College admissions must consider ‘hard brain work’
By Marina Bogorad
I know that the topic of affirmative action has been chewed on
for quite some time now. Let me chew on it a little more, for Lisa
Martinez’s "powerful" argument against it ("Anti-affirmative action
camp’s emotional arguments lack merit," April 25) made me
hungry.
I just love the way Martinez shuts off the
"rich-kids-have-problems-too" argument. "Must they raise two kids
on a student’s income?" Martinez asks, and then answers the
rhetorical question herself: "Sorry, no." Wait a minute: The case
is not closed yet.
Where were these "they" (who are so unfortunate with two kids
and one miserable income) when they decided they were mature enough
to provide for kids? Couldn’t they have sat down and set their
priorities straight first, by thinking, "Hmm, I’m still at school,
with no more extra sources of income in the near future … No, I
just can’t afford to have children right now."
I understand that sometimes the circumstances are compelling,
accidents happen and abortions for some are out of the question,
but these probably constitute only half of all the
"two-kids-on-student-income" cases. If the other half did some
serious thinking before making their choices, Martinez would be
left without a significant part of her argument.
Let’s reopen the argument right where Martinez ruthlessly shut
it off. What, may I ask you, should the admission committee do with
African-American applicants (or other people of color, for that
matter) who happen to be rich? From a nice neighborhood without
drive-by shootings or from a family without two kids on a student’s
income? Or is Martinez so racially biased she doubts the
possibility of such cases? Should the admissions committee ignore
race or social status? Affirmative action protects the
underprivileged, but is it race alone that makes one
underprivileged or should social status "override" color in these
cases? These are a lot of questions for one admissions
committee.
And don’t even start with another
rich-kid-complaining-about-affirmative-action motive. I am a recent
immigrant from a family whose income was so low Martinez probably
would have decided to organize a charity fund for us.
But I still remember my cousin (who immigrated 16 years ago)
advising me not to apply to UCLA. "Just a waste of time," he
argued. "You’re white, so forget about it." After considering my
counterarguments about having a 4.0 GPA and an active social life,
he reasoned, "Let me put it this way. They have you and some
African-American kid. Both you and that kid have a 4.0 GPA, high
SATs and a busy social schedule. Guess who gets in?" And the
expression on his face left little space for guessing.
Let me tell you, I applied and got in. But the question still
stands: What in the world does race have to do with one’s academic
ability? Why can’t you, Martinez, realize that the very essence of
affirmative action is racial: It assumes that people of color are
not academically capable of getting into a decent university
without extra help, without this nice protection that pushes people
of color through the admissions process.
What if we forget about color and face the admissions with what
we acquired through hard brain work, not with what we initially got
from nature? It is, after all, simply humiliating for people of
color when it is assumed they can’t compete with others on the
basis of intellectual ability alone. It is your beloved affirmative
action, Martinez, that assumes exactly that.
Bogorad is a first-year political science student.