Discrimination: An Equal Opportunity
Even though I probably go to one of the more liberal law schools in the country, sometimes I forget how even more liberal my undergrad was. And although I loved UCLA in all of its progressive glory, I think having such an overwhelming presence of one ideological viewpoint sometimes led to people's intolerance of other opinions. Though I am certainly not trying to change admissions or faculty hiring to get more conservatives, I sometimes wish the people who waved the banner of tolerance for minorities, gays, and women would extend that same tolerance to people of other beliefs.
Apparently since I've left UCLA, a big affirmative action debate has stirred up again. Although it's always been simmering, this Daily Bruin column, A Modest Proposal for an Immodest Proposition (forwarded to me, I don't check the Daily Bruin anymore, don't worry) lit the fuse to a huge bomb. Though a satirical piece about Asians and affirmative action, people apparently went crazy. Threats, facebook groups, and a lot of hate mail spewing with it's own inappropriate name calling. It's always sad, angering, and embarassing when you see people who say they want equality call a columnist (who is actually quite liberal, not a neocon like they all want to believe), who has different opinions, a "jew f*ggot."
Not long after I was forwarded this article, I also got an invitation to a "Take Affirmative Action Day" event. As I was just looking at the invitation, someone responded that they were not attending because they believe that affirmative action is fighting discrimination with discrimination. Fair enough, another opinion stated politely. Whether or not you believe in the merits of Affirmative Action, I think most people will see that some girls' response to that person's statement was just ridiculous. She said, "For one thing, reverse discrimination does not exist. In order to discriminate, you must have the power of the majority behind you. Just a little FYI."
And this very thinking is where the problem comes from. Just because you're a minority, from a ideology that champions itself as liberal and open minded, or have 80% of a liberal campus backing you up doesn't mean that you're a saint who speaks gospel truth and is immune from being hateful, discriminatory, or anything else negative. The definition of discrimination is: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice. There's nothing in that definition that says you have to be in the majority. Discrimination and intolerance knows no bounds; it doesn't matter what side you're on or who you're saying it to, it is what it is.
1 comment:
Over the years, I've done a lot of long, hard, painful thinking about the topic of discrimination, especially since I've been on both ends of the situation. On the one hand, I am white and Christian, and thus part of some rather dominant groups in our society. On the other hand, I'm still a female, which is still considered a "subordinate" group in many regards. I've come to the conclusion that there are many types of discrimination, but they usually fall into one of two categories: individualized or institutionalized.
Individualized discrimination can be practiced by anybody. Its scope is generally pretty narrow and limited to direct interpersonal relations. At times, it can expand to cover a company policy if headed by a particularly biased individual, but it generally doesn't reach too far into the world around it. This is not to say it's not damaging, of course, nor am I trying to imply that individualized discrimination will be easy to fix - because obviously, those are both ridiculous claims. Discrimination in any regard is painful, destructive, and difficult, and nobody in their right mind would try to refute that.
Institutionalized discrimination, however, seems to me to be the bigger problem. Because it has no obvious source and is often disguised as societal norms, it's a lot harder to pin down and eliminate. I think this is the kind of discrimination the girl on the Facebook group was probably referring to. This kind does indeed require the power of the majority, because institutionalized discrimination requires a systematic, pervasive mentality that simply can't be achieved without that majority. Her phrasing was a little elementary, and she could have done a better job of giving it context, but I think she overall has a valid point. Furthermore, I can place myself in situations where I would be in the minority (i.e. going to a Samahang meeting, clubbing at Tiger Heat, attending services at Hillel), but as soon as I leave that situation, I'm once again a member of the majority, with the full support of the white, heterosexual, Christian community behind me. Hardly fair.
As for the matter of affirmative action, I think very few reasonable people consider it a viable, permanent solution to our greater problem of discrimination. However, when you have a gaping wound in front of you, you don't just stand there wringing your hands helplessly until a surgeon with a sterile needle and some thread arrives - you stick some gauze on it, apply pressure, and try to do what you can in the meantime until the real solution is available. Obviously, the real solution in this case is to start earlier in life, way earlier, in the elementary schools and pre-schools. We need to improve the quality of education in our inner cities and our impoverished rural areas and our small pockets that, for whatever reason, simply aren't performing to the expected standard. We need to make sure the children have safe communities so they can study without being distracted by sirens, gunshots, and drug dealers. We need to make sure they have healthcare, and proper nutrition, and safe places to play once their homework is done. Problem is, and you know this as well as I do, democracy moves kind of slowly. In the meantime, we need to do something to try and shore up that gap between the haves and the have-nots, and affirmative action is an imperfect but viable temporary solution. I cannot stress the "temporary" enough, because our true goal should be to develop a society where such measures are unnecessary.
I wish I knew of a better solution for the short-term, but I don't, and my sense of fairness chafes no matter what we do. Somebody's going to get screwed over either way. It's a messy situation, but until we fix inequalities at the fundamental level of our society, we'll keep finding them at other levels and trying to fix them there.
Er, that was kind of a novel. My apologies =\ It's just an issue that, well, gets me kind of riled up.
Post a Comment