Soteros-McNamara is a third-year political science student.
By Thomas Soteros-McNamara
Recently I had the great displeasure of reading a poorly
thought-out diatribe by columnist Chris Diaz exhorting the campus
at large to recognize the need to repeal University of California
measures SP-1 and SP-2 (“Race inherently
shapes society’s attitudes, actions,” Viewpoint,
Jan. 23). He does admit that such a decision would be at most a
symbolic gesture, but still contends that it would reaffirm a
commitment “to civil rights and the equal advancement of
disadvantaged communities of color.”
Diaz does not realize, nor do most affirmative action
proponents, that race-based preferential treatment is a token
issue. The more attention given to it only ensures that other
methods to ensure progressive societal measures and protection of
civil rights will be ignored and socioeconomic inequality will
continue indefinitely.
Diaz’s logic is that affirmative action is designed to
“validate the existence of historical and present-day
discrimination.” Yet he also believes that the point of such
a policy “isn’t necessarily to “˜right the
wrongs’ of historical discrimination.” The cute thing
is that Diaz thinks race-based preferences should “not
necessarily” create entitlements or proportional
representation, but instead because a person’s race
“affects the development” of that specific person.
Amazingly, earlier in the same piece Diaz says, “race
itself represents a socially constructed characteristic, which was
institutionalized at our nation’s birth and consistently
reinforced.” So, with the “system” forever
against minorities ““ a word he uses very freely ““ we
should say, “yeah we know the system is biased” and
therefore we should assign a quantity to one’s race.
Curiously, Diaz says that considering race in admissions
signifies “that we understand how their (minorities’)
life experiences result in the formation of a unique perspective
and emphasizes how we consider such a unique perspective equally
important with a high quality education.” Consider that he
uses a plural pronoun “their” and a singular adjective
“unique.” In effect, all minorities have this wildly
different development that a “non-minority” is
incapable of having. People like Diaz do not want equality; they
want race-based preferences, because as the plight of minorities
improves, they will retain these government crutches as an added
bonus.
The important thing to note is that many people who do not
believe in affirmative action, especially race-based preferences in
selection, are progressive folks who are wondering where the real
efforts to combat poverty, discrimination and the like are.
Instead, Diaz tells us, if we as a university make this token
gesture of affirmative action, then many “scorned”
minorities would consider the University of California a place
where they can get a fair shake. Apparently, SP-1 and SP-2 exist as
some sort of education scarecrow, he thinks.
Diaz, though, does not realize that even if these policies are
inherently racist, socially irresponsible, and a moral affront, the
University of California still has one good reason to keep them in
place. Namely, the invisible hand. You see, affirmative action has
nothing to do with numbers: GPA, SAT, and those ethnicity codes on
the UC application. Instead, the prevailing economic logic is that
if you are a major research university in America, you want to have
admission standards that only continue to get tougher and
tougher.
The more competitive a school is, the more money they make.
Therefore, to get a reasonable shot at admission, parents and
teenagers will spend more money to get the best chance they can. In
other arenas ““ notably donations ““ having a high
profile is extremely beneficial. Just ask Chancellor Albert
Carnesale, who helped sell the National Science Foundation on
putting its Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics here at UCLA
and not some other school like University of Michigan.
SP-1 and SP-2 may be scarecrows for “minorities,”
but they function as a neon sign for middle-class and upper-class
students eager to demonstrate to their parents that $1,000 was a
small price to pay for an SAT prep course. Higher education is
nothing but a business and we are customers before we are students.
There is no constitutional right to a public good.
In fact, colleges and universities are bent on maintaining the
notion they are assets to their respective communities. No
institution of higher education wants to appear as if it is nothing
more than a McDonald’s shrouded in brick and ivy.
A high-quality education does not come free of charge. With
funding from both federal and state sources predicted to dry up in
the near future, the reality is that the university is struggling
to get by.
A pundit like Diaz can complain to high heaven about the
symbolism that SP-1 and SP-2 represent. The problem is that he can
do nothing about the operating deficit of UCLA, and therefore must
accept that a few must be sacrificed for the sake of the many. For
at the end of day, the question is not do we have a right to an
education, but at what price?