As the lights change in front of me, I start to walk across
Sunset Boulevard where I begin my daily journey to class. But
instead of staring at the ground, thinking deep thoughts ““ a
habit that I have most unfortunately developed over time ““ I
look to my left, where I see in clear view a living incarnation of
justice.
The cars that have stopped at the red light are as follows: a
beautiful Rolls Royce, an exhausted Honda and a BMW. And their
drivers, respectively: a middle-aged blonde woman, a white college
student and an elderly black man. I see them stopped ““ the
rich and the poor, the black and the white, the man and the woman.
The light doesn’t care. At that moment, the law is clear and
everyone is equal under it.
On the other side of the street, at UCLA, reality gets a hold of
me. It is “National Take Affirmative Action Day” and,
in anachronistic fashion, a group of students denies what I have
just seen: an equal, objective view of the world.
Indeed, for most advocates of affirmative action, facts have
little to do with convictions. After all, the effects of
affirmative action on minority communities have been unhealthy at
best. Thomas Sowell, a scholar and economist at the Hoover
Institution, writes, “What of the idea that affirmative
action has helped blacks rise out of poverty and is needed to
continue that rise? A far higher proportion of blacks in poverty
rose out of poverty in the 20 years between 1940 and 1960 ““
that is, before any major federal civil rights legislation ““
than in the more than 40 years since then.” Similarly, in
their book “America in Black and White,” Stephan and
Abigail Thernstrom confirm this. They write, “The growth of
the black middle class long predates the adoption of race-conscious
social policies.”
When the use of affirmative action in California college
admissions process was blocked by Proposition 209, minority
admission rates to the prominent University of California, Berkeley
campus fell. But what is often neglected is that minority admission
rates at less prominent UC campuses actually went up even more.
According to the UC Office of the President, the UC system admitted
roughly 2,000 more minorities in 2002 than it did in 1997.
Do note, furthermore, that the “minorities” in
question are artificially defined by the university. Armenians and
Egyptians ““ indeed all Middle Easterners ““ fall under
“white” and Chinese, Japanese and Korean students all
fall under “Asian.” But is the same courtesy extended
to the diverse nationalities of black and Latino people? No. The
foul fact is that, by politicizing the English language, university
statistics undermine the true diversity of our campuses.
Linguistics aside, Proposition 209 has had a positive impact on
minorities. By matching their abilities with the standards of their
college, it has allowed minorities to compete and thrive.
According to Capitalism Magazine, “At UC San Diego, in the
year before Proposition 209’s implementation, only one black
freshman had a GPA of 3.5 or better.” Compare this to 20
percent of white students. The reason is that the black students
who could compete at San Diego were foolishly accepted by UCLA and
Berkeley.
In 1998, as soon as affirmative action was derailed, 20 percent
of black freshmen at UCSD had a 3.5 GPA.
Yet we frequently hear that affirmative action is simply a
program that levels the playing field between minorities and
non-minorities.
But to arrive at this conclusion is to accept its necessary
prerequisite: that minorities are incapable of competing with
non-minorities; that they are intellectually inferior to them. The
rebuttal that affirmative action tries to help those from poorer or
disadvantaged backgrounds doesn’t fly either. It is
understandable why a university might pick a financially troubled
student over a financially advantaged student of equal merit. It is
harder to achieve a level of academic success if you had to work
three jobs to pay the rent. But affirmative action has nothing to
do with promoting based on needs and everything to do with
promoting based on race.
In allowing advocates of affirmative action to shape the
structure of the debate, we have lost sight of what the argument is
all about. It isn’t about the results of or the need for
affirmative action. It isn’t even about “white
privilege” (I’m still waiting for mine to kick in) or
racism. It is about whether affirmative action is right.
Close to 150 years ago, Frederick Douglas proclaimed to a group
of abolitionists: “What I ask for the negro is not
benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The
American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do
with us. “¦ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do
nothing with us!”
Affirmative action is not only ineffective, outdated, insulting,
and racist but it is also wrong. Frederick Douglas, then Booker T.
Washington, then Martin Luther King Jr. understood this. Justice
isn’t about preferences or condescension. It is about human
liberty, equality and a struggle for success ““ not for the
white race or the black race, but for the human race.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu.