When I was in college, I remember hearing about the school’s new Black Student Union.
My internal reaction was, Why do we need to keep dividing ourselves?
After learning about this, I started thinking about what the black community faced, specifically in the 1960s: being humiliated by being forced to use separate water fountains, different entrances to buildings; being denied job opportunities, to name a few.
I wondered why people would fight for integration, then purposely segregate.
I recently took my daughter to the history museum, where she saw a staged set up of black and white entrances and pictures of the Klu Klux Klan.
It wasn’t fun to see my child’s sweet soul learn about this kind of thing. It was as if I saw some of her innocence fly away right there.
She was angry and baffled. I turned it into a teaching opportunity, and we talked about how everyone is created equal and should be treated the same.
However, once my daughter goes to high school, I might be forced to engage in another conversation about equality — one involving college admissions and the fact that being white could affect her ability to be accepted into the college of her choice, even if she has perfect SAT scores.
By Any Means Necessary
Last week, the Supreme Court heard Schutte vs. By Any Means Necessary Coalition, a case regarding the constitutionality of Michigan’s 2006 ballot initiative that bans the use of race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin in Michigan’s public sector.
The Michigan initiative was challenged by the special interest group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN).
The group states on its website that its goal is “building a united mass, integrated civil rights movement that will unite black and brown, gay and straight, to win full freedom and equality for all.” (Notice they didn’t include whites in that list.)
BAMN was successful, and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court overturned the initiative, which had passed handedly by 58%.
The October 15th Supreme Court case will determine if Bill Schuette, Michigan’s Attorney General, will be successful in his bid to have the circuit court’s decision overruled, upholding the voters’ will.
The issue for Michigan originally came in front of the Supreme Court in 2003 in two separate cases. In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld the affirmative action policy of Michigan’s law school. However, in another matter, the Court ruled in favor 6-3 of petitioner, Jennifer Gratz, who stated University of Michigan was guilty of discrimination by favoring minorities.
According to Gratz, the University of Michigan determined admission on a point system, including 12 points for a perfect SAT score — and an additional 20 points if you were black, Hispanic, or Native American.
So even with a perfect score, white applicants were subject to a 20-point deficit.
The Outcome
I interviewed Schuette, and he was positive and seemed very at ease with the outcome…
“I am very confident the Michigan constitution will be upheld in the Supreme Court,” Schuette said. “Equal treatment and equal protection under the Michigan constitution is equal with protection under the federal constitution.
“Treating people differently based on their race is wrong. That is why the people of Michigan decided to stop letting their state universities make admissions based on the race of the applicant. The people of Michigan decided they didn’t want to give or withhold benefits (like admission to a state university) because of skin color or because of a box checked on the same form.”
A recent Gallup poll shows Michigan isn’t alone in their view of discriminatory admission practices: 67% of U.S. adults say race should not be taken into account in college admissions, while 58% oppose affirmative action entirely.
Only 32% said the government should have a roll in “trying to improve the social and economic position of blacks and other minority groups in this country.”
I am against racial preferences for college admissions, because I think it’s blatantly discriminatory and causes racial tension.
I also believe that in regards to medical professionals, we particularly don’t want to downgrade scholastic standards.
I’ve seen interviews in which minorities rightfully complain that even though they didn’t need the preference to get admitted, other students treat them as if they weren’t qualified. Basically, whites are becoming increasingly bitter and this has led to more racial division.
The real injustice, of course, is not being addressed, anyway…
The real injustice is many minorities are not getting the education and learning environment they need leading up to college.
Preferential Treatment
Preferential treatment in college admissions is a Band-Aid — and the activists’ lazy way out.
Why don’t we care enough about these kids to fight for change in schools, instead of always beating our chests about “our” rights?
The Al Sharptons of the world want to make everything a race issue, while really it’s an issue of child neglect…
By not giving these children a decent learning environment, minorities are not granted the same advantage from the start. If they were, they wouldn’t need to be given preferences in the end.
I was a victim of the busing social experiment in the 1980s. I was shipped an hour each way to a school in the projects. I had to go through a metal detector to get through the school’s entrance, a school where I felt physically threatened. It’s where the kids in my class emotionally tortured my art teacher until she literally cried in front of the class. It was brutal. And then, of course, we had to share textbooks.
I still have nightmares about it…
Luckily, my parents moved as soon as they could, just to get me out of there and to a different school district.
Funding schools at a local level instead of a state level is the root of the problem. It needs to be addressed.
Denying poor children a safe environment and basic learning resources — while other children have access to yoga classes, iPads, and field trips to the city orchestra — isn’t just.
Public education in this country is a glaring example of the haves and the have-nots.
If the parents and the community can’t get it together to improve things, that’s another issue — but we at least need to make sure all school children are given the same quality education.
Instead of scurrying around the halls of justice, trying to lower standards for minority college applicants, shouldn’t we give equal opportunity to all of our children from the very start?
We need to start thinking in terms of economic disparity instead of skin color. Kids don’t even see color until we point it out. Adults create and teach the racial divide.
As a parent, I can tell you racism is taught, not innate.
I remember being at church and asking my daughter who she played with in Sunday school. She pointed to a black child in a purple dress, the only black child in the church…
However, when she answered, she didn’t say, “The black girl.”
Instead, she pointed and said, “That girl, in the purple dress.”
We all should strive to see the dress, not the skin color.
Voice your values…
Laura Woolfrey-Macklem
