Andrew Jones Jones can’t stand to look
at you liberals. E-mail comments at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Andrew Jones
Elizabeth Houston’s speech at the freshman convocation on
Sept. 25 was a pointed and accurate reminder to a small minority of
radicals still in power at UCLA that artificial tensions between
ethnic groups will no longer be accepted. While Houston, as a
leader for all UCLA students, had to veil her statements to avoid
the appearance of “pointing fingers” at particular
students and student groups, those who follow student politics knew
exactly who she was talking about.
In fact, it’s not even necessary to really follow student
politics to get a sense of the hatred issuing forth from the back
rooms of Kerckhoff Hall. A quick look at the Registration Issue of
the Daily Bruin told the whole story. Houston’s counterparts
on the Undergraduate Student Association Council, without even
meaning to do so, accurately identified the source of the remaining
racial tension on campus ““ themselves. Just review the words
of external vice-president Elias Encisco and his analysis of
“white American “¦ society”, “white racial
identity” and overall “whiteness.”
(“University
crusaders,”Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Sept. 25). Encisco is
truly a worthy successor to last year’s USAC President, Mike
de la Rocha. The rhetoric remains the same ““ only the face
has changed.
The revolution for equality in which so many people, of all
races, invested so much has been soiled by these sorry excuses for
“future leaders.” The cause, in fact, has lost its way,
and the results range from the sinister, such as unearned racial
preferences disguised as “affirmative action,” to the
merely ridiculous, like the national thirst for
“diversity” at all costs.
What of affirmative action? The name alone holds some clues. It
certainly takes action. But affirmative? The only value, if it can
be called one, that it affirms, is the power of victimhood. But
affirmative action is a broken premise ““ and California, with
its approval of Proposition 209, is again leading the way in
dismantling unjust racial legislation.
 Illustration by GRACE HUANG/Daily Bruin The determination
in some groups to preserve affirmative action borders on
fanaticism. And why not?
To quote UCLA political science professor Victor Wolfenstein
“Those who benefit from an existing social order don’t
voluntarily surrender their advantages. They use all means possible
to retain them, including the ideological masking of their
interests” (“An Unfinished
Revolution,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Sept. 25).
The quote alone is not remarkable. That the article also
describes the “controversy” over the modern system of
racism masquerading as “good works” social advancement,
shows how very wrong the system is.
At UCLA, a breeding ground of liberal theory and its handmaiden
of fantasy, students who speak out against racial preferences are
stifled by an effective, Stalin-esque psychological stratagem.
Those who by words or actions, argue against racially-focused
politics, are dismissed as “in denial.”
A fine example of this comes again from our friend Encisco. He
notes how “difficult it is to maintain a positive state of
mind when one is constantly surrounded with only people who do not
see how they are racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, xenophobic
and/or heterosexist.”
This statement shrewdly counteracts the possibility that these
unnamed people aren’t any of these things. They simply
“do not see” their supposed flaws. So, you once made an
innocent jibe about a close friend who happens to be a different
race from you? You’re racist, xenophobic, classist and
probably a closet Nazi, come to think of it. You are in denial!
So what if you demonstrate your worth with charitable works, a
positive demeanor, and a kind word for everyone? No, the argument
that someone is “blind” to the “real world”
is rhetorically irrefutable ““ because every denial, no matter
how complete, reasoned and correct, is just more denial of the true
situation. Praxis members, if they learned nothing else at UCLA
““ a likely proposition at that ““ have learned well the
art and effective nature of psychological warfare.
Affirmative action, and the politics of
“duh-versity” are startlingly similar. Both dictate the
idea that race is all that matters. Brown skin, black skin, white
skin, yellow skin ““ they all have deep and exclusive
meanings. Are the current victim politics of today the dream that
Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of from the steps of the Lincoln
Memorial?
King called for a day in which all Americans might “live
in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin but by the content of their character.” Did King also
hope for a day in which his children’s ethnicity might
qualify them for admission into a school they did not otherwise
deserve to attend? I can’t recall ever reading that
speech.
Yet because of the triumph of race-based politics, there is no
longer time for such niceties as struggle and triumph ““ free
rides are the order of the day. Outside of the California public
higher educational system, “enlightened” social policy
dictates that race trumps merit on every count.
UCLA is indeed a unique campus. For only here do racial-identity
groups (at least one fully-funded group for each race, except those
pesky caucasians) hold such vast power to polarize and create
tension. Even in these times of relative equality, minority groups
avoid racial unity, instead withdrawing to nurse grievances,
ranging from very petty to extremely petty.
The concerns of Ryan Smith, a member of the African Student
Union, epitomize this situation. He notes that upon arriving at
UCLA, the “dire” situation confronting him was a
“dwindling” black presence on campus (“Student with no
boundaries,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Sept. 25). Is UCLA
mixing up some sort of a diversity cake that has to turn out a
suitably neutral color, neither too light or dark? Do we need a
greater “black presence” to appropriately tinge the
too-white batter? No, this is more idiotic racial identification in
which minority students don’t feel comfortable unless
they’re around other students of their race.
Reduce the number of minority students based on that crazy,
outmoded notion of “merit,” and a campus supposedly
“re-segregates.” You see, re-segregation is what
happens when more white students show up at a school ““ but
it’s duh-versity at its finest when black students have
enough other black students around to feel comfortable about the
color of their skin.
Some might categorize this distrust of white students simply for
their ethnicity as racism, but as we all know, only white people
can be racist. It’s called “progress” when
minorities practice racial discrimination.
The president of the Latin American Student Association, Celia
Lacayo, is rather blunt about her views on race, “UCLA puts
out the leaders in this community, and the leaders should look like
their constituency” (“Race relations
still hot topic on campus,” Daily Bruin, News, Sept. 25).
Would she trust a leader who is a different color from her own? She
may be one of thousands who speak with one voice: color should
matter at UCLA, color should matter in the job market, color should
matter in where a person lives. Color should continue to be an
important deciding factor.
The only difference between these “modern” views and
those of Jim Crow legislation? I can’t think of a single
one.