Affirmative action has become one of the bogey men of University debates. The way the term is interpreted has skewed from its actual function and many claim that it is in effect, “racism in reverse.” Affirmative action has lost much of its initial power where the public has rejected it, claiming it to be hypocritical. Its critics argue “reverse discrimination” when attacking a particular policy that isn’t working or benefiting them.
While I do agree that building equality with a discriminatory mandate by is not the solution, I also believe in the intentions of affirmative action as a federally led initiative to provide equal opportunity in employment and education. In its fragile current state, however, the policy alone cannot be the only solution that works toward providing equal opportunities for all people. We need to change our approach to affirmative action as a whole.
Because of a lack of understanding, affirmative action is being reduced to Swiss cheese with the misleading notion of “reverse discrimination.”
In 2005 when ex-University student Melissa Hanks was rejected from pre-authorization for a general education course, she filed a complaint with the Bias Response Team about the Office of Multicultural Academic Support, claiming that it used racist policies.
Despite her claims, Hanks was not fully denied access. She was actually encouraged by counselors to enroll on the first day of class, when all students are given additional access. But Hanks didn’t even try the day-of registration online. Then she filed the complaint anyway. Hanks’ actions caused a policy change that limited OMAS students’ access for pre-registration.
In her ensuing Op-Ed article, Hanks used Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech to argue against the program. She wrote “I have a dream that one day, my experiences will be recognized as equal to others and that classes at the University will be truly diverse in thought, not just in skin color.” (“Diversity involves Ideas, not skin color,” ODE 5/13/05) She could have simply enrolled in one of the multitude of classes offered.
Dr. Hanks may have won her minor civil rights victory, but in the meantime she also identified herself as unwilling to give up a seat in a class even for a just cause. I’m all about debating ideas, but filing petty reverse discrimination suits is a selfish move.
Our neighbors to the north and south, California and Washington, have already begun to rid themselves of affirmative action, and Oregon could be the next state devoid of this crucial policy. Before affirmative action is attacked in this way in Oregon, I suggest that we be ready with concrete alternatives that can be implemented.
Affirmative action needs improvement. I suggest it be revamped in a more moral light, calling it “Affirmative Charity.”
The University could take a lesson from the Jewish community and its practices. They hold a philosophy called Tsdokeh, a way of life that teaches community members to learn giving from an early age. Tsdokeh is a way of life that stresses fairness and distribution of wealth for people within their communities or for institutions that are in financial hardship. The philosophy of the Jewish people holds charity as a natural part of life. Those who have a lot give back to the less advantaged people. When those poor people are stable, they give back to the poor again. It recognizes that poverty and wealth are temporary conditions that can be alleviated through communal support, the kind of support we need for policies such as affirmative action to work. It is a way to give opportunities to those people who would not have it otherwise. This is the kind of approach we need to take in revamping our attitudes towards affirmative action.
Affirmative action’s goal is to increase representation in employment and academia for those that have been traditionally left out. The Jewish philosophy of Tsdokeh is similar to affirmative action in its intention to provide opportunities through a kind of communal effort and support for the policy. I ask that those who are well-off reform their attitudes toward affirmative action and begin giving back to those less advantaged by participating in a new kind of “Affirmative Charity,” like Tsdokeh. I don’t agree that the government can prescribe a remedy for the problems of inequality. It really has to be up to the citizens of this country to acknowledge a history that has experienced so many violations of human rights in its short duration. It is about time for members of all ranges of communities of this country to stop thinking about their individual well-being and start thinking about their brothers and sisters. Let’s change our philosophy from one of “affirmative taking” to one of “affirmative charity” and support.
[email protected]