Thursday, February 11, 1999
Politics of American capitalism, social structure limit
education
EQUALITY: Access to college dictated by standardized tests,
status quo of corporate world
The university at present is an institution which upholds the
ideals and values of the status quo. Its admission requirements and
policies are designed to be exclusive in order to maintain existing
classes of privilege. It is impossible to examine the university
without looking at its relationship to the rest of society.
Many of the policies produced within the university have had
serious consequences for those outside its perimeter. Proposition
209 was brought about due to the Board of Regents decision to
eliminate race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions. The
university has chosen to align itself with the interests of big
business instead of serving the needs of the people.
The brilliance of many individuals has been unable to flourish
because they were born outside of privilege.
The university should be a vehicle for social change, but its
main concern is producing individuals who will benefit the
structure of corporate America.
This is a public-education institution within a democracy. One
would think that its population would reflect all values in
society.
This is, after all, a marketplace of ideas.
One would expect that this environment would foster creativity
and innovation. Individuals should take the knowledge they learn
here not only to secure jobs, but to change existing institutions
of oppression.
But this is not the aim of the university. It does not seek to
produce revolutionaries and radicals.
Students are only supposed to have exposure to ideas which run
counter to dominant culture in order to analyze, critique and
evaluate it – but never, ever become it. We are to regurgitate this
information on tests and speak philosophically about what could be
done, but never do it.
What good would we be to corporate America if we went in
demanding rights for minorities and women? Surely, we would not be
ideal candidates for elitist positions.
"But our education is diverse," defendants of the university
cry.
We have African-American studies, Chicano studies, Asian
studies, and gay, lesbian and bisexual studies. This list goes on
and on. I cannot deny the existence of these programs. But, I will
say that they are not offered in the hopes of generating positive
social change for these communities. At least not on behalf of the
UC Board of Regents. These programs are constantly under
scrutiny.
Our beloved (yeah, right) regent Ward Connerly said that he
questions the value of these programs. Why? Perhaps because the
fundamental ideas learned in them are not the views of the
university. The programs are offered so that the university appears
to be diverse. Appearances are usually deceiving.
How neutral can an institution be when it is financed by boards
of trustees whose interests are directly correlated with those of
dominant culture?
Education should not be an industry.
Knowledge is not something that should be for sale. When the
lack of particular knowledge can affect one’s life so greatly, it
is criminal to deny them an opportunity to acquire it. Still, some
deny an individual’s right to an education.
It is true that the U.S. Constitution does not mention anything
about education. So, I must admit that no one has a legal right to
an education. But all people have human rights. If being denied
access to higher education will affect one’s life in a negative
way, that person has a right to that education.
I am not only speaking of economic consequences but social
consequences as well.
Knowledge is power. If you are unable to attain power you are
made weak. Of course, one can be self-educated, but without the
validation and prestige of a degree, their knowledge is not as
great of an asset, particularly in the job market. The university
seeks to be exclusive because it is dangerous if the "wrong" groups
in society become empowered. It would disrupt their false doctrine
of merit and hard work.
Truth be told, no one has earned their admission here. The
standardized test and requirements for entrance are biased.
Measuring one’s worth based on achievements is problematic because
it depends on what standards are being used in assessing their
worth.
In my eyes, it is an achievement for an inner city youth –
confronted with environmental perils (such as gangs and high rates
of crime), inadequate schooling and inadequate preparation for
standardized tests – to graduate at the top of his class while
having a part time job and volunteering in his community. It is not
an achievement for an individual whose only responsibility is to
study and to attend tutorial sessions. This individual is an
imbecile if he can’t make good grades – he isn’t brilliant because
he does.
And the fact that one can pay for an education does not mean
that they are worthy of it. If this education were an effective
means of socialization and if minorities were not able to benefit
economically from it, there would not even be an issue of rights.
This education would be mandated.
The university’s goal should be reducing inequities which exist
in society, not widening the gap. When the UC Regents decided to
eliminate affirmative action, years of struggle for equality were
lost by their mere whim. But this decision was not made by mistake.
It was a calculated move to keep those viewed as outsiders locked
out.
Chancellor Carnesale said that the university will be
implementing tutorial programs in disadvantaged neighborhoods to
level the playing field. How charitable. Until the level of
education in these secondary institutions is brought up to par,
students from this background will not be able to attend this
university. There is no telling when this will happen because it is
not the privileged who are suffering.
We must stop thinking that economic and educational resources
are limited. They are, in fact, abundant – but some seek to hoard
all assets which are profitable.
I came to the university to acquire knowledge and a degree which
will hopefully lead to a high-paying job. I will leave with these
things. But I will also leave knowing that I had a right to this
education. I will not leave here a clone ready to accept the first
position offered to me in corporate America. I will leave intent on
fighting for equal access to this institution on behalf of those
the elite would like to overlook.
If I can accomplish this, I will have greatly benefited from
this institution.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]