Stephens’ viewpoint about reparations, not diversity
To the Daily:
According to the University, the justification for affirmative action in higher education is diversity. However, in Brian Stephens’ viewpoint, ‘Go forth and be equal’ won’t narrow education gap (2/12/03), he presents an argument that centers on reparations. For example, Stephens implies that it is wrong for the government to “play no part in rectifying the inequalities that it used to impose.” This is not an argument for diversity, it is an argument for reparations, and irrelevant as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned.
Second, Stephens states that “getting a 4.0 GPA at Andover High School in Bloomfield Hills is much better than getting a 4.0 GPA at Kettering High School in Detroit.” Is it? Sure, Andover offers Advanced Placement classes, but according to Stephens, pupils in Detroit have to conquer inferior schools and curriculums and he fails to mention that the average Detroit student is much more likely to come from a single-parent home, be poor, live in a high-crime area, attend a school with a high dropout rate, have a lack of educated role models, etc. Earning a 4.0 at Andover is commendable, but all things considered, it is more difficult to graduate with a 4.0 from Kettering.
Lastly, Stephens, as well as many other affirmative action supporters, fails to address the issue of the effect of affirmative action on middle and upper class under-represented minorities. While awarding point bonuses to underprivileged students is just, no logic exists behind awarding 20 points to an under-represented minority applicant who attends Andover and has been presented with the same opportunities as his or her non-minority counterparts. If the student lives in Bloomfield Hills, it is apparent that our country’s past injustices have not negatively affected his or her current socioeconomic status or availability of opportunities and thus affirmative action points should only be awarded to those applicants who have grown up in significantly less ideal conditions.
Diversity and “leveling the playing field” for those who are truly disadvantaged should be the focus of affirmative action, but race should not be a factor in the admission system.
‘E-Seg’ should lighten up, ‘G-Dub’ no more disrespectful than popular ‘Dubya’
To the Daily:
I almost giggled uncontrollably when I read Eli Segall’s whiney letter to the editor (Litman’s use of ‘G-Dub’ disrespectful to institution of U.S. presidency, 02/12/03). Acknowledging that Segall was probably just having a bad day, he nevertheless claims that the use of a nickname (G-Dub) is tantamount to acting “immature and highly disrespectful” and that Joseph Litman is disrespecting the institution of the American presidency when he doesn’t call the president his name.
I won’t respond to that guff but I will say that Segall probably would not have been so annoyed if Litman had just played it safe and used the much more acceptable “Dubya.” I mean c’mon, everybody calls him “Dubya!”