Monday, October 20, 1997
Discrimination still colors society
RELIGION Reparations have made some improvement, but it’s too
early to end affirmative action
By Andres Chang
Before I begin my second column, I would like to clarify some
the things I said in my first column. When I say that the
Republican party preaches smart bombs instead of smart kids and
leaves children to starve on the streets I am referring to
legislation they have passed. Last year the Republican congress
gave more than half of their discretionary spending to the
military. Only eight percent went to education. Also, the new
welfare laws passed by the Republican congress require that anyone
on welfare can only be on welfare for five more years. Twenty
percent of Americans below the poverty line are five years old or
younger. That means that a five-year-old child will receive no
monetary aid and must get a job to earn income when he or she is 10
years old! That is outrageous and wrong. My attacks are fact-based
and justified.
Second, though protests, mass actions, rallies, sit-ins, and
marches may seem like nothing more than chaotic noise, they are in
fact proven ways of achieving solutions to social injustice. I
challenge anyone to tell Nelson Mandela, the family of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., the family of Cesar Chavez, the living
contemporaries of Mahatma Gandhi, and El Movimiento Estudiantil
Chicano/Chicana de Aztlan, that their sign carrying and chanting
did not help them end apartheid in South Africa, end segregation,
get better salaries and working conditions for migrant farm
workers, liberate India, or create the UCLA Chicano/Chicana studies
department.
When the constitution was first drafted, it declared that "all
men are created equal." The laws of the United States of America
should have reflected this sentiment, however they did not. African
men, women, and children were brought to this country and continued
to be brought to this country as sub-human slaves until 1865. When
slavery was abolished, it was clear that the United States
government owed an immeasurable debt to African peoples in this
country. African-Americans did not have the same privileges as did
whites, and thus were given "forty acres and a mule" to compensate
for the rape of their people.
In theory, these reparations given to African peoples should
have mended the wounds made by slavery. However, African people
still had to deal with lynching, segregation, and a criminal
justice system that was quick to jail or hang them. The rape of
African people continued for the next one-hundred years. In the
1960’s, the American Civil Rights movement brought about racially
integrated schools and workplaces.
In theory, this movement and affirmative action should have
ended all forms of discrimination against African people. However,
after thirty years of affirmative action, African-Americans are
still in the minority of higher learning institutions, senior
corporate positions, upper class tax brackets, and
federal-government-elected positions. Just weeks before Proposition
209 passed, the top executives of Texaco were caught on tape
actively discriminating against their African-American employees.
Two weeks ago, MSNBC reported that rampant discrimination against
African-Americans, and others, exists in the housing market.
Racism did not disappear from America and then suddenly return
when Rodney King was beaten. Racism never left America. It is true
that we have come a long way in race relations, but the fact of the
matter is that people are still being discriminated against on the
sole basis of skin color. There are Americans who are marginalized
not because of their economic background, but because of their
racial, ethnic, and cultural background.
I’d like to end my second column by responding to some racial
issues that have recently visited the pages of Viewpoint. First,
using terms such as African-American or Latino as opposed to black
or hispanic is not just a matter of political correctness, but of
respect and justice. Mocking these terms demonstrates an
insensitivity and rudeness towards the African-American and Latino
communities. If an African-American wishes to be referred to as an
African-American, then I owe it to that human being to refer to him
or her as an African-American. I want to be called Andres; not Andy
nor Andrew; Andres. For any UCLA Bruin to call me by any other name
is to insult me, to offend me, to injure me, and to reduce him or
herself from a mature young scholar to an immature schoolyard
bully.
Second, there is the claim that affirmative action allowed
students of color entrance into the University system who were less
qualified than white students. Anyone who makes this claim does not
know that the university’s admission policy, before 209, was as
follows: 60 percent of the freshman class was taken in on grades
and test scores alone; another 34 percent, who were still within
the top 12 percent of graduating high school seniors were taken in
on the basis of grades, test scores, extracurricular activities,
physical condition, economic background, ethnic background, gender,
and other factors. The remaining 6 percent were not in the top 12
percent of graduating high school seniors but "showed the potential
to thrive at the university"; that last group had nothing to do
with gender or ethnicity.
While Republican presidential hopeful Bob Dole was head of the
Senate Glass Ceiling Commission, it found that "reverse
discrimination" or discrimination against whites was rare. It also
found that women and people of color still met with ample
discrimination.
Also, there is the myth that "illegal" immigrants do not pay
income taxes and that they are not subject to the laws that
American citizens are subject to. This myth is only a myth. My
father had a house and a job and paid taxes even after our family
overstayed our visa (making us "illegal"). As for laws, let us not
forget that just over a year ago Mexican "illegals" were beaten by
police officers for speeding. I’ll never forget when I was eighteen
years old I was a "legal resident" and could not vote, had to pay
taxes, and had to register for the draft.
Many conservatives write passionately with a good amount of
rhetoric. However it is often just that and nothing more: rhetoric.
I seldom see citation of historical dates, statistical figures,
legislative policy, or any hint of factual evidence that is
intelligently interpreted to support right-wing claims. How many
times have we read or heard Republicans speak passionately about
welfare without ever being on welfare or criticize the Women’s
Studies department without ever taking a Women’s Studies class?
Many conservatives have a large amount of emotion behind their
words, as do non-conservatives, but it is only when we use our
words in a fact-based historical context that we can help others
understand us.