Sawyer is an assistant professor of political science and
African American studies.
By Mark Sawyer
I felt compelled to respond to Andrew Jones’ column
“Race based politics hinder
progress“ (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 9). I want to
quickly respond to some of the key assertions and claims and offer
the opportunity to clarify the positions of many who were quoted in
the article.
First and foremost, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a staunch
supporter of affirmative action. In fact, he believed in an even
stronger version than was ever practiced. King stated support for
quotas both in speeches and in writings. King felt such quotas were
necessary to reach an America where race did not matter.
Furthermore, at his death, King had real antipathy and concern for
the “good will of whites.” In several essays and
speeches he attacked complacency that denied race to be a real
problem and saw the removal of legal barriers as the only method of
advancing the cause of true equality.
I know that it is an interesting and provocative rhetorical
strategy to use King to attack the Civil Rights establishment, but
it is simply incorrect. King was an unequivocal supporter of quotas
and, by extension, affirmative action. King saw it as the best way
to make up for both past and ongoing prejudice and discrimination
disadvantaged minorities face. Those who misuse King ignore that
his words involved a process. Beyond that, they tend to deny race
as an issue.
Also, the use of my colleague Victor Wolfenstein’s words
to support a position which he is diametrically opposed to is also
troubling. What Wolfenstein was describing is a central tendency of
Jones’ column ““ that is to deny that racial inequality
exists and to naturalize white advantage as merely reflecting
“merit” or some form of innate advantage
(“An unfinished
revolution,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Sept. 25).
Professor Wolfenstein was also referring to the idea of doing
the work of turning back the gains of minorities under the rubric
of being race blind. Jones’ article, as well as current
appeals, are filled with racial code words and signs that are
explicit appeals to whites to assert their power. Terms like
“mainstream,” and the “majority” of
students are used to marginalize students in the minority and
attack their concerns.
Further, the conception of merit used to attack affirmative
action is simplistic and silly. The idea that qualified students
get into UCLA and “unqualified” students do not is just
not true. The fact is tough admissions decisions are made amongst a
huge pool of “qualified” students. What does one say to
an Inglewood high school student who does well, but does not have
the financial resources for Kaplan and goes to a school that does
not offer AP courses that add extra points to the student’s
GPA? Is that student in a “fair competition”?
The point is many “qualified” students of all colors
are not admitted to UCLA. As a point of fact, affirmative action
accounted for such a small percentage of admissions that it did not
marginally impact the probability of any “qualified”
white student of being admitted.
Diversity is also important and not just some abstract concept.
For instance, in two classes that I have lectured in this fall,
there have been no black males to discuss or comment about
experiences with police and the criminal justice system. The
absence of such voices because of the dwindling numbers flattened
the debate in interesting ways. No students could confirm or deny
the way we think about the discussion or discuss their
experiences.
When discussing racial issues, American history or politics, we
need multiple voices. Failure to do so would be like discussing the
Arab-Israeli conflict at an all Palestinian or Jewish University.
There would likely be a limited set of points of view.
Furthermore, the paucity of minorities such as African Americans
means that the full range of black opinions, from feminist to
nationalist to conservative, are not represented. Often a single
black student is called upon to “represent the race” or
the “black point of view” when there are many. On the
leadership and service issue, perhaps some can. But the record of
whites en masse working to help lead, guide and serve communities
of color is relatively poor. Studies of law, medical and dental
school graduates indicate that students of color tend to return to
their communities with a sense of obligation to help (William G.
Bown and Derek Bok, “Shape of the River,” 1998).
Moreover, the college education these students receive will give
them the skills and education to serve these communities,
communities largely ignored by whites.
In fact, without affirmative action and the return of such
students to communities of color, many of the organizations and
achievements of individuals as well as the students at UCLA would
not be here.
As inner-city schools face teacher shortages and neighborhoods
face a health care crisis, Jones seems to argue we should simply
ignore those most likely to return and help. Even conservative
Arianna Huffington has admitted that American (in particular white
American middle class and up) attitudes about charity and civic
duties is woefully inadequate. More students of color mean more
future leaders in ignored communities.
While I hope that more whites will commit themselves to the
struggle to make such communities a better place, it has not
happened. The same voices who preach self-reliance and personal
responsibility attack and try to thwart the work of those who are
doing that hard work on a daily basis. They also want to shut the
doors to hard working students who go to school to gain skills to
do thankless work in poor communities.
Finally I must return to Martin Luther King, Jr. All should take
the time to actually read an entire King speech or essay. For
instance just before he made the famous statement that
conservatives love to quote regarding a “colorblind”
society, he said, “It is obvious that America has defaulted
on this promissory note in so far as her citizens of color are
concerned. Instead of honoring sacred obligation, America has given
the Negro people a bad check; a check which has come back marked
“˜insufficient funds.’ We refuse to believe that there
are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this
nation. And so we’ve come to cash this check, a check that
will give us on demand the riches of freedom and the security of
justice.”
Also I challenge you to listen to more of King’s words:
“White America is not even psychologically organized to close
the gap ““ essentially it seeks only to make it less painful
and less obvious but in most respects retain it. Most of the
abrasions between Negroes and white liberals arise from this
fact… Every civil rights law is substantially more dishonored
than honored.” He goes on to cite rates of school segregation
that compare with contemporary rates.
Finally he says what is most important for you: “Whites,
it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort
to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an
aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of
America believe they have so little to learn.”
We all have a lot to learn and there is much work to be done.
King’s words are as important today as they were at that time
and speak to the sense of denial and the need for there to be a
more honest discussion about race and the formation of coalitions
to address the problem. Distortions and rhetorical flair cannot
replace the hard and honest work that needs to be done.