Affirmative action, the remix
.jpg?w=728)
By Deauwand Myers
Columbia University is going to court to change an endowment bequeathed to it in the 1920s. The woman who left it as a scholarship stipulated that the recipients must be white.
Almost a century later, Columbia has decided this stipulation is problematic. Breathtaking.
What’s more interesting than the university's litigation is some of the reactions from the general American public.
Perusing the comment sections and conservative websites, some folks felt that a scholarship strictly for whites was fine, since there are scholarships strictly for African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and women. Further, they argue, there should be no racial component in awarding scholarships to universities.
Ridiculous.
First, full disclosure: in both college and graduate school, I did not receive any financial aid based on race or financial need (with one exception, more on that later) as my family made too much money to qualify and I was (once) a smart and nerdy high school student.
In graduate school, I was awarded a fellowship, and so my master’s degree was free. I had to teach freshmen English composition and was given, besides tuition remission and subsidized graduate housing, a lecturer’s stipend, which went to monthly expenditures like food and car upkeep.
The graduate fellowship did include, for the first year of the two-year program, the “Opportunity Fellowship.” This was specifically for minority graduate fellows. It meant I didn’t have to teach two freshmen courses per semester, just one.
I did not apply for this fellowship; I was awarded it. Nonetheless, and I am grateful for it.
But let’s imagine I did get tens of thousands of dollars in financial aid because I am black, young, and male.
Considering American history, and the current state of black men in the United States, exactly why is this problematic?
In college, I had an apartment mate in the senior dormitories. He was tall, very smart, and exceptionally gifted. He was also a bigot. Once, he quipped at me, “Why do you guys need BET [Black Entertainment Television]?” I replied, “Because you guys have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox.”
My point: there was precious little representation of three-dimensional colored people or women on American TV. Almost all the shows, and the news, were populated with white people. Especially in entertainment, I happily admit that has steadily changed for the better in the last decade.
Societies that have historically subjugated whole populations of people, through genocide, murder, and socioeconomic, sociopolitical repression should then seek to ameliorate the enduring negative effects of the said subjugation.
Women get paid less for the same job, are hired less often, and promoted less often, than their male counterparts. Black and brown communities are still overrepresented in incarceration, poverty, underemployment, and poor healthcare and health outcomes. It isn’t difficult to understand why.
The same people who complain about affirmative action say nothing of legacy admissions to top-tier universities. Wealthy and well-connected families can get their progeny into the schools and employment of their choice by virtue of those connections, not because of merit. Further, no one asks these people if they are qualified for the education and careers they acquire.
The structures in our society, both written and unwritten, facilitate the transition and consolidation of wealth and power. Countries with violent histories of racial inequality, like South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and even Canada, should and do make efforts to address past transgressions.
Some people, then, ask: “How long should these nations continue their affirmative policies?” Especially for indigenous populations, isn’t the question “how long does the white majority plan to stay in the country?”
The writer holds a master's degree in English literature and literary theory and is currently an English university professor outside of Seoul. He can be reached at deauwand@hotmail.com.