirmative action is rather like duct tape holding your car's fuel line together. Some day, the duct tape will fall off, and you're in big trouble. Affirmative action has been holding the American colleges' admissions together for 30 years. It's time to replace the line.
It is obvious that affirmative action grants preferences to some people, and not others. No rational person would argue this point, or that granting preferences is constitutional. So, reader, you decide for yourself whether you believe affirmative action is legal.
Postscript:
I do not consider myself a racist, and, in general, I try not to stereotype people according to their "race." I am uncomfortable talking about a person's "race" because I do not perceive the world as made up of separate "races." I believe that each person is an individual, and that stereotypes cannot adequately describe a person who is truly an individual. I have, for the purposes of this article, adopted the stereotypes created by affirmative action and its proponents. Affirmative action stereotypes "minorities" (those people who possess a skin color which is not the most prevalent in society) as underprivileged urbanites. Affirmative action also classifies "non-minorities" as privileged suburbanites. It is this stereotyping which makes affirmative action racist. Many "minorities" attend privileged suburban schools, and many "non-minorities" attend underprivileged urban schools. The very discussion of affirmative action forces upon us a view of the world which is intrinsically filled with stereotypes by "race." Only through the elimination of affirmative action and other stereotype-laden societal constructions can we hope to achieve true equality for all individuals. MR