Several months I mentioned (here), in the course of a discussion about confusion over “cultural competency” and “diversity” in Oregon, a policy at the University of Oregon that reserved 10 spaces in certain small (18 students max) math and English classes for minority students.
A student complained to the Dept. of Education, and, in what was no doubt an unrelated and purely co-incidental decision, the university has now abandoned — or taken steps that make it appear that it has abandoned — that racially restrictive policy.
A spokesman for the University of Oregon said that the university decided to change the policy after receiving a complaint from a student, and that the decision did not involve the Education Department. Oregon released a statement that stressed that the reserved slots were not open to just any minority students, but only to those who had been certified for the courses by the Office of Multicultural Academic Support, which serves only minority students.
Under the new policy for the courses, pre-certification will still be required, but a number of other offices at Oregon will be able to certify students. Most of those offices are also for minority students, but one of them is a general program to provide academic support to undergraduates of all races. Adding that office, the statement said,
The idea that we need to have affirmative action at the college level is a disservice to our college students. I wonder, if smaller classes are better, why they aren’t given to those children who are having problems under the No Child Left Behind legislation. If the students who were academically challenged had better classes earlier, we wouldn’t need anything like this on the college level.
John, you know what would be cool. If someone rewrote Orwell’s prose in the modern vernacular of multiculturalism.
If Orwell had had the words now available…
Could you image having a minority coordinator at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or at the Social Security office , or at the Building Permit office?
The real question should be why are public universities or even universities that receive federal funds allowed to establish offices and programs that discriminate of the basis of race or ethnicity. No other part of the government is allowed to establish such programs.
Most Americans have a “multicultural” background. But colleges won’t want to hear about how I’m part of probably every white race in Europe–and some Native American thrown into the mix, but not enough. All they see is white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes…
Oh, well. When I’m in college two years from now, maybe I’ll have inspirational stories about how I managed to get into college despite my being white and conservatively Christian.
I’m intrigued by the conflation of culture with race/ethnicity. There’s obviously a lot of correlation (you get a lot of each from your parents), but the distinction is important.
Who is George Orwell and what exactly is his discussion? Sorry I don’t know you see im not a collage graduate. Or should I know who George Orwell is eventhough I could not afford to go to collage. You see I had to work to bring food to my hispanic familia. Reality is most non-educated poor people will be supported from the wages of the well educated, better paying jobs from UofO’s students. So, in order to change the above, some benefit now at the collage level could ultimately change that equasion be it one student at at time.
Maria, I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Orwell wrote, among other things, 1984. I read it in high school and so did my daughter. If you weren’t assigned that book in school, you can most likely find it at the public library. I recommend it highly; it’s one of those books people need to read so they can understand allusions like this. Another is Orwell’s Animal Farm with its often paraphrased “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
And since you mention that you are hispanic, may I add that I live in a city that is majority black, and I find the public libraries patronized by black folks all the time. All the time. There is nothing stopping anyone from checking out and reading good literature.
So, Maria, why not have colleges set up offices to assist poor people of any race given that reality is what you say it is (and, I’ve seen firsthand the reality you refer to)? Preference by race is not necessary to your vision of fairness.
George Orwell is a famous writer of fiction that in the early 20th century wrote of authoritarian government in books like “Animal Farm” and “1984”. His “Animal Farm” was a farcical plot where different species of animal on a farm united to overthrow humanity’s rule. 1984 envisions a more traditionally fascist government (its been years since I read it though) where Orwell predicts that cameras are everywhere and coins the term “Big Brother”, which is the paternalistic, all-seeing state. Education and mind-control are central elements to the state’s power – and the term “double-speak” is coined, where the state literally redefines the meaning of several common phrases. The collection of Orwell’s works is a caution of against authoritarian states of any political lean – which many now describe as “Orwellian.” Your complete lack of awareness of this is an indictment of our high-school system (unless your an emigre), which is where I recall learning and reading Orwell (I’d expect a 5 minute review of the word in every government class – although it should be part of every English class as well). I don’t think your lack of college has anything to do with it. Then again, the first thing I’d do if I were setting up a 1984-like society is eliminate the teaching and reading of George Orwell’s writing from the school curriculm. Too thought-provoking.
So, Maria, why not have colleges set up offices to assist poor people of any race given that reality is what you say it is (and, I’ve seen firsthand the reality you refer to)?
Yes, to the above. Question: define
Maria states:
How do you equalize the playing field?
You give all individuals an equal chance, you don’t spot points to racial groups because as a group they are underachieving.
Contorting the system to achieve ‘equal results’ for groups is not a substitute for the ‘equal rights’ promised to individuals.
If proportional representation is the gold standard for fairness, how do you propose we reduce the number of Jews entering law and medical schools? How do you even broach that subject?
If disproportional representation alone is proof of discrimination, how do you cure the NBA and NFL of their prejudice against whites and hispanics?
Gee Eddy: I think you missed the point.
Imagine if you will a crystal ball wherein you can see the future and all minds of all people are given the blessing of higher education. Your comment on the Jewish people would be moot.
As far as your NBA and NFL comment some of us are blessed with talents and some are not. For example we can
Maria, I’ll imagine your crystal ball. Except I can’t, because I don’t think anybody is “given” education. Even if you got a free ride to Harvard, the teachers there could not open your brain case and spoon knowledge in. Everybody who is educated went after it. It’s work. You have to have drive and you absolutely have to have intellectual curiosity, or you cannot be “given” education, no matter how well-meaning the givers are. Do you, Maria, know where the closest public library is? Do you have a library card? Is it your intention, now that you’ve seen that several people think Orwell has something to contribute to this conversation, to go and check out one or both of the books we’ve mentioned and try to puzzle out what his contribution could be? Or is it more interesting to remain in ignorance so you can talk about the education you weren’t given?
I just want to mention that I am a junior in highschool now, and I have not been required to read 1984 or Animal Farm. I still have my senior year, but I just may not get to them. There are a lot of classics out there, and it is impossible to read every single one in four years of highschool.
Of course, I was planning on picking one or the other up after I finish reading “Phantom of the Opera,” but that’s a different story.
Laura, the second and third Maria responses look grammatically to be written with a knowledge of certain grammatical processes suggesting that the first Maria response was intentionally written “down” for effect, or that its a different person (I suspect the former). But your point about reading Orwell is right on.
Gyp, I don’t expect that every classic will be read in high school. Not every student is going to take an English Lit class (and especially, and unfortunately, in depressed schools districts). However, I would think a civics or government class would at least mention Orwell in a 5 minute segment telling students the impact of his writings. Sort of the super condensed cliff’s notes regarding the social effect of the work.
Let’s fix the school districts that aren’t (able or willing) teaching Orwell and other basics – rather than giving preferences to those coming out of those districts.
Chetly, you could be right. I tend to take what people tell me about themselves at face-value.
Gyp, your statement: “Of course, I was planning on picking one or the other up after I finish reading ‘Phantom of the Opera,’ but that’s a different story.” compels me to say that it’s not a different story. (Well, P of O is a different story from 1984 or Animal Farm. And what a grisly story it is.) But the “I was planning on” part is exactly what I’m talking about. Your education is active, not passive, and you’ll get there no matter what your teachers do or don’t assign.
Well, my active education comes from my parents rather than from the schools that I attend. Funny that nobody seems to mention what a big part parenting plays in this whole education war. You can get a great education even if you attend the worst school in the world.
Laura, I hardly think not knowing who Orwell is tantamounts to ignorance. Intellect to me would be a person who could bring something new, original, inspiring and interesting to the conversation. (Don
Maria, we’ve answered it generally. You equalize the playing field through socio-economic programs that help all people from social or economic backgrounds of need, regardless of race.
Specifically, I’ve written about it here: http://www.chetlyzarko.com/michbar.html and even won some liberal respect for it here: http://www.chetlyzarko.com/michbar-turner.html
Specifically, in the categories you asked us to contemplate.
Money: Financial aid, universally available to individuals of need regardless of race. Although I’d favor restructuring FA to make it more portable (take the administration away from universities), I could see expanding the amount dramatically if that happened.
Resources: I don’t know how this is different. If you mean equalizing school-to-school per capita, I don’t have a problem with that, again, as long as there are accountability and portability reforms that go with them.
Family/values/character: It is repugnant to American freedom to suggest that government should have a dramatic role in precisely defining the values of its citizens, although I do believe government can offer incentives to parents for their students performance and make parents accountable. I don’t think there are liberty objections to holding people responsible for certain things – for example, holding fathers financially accountable for their children (and going farther in cases of neglect, drug use, etc.). One Democrat teacher I know has gone so far as to suggest that parents be held liable for the academic success of their children – to the point of fines and jail time (we do this in truancy case) — I don’t know if I’d go that far, it would take serious thought (very strict scrutiny) before government was used in such a way.
As to a more specific change of values, to a certain extent, it has to be self-generated, as I think Bill Cosby would suggest. If the economic playing field is leveled, and the only thing remaining is values – there is a certain point in that there is no one left to blame except yourself.
History. History can’t be changed.
By the way, ignorance of Orwell is strength.
Maria, by the way, the great thing about the internet is that you can get a “cliff’s notes” version of almost anything quickly, rather than continuing to give the state strength through ignorance.
A summary of 1984:
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/summaries/1984.html
And a money shot from that website:
“Collectivism doesn’t lead to socialism. In the event, the wealth now belongs to the new “upper-class”, the bureaucrats and administrators. Collectivism has ensured the permanence of economic inequality.”
A similar summary of Animal Farm is available.
Maria, ignorance by definition is lack of knowledge about something. If you haven’t read Orwell, you are ignorant of his work. That’s not a value judgement, it’s a statement of fact. I am ignorant of a lot of things, and when I find out that I am ignorant of something that may be significant, I try to do something about it. As Gyp points out, there isn’t time to read or do everything.
Chetly’s advice is well-meaning, but I advise you not to go the summary route, but to go to the original text. It’s really not that tedious or obscure. And please don’t fall into the trap that without a college degree you can’t understand that stuff. Give it a shot, you may surprise yourself.
Ideally, intellect does involve bringing something new and fresh to the conversation, but it’s hard to know what is new if you don’t know the well-established arguments that have gone before. You’ve been talking about how important it is that everybody get a crack at an education; you’re right, and that’s one major reason why. Only it doesn’t all have to be formal education and in many instances it won’t be.
And it’s possible to go through college and still not know a damn thing. I work with a really nice kid who graduated from Ole Miss a couple of years ago and we found out that he has no idea where Poland is. Well, he does now, because our Polish coworker made sure of it. There is just nothing magical about that college degree.
As to your question of how we level the playing field: I don’t think the playing field can be leveled, really. There are people with college degrees who work in retail and barely make more than minimum wage. Dave Thomas, who founded the Wendy’s chain, dropped out of high school in 1948 and took the GED in 1993. Life is what you make it. I would like to see a better quality of education in all our public schools. I have been somewhat skeptical of NCLB but it looks like it may be a step in the right direction.
I echo Laura, with the additional posit that there is really nothing “new” that isn’t built upon something else. To be “new” you have to understand enough old to avoid “reinventing the wheel.” There is however plenty that is “novel”, creative, out-of-the-mainstream, etc., and that is to be encouraged, within reason.
Beautiful Chet!!
(Ref: October 2, 2005 02:44 a.m. entry)
The purpose of my contribution to this forum is because I intend to write a letter to Mr. F, President of U of O attempt an articulate statement regarding the diversity issue, current policies and why they would change? (Without sounding like an idiot and/or reinventing the wheel).
While I understand the argument on both sides, I find it hard to explain reverse discrimination vs. reverse hypocritical discrimination. (I can
Maria, where have you found no tolerance?
Maria, the statement you’d like to use was written by an opponent of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, the then-President of the Michigan Bar. I believe my reproduction of the article is a “fair use” of article, since it mentions me and covers an intensely political issue. You would need to ask the Michigan Bar if they want to give you permission, however, in my non-legal opinion, the use that you propose is non-commercial and might also be a fair use.
Much of your last response doesn’t “parse.” I don’t understand what your trying to say.
One thing I would say though is that there are more than “two sides” to this issue. First, there are two sides alone that support race preferences – there are the “pro-diversity” and the “pro-historical redress/equalization of results” (which may actually be separate) supporters. There are also two groups opposing preferences – the pure “meritocracy” group, and the group that would allow for some governmental preference based on socio-economic condition rather than race. There are many variations of these four positions, as well. Second, “reverse discrimination” is a misnomer, although I don’t understand how you’re using it. Discrimination is discrimination, so, along with John, I highly detest the phrase, and I never use it to describe our position.
Here’s the full statement:
If successful here, they (MCRI, Ward Connerly, Jennifer Gratz, myself, and others) will, no doubt, promote similar initiatives in other states. Let us hope the cynics are wrong when they calculate that the majority will vote to suppress the inclusion of minorities in the mainstream of American society, further dividing our nation at a time when unity, tolerance of diversity, and equality of opportunity are so important to our national security and our continued development as a great nation.
Per Maria:
As far as your NBA and NFL comment some of us are blessed with talents and some are not. For example we can