Friday, January 22, 1999
Life’s not fair; Deal with it
The passage of Proposition 209 and the end of affirmative action
continues to raise questions about the university admissions
process
By David Krinsky
As the token Libertarian viewpoint here, I know I’m supposed to
be the voice of dissent. I know that I am supposed to say something
to the effect of "Proposition 209 passed, the book is closed, now
shut the hell up!" – but this is not the case. I believe that
affirmative action is not a dead issue. As long as people are
unhappy with the current university admissions policy, affirmative
action will continue to be a relevant topic to be discussed and
debated.
Yes, Proposition 209 did pass, but that doesn’t mean that
everyone should be content with what it does if they don’t agree
with it. If people believe that race considerations should be a
factor in university admissions, then they should be able to speak
out and make their voices heard. Just because the government has
passed a law that may be unjust doesn’t mean that everyone should
just roll over and accept it. (Yes, Libertarians really do believe
in having the right to express oneself. That’s kind of our
point.)
Governor Davis’s plans to admit the top 4 percent of
California’s high school seniors in a plan to "increase diversity."
Such developments prove beyond a doubt that affirmative action is
certainly not a dead issue. Of course, the real question here
should be whether or not those who support affirmative action are
fighting for the right thing.
Let’s get something straight here. Affirmative action is not a
question of equality, but a matter of entitlement. No one is
entitled to go to UCLA; it is a privilege that must be earned. It
would be nice if people of all races, creeds and economic
backgrounds populated schools in equal numbers, but is anyone truly
entitled to this situation? No. Why? Because life is not fair. For
those of you who have a hard time grasping this idea, I will repeat
it: life is not fair.
People can work toward making the world more fair through
charity and volunteer work, and I applaud those who do. But
fairness is not something that can be mandated by the government or
forced upon people. It is a harsh but simple fact that some people
are born with more advantages than other people, leaving others to
work twice as hard to earn the same achievements.
It would be nice to believe that the communists are right and
that everyone can have all things in equal amounts, making everyone
happy. In reality, a society that caters to the needs of all
fulfills the needs of none, and everyone ends up suffering.
The only true way to succeed is through one’s self, and nothing
can truly replace personal drive, least of all government
intervention.
People can protest and scream for affirmative action to return,
but this is like trying to fix a leaking dam by building a new one
a few miles down the river. It only creates new problems. If the
concern is to make sure that all factions of society are
represented equally at universities, then here’s an idea: improve
pre-college education. By improving the education that children
receive from kindergarten to the 12th grade, universities can
easily evaluate applicants based on their skills alone without
having to worry about their cultural background, their history,
etc.
This gives everyone the same tools to work with, leaving the
rest up to the individual’s drive and intelligence.
Those who protest and argue for affirmative action should turn
and solve the problem themselves. Instead of blocking traffic at
busy intersections, help raise money for schools. Instead of
staking out buildings, tutor some school kids. Instead of holding
rallies on campus, encourage communities to help out and take pride
in their schools.
Even if the children opt not to go to college, at least they
will be better educated for the world. This helps provide a
long-term solution to the larger problem in place of short-term
answers to the smaller issue.
Instead, we get individuals like Regent William Bagley who try
to overturn the UC ban on affirmative action because it "sent the
wrong message to black and Latino students and harmed the
university’s reputation." That’s kind of funny to me, because I
always thought that basing admissions solely on merit and
performance sent the right message to everyone and improved a
university’s reputation.
The real joke is on the regents who think they can improve the
future of minority students about 12 years too far into their
educational career just by changing the admissions policy.
I would love to see a college campus filled with people of all
colors, ethnicities, sexual orientations and backgrounds. With more
diversity on campus, students can learn from each other about other
cultures and ways of life. In many ways, these lessons would be
just as valuable as those taught in class because it would help
prepare us for the diversity of the real world. I just don’t
believe that affirmative action is the right way to make this
happen.
If the ideal situation is to live in a world that is colorblind,
then affirmative action makes no sense. If race is a consideration
in admissions, then it proves that race – the color of your skin or
your ethnicity – does matter. Even if the reason for doing this is
to balance the scales of racial equality, it only tilts the scale
in another direction.
The Random House College Dictionary defines racism as "a
doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races
determines cultural or individual achievement." So when you have an
admissions policy that considers race a crucial element in
admissions, wouldn’t that be racist?
Ladies and gentlemen, the issue of affirmative action is alive
and well. Aren’t we all the better off for it?
Krinsky is a fourth-year history student, vice-president of the
Bruin Libertarians and a part-time music prostitute. Please contact
Krinsky at [email protected].
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]