Tag: discrimination

bookmark_borderPsaki’s ignorant comments on bullying

Posted on by Marissa

Recently, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki made some truly idiotic comments about the Florida law prohibiting education about sex and gender related topics for kids in preschool through third grade.

Here is what she said, according to the Daily Wire:

“A bill like this, that would discriminate against families, against kids, put these kids in the position of not getting the support they need at a time where that’s exactly what they need. It’s discriminatory. It’s a form of bullying. It is horrific… I think the most important question now is why are Florida leaders deciding they need to discriminate against kids who are members of the LGBTQI community? What prompts them to do that? Is it meanness? Is it wanting to make kids have more difficult times in school and in their communities?”

The fact that Psaki uses words such as “discriminatory,” “bullying,” “horrific,” and “meanness” to describe this law demonstrates a complete lack of empathy towards people who have actually been discriminated against and bullied. Psaki’s comments are particularly objectionable because a huge amount of the discrimination, bullying, and meanness that has occurred lately has been perpetrated by the Biden administration.

To give just one example*, President Biden has repeatedly used rhetoric that insults, threatens, and aggresses against people who opt not to get the covid vaccine. He has attempted to implement policies requiring people to get the vaccine in order to work for the federal government, for any company that contracts with the federal government, for any employer in the medical field, or for any employer with 100 or more employees. He has also used rhetoric to encourage all employers not covered by the above categories to force their employees to get the vaccine as well.

Essentially, Biden chose to use the power of the presidency to force people to undergo a medical procedure against their will. And as Press Secretary, Psaki has enthusiastically defended these efforts. Forcing people to undergo a medical procedure against their will is the epitome of discrimination. It is the epitome of bullying. It is the epitome of meanness. Forcing people to undergo a medical procedure against their will is truly horrific. And requiring medical documentation in order to participate in public life truly, to use Psaki’s words, causes people to have more difficult times in their communities.

For Psaki to describe the Florida law using all of these terms, while completely ignoring the fact that these terms actually apply to her own actions and those of her employer, is deeply illogical, hypocritical, and immoral. Psaki clearly has no idea what discrimination actually is, what bullying actually is, or what meanness actually is. To truly understand what these terms mean, Psaki would need merely to look in the mirror.

 

*Another example that comes to mind is the brutal campaign of destruction that has been waged against statues and monuments to unpopular historical figures. These actions are infinitely more discriminatory, bully-like, horrific, and mean than a law limiting what types of sex ed can be presented to young children, yet Psaki has not uttered a single word of criticism when it comes to this topic.

bookmark_borderThis is what real privilege looks like

Posted on by Marissa

Today is December 1, which means that we have reached the end of Native American Heritage Month. Throughout November, various media outlets, companies, and brands acknowledged and celebrated Native American heritage in various ways.

For example, the Starbucks app had a section on its home page honoring indigenous employees.

The Microsoft Edge browser introduced an Indigenous Heritage Month theme.

And all month long, Comcast had a special section in the main menu on the TV dedicated entirely to Native American related programs.

What you wouldn’t have been able to tell from consuming mainstream media or going about your day in mainstream society is that the previous month, October, was Italian-American Heritage Month. Unlike with Native American Heritage Month, neither Starbucks nor Microsoft nor Comcast acknowledged Italian-Americans at all during our designated month. Nor, to my knowledge, did any mainstream media outlet, company, or brand. With the exception of an Italian flag being raised at Boston City Hall Plaza on October 1, I did not witness any recognition of Italian-American Heritage Month by any entity other than Italian-American organizations.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that so many companies and organizations celebrate Native American Heritage Month. But in my opinion, there is something wrong with the fact that they do this while ignoring Italian-American Heritage Month. To acknowledge one group’s month but not another’s is discriminatory. It sends the message that indigenous people are more important than Italian-Americans. Companies and organizations should treat all cultures and ethnicities equally. Either acknowledge and celebrate all cultures’ designated months, or none.

Making this inequity even worse is the fact that an increasing number of cities and states are abolishing the observance of Columbus Day on the second Monday of October and replacing it with Indigenous People’s Day. This in addition to the fact that the day after Thanksgiving is celebrated as Native American Heritage Day in the U.S., and August 9 is designated as International Day of the World’s Indigenous People by the United Nations.

I have heard it argued that Italian-Americans should be okay with the obliteration of Columbus Day because they still get the entire month of October. But indigenous people already have the entire month of November, as well as specific days in November and August. Why do they deserve a third holiday more than Italian-Americans deserve a single one?

It could also be argued that for all practical purposes, Italian-Americans don’t even have a month at all, given that our month is almost entirely ignored by mainstream society. Additionally, with Columbus Day – the reason for designating October as Italian-American Heritage Month in the first place – being obliterated throughout the country, it becomes hollow and meaningless to celebrate a month when one is no longer allowed to celebrate the reason for its existence.

Essentially, indigenous people get a month plus three holidays to celebrate their heritage, while Italians get nothing.

Adding insult to injury, indigenous people also receive additional benefits through government programs solely because of their ethnicity (for example, the Lifeline emergency broadband program provides an extra $34.25 per month for internet service to people living on tribal lands).

It is clear that our society values some cultures more than others, an inequity that has grown even worse in recent times. Privilege certainly exists in our society, but not in the way that most people believe.

bookmark_borderCAIR’s hypocrisy on vandalism

Posted on by Marissa

The Massachusetts chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) recently issued a press release condemning acts of vandalism against two predominantly African-American churches. While these actions – one involving spraying black paint on a sign outside the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Springfield, MA and the other involving ripping a cross from the ground outside the Zion Baptist Church in Everett, MA – certainly deserve condemnation, I take issue with CAIR’s decision to condemn some acts of vandalism while ignoring others. 

In a separate press release, CAIR also condemned the vandalism of a Native American petroglyph called “The Birthing Scene” in Utah. But after glancing around CAIR’s website, I saw no mention whatsoever of any of the horrific acts of vandalism that have been perpetrated against European cultures’ statues, monuments, memorials, art works, buildings, or historic sites. No mention of the dozens of Christopher Columbus statues that have been torn down, smashed to pieces, burned, kicked, beheaded, or strangled. No mention of any of the acts of vandalism committed against statues of Junipero Serra or Juan Ponce de Leon. No mention of the Confederate monument in Portsmouth, Virginia that was smashed to pieces with sledgehammers by a vicious mob. No mention of the lynching of a Confederate soldier statue in Raleigh, North Carolina. No mention of the firebombing of the headquarters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia or the obliteration of Confederate statues from that same city. No mention of any of the dozens (hundreds?) of beautiful, historic statues that have been brutally attacked and destroyed over the past year due to hatred of the cultures that they represent. 

“The American Muslim community and CAIR are standing in solidarity with all those challenging anti-Black racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and all other forms of bigotry,” the organization notes in each press release. It is interesting that the organization chose to specifically mention “anti-Black racism,” as opposed to just listing “racism.” Why is anti-black racism more worthy of challenging than anti-white racism? And why is white supremacy worse than the attitudes of black supremacy, anti-Italian bigotry, and authoritarianism that have motivated the brutal and heartless campaign of statue destruction of the past year? If CAIR truly stood in solidarity with all those challenging bigotry, they would condemn the vandalism of works of art honoring Italian, Spanish, and southern heroes just as strongly as they condemn vandalism of Native American works of art and predominantly black churches. 

In conclusion, it is inconsistent and discriminatory for CAIR to single out certain acts of vandalism for criticism and condemnation while completely ignoring others that are equally heinous, if not more so. To CAIR, acts of hate against some cultures are appalling and deserving of condemnation, while acts of hate against other cultures are perfectly fine. 

bookmark_borderDiscrimination shouldn’t be part of Covid relief package

Posted on by Marissa

One idea that has been proposed as part of the latest Covid economic relief package is issuing payments of $3,000 and up to people who have children. Specifically, a bill proposed by Rep. Richard Neal would pay families $3,600 for each child under age 6 and $3,000 for each child between 6 and 17. Sen. Mitt Romney introduced a similar proposal that would give even more money to people with children. Even worse, some Democrats in Congress and White House officials want to make the policy permanent, meaning that people will continue to get free money from the government every year for no other reason than the fact that they have children. 

This is a terrible idea, which anyone who believes in equality and justice should oppose. Giving a benefit to people with children, but not to people without children, is discriminatory. Any Covid relief or stimulus package should give the same amount of money to everyone, regardless of family status. Unfortunately, discrimination against people without children is pervasive in our society and is rarely even recognized as discrimination. This unjust state of affairs is demonstrated by the fact that political leaders from both parties have introduced these discriminatory economic plans and that no one in the media (as far as I have seen or heard) has raised the idea that these policies might be discriminatory.

“Biden’s proposed child benefit has quickly emerged as a potentially defining feature of his administration’s economic agenda – one that could make a lasting imprint on American welfare policy,” gushes the Washington Post. The Post’s article details the various options with regards to how the payments would be administered, whether they would be sent every month or every year, what the income limits would be, and whether they would be based on the current or previous year’s tax returns, but does not even mention the possibility that the entire idea of giving money only to people with children might be unjust. The article also mentions the fact that some conservatives oppose these benefits because they provide money to both working and non-working people, but ignores the most significant reason for objecting to the benefits: the fact that they exclude people who do not have children.

“This pandemic is driving families deeper and deeper into poverty, and it’s devastating,” said Rep. Neal. “This money is going to be the difference in a roof over someone’s head or food on their table. This is how the tax code is supposed to work for those who need it most.” 

Sen. Cory Booker called the policy “the biggest impact we can make for economic justice in our country.” 

These comments completely miss the point. People without children need a roof over their head and food on their table as well, and it’s just as devastating for someone without children to be driven into poverty (if not more so, because the stress of living in poverty is compounded by the stress of living in a society that systematically discriminates against you). Discriminating against people based on their family status is exactly how the tax code is not supposed to work. And contrary to Booker’s claim, discriminatory policies like these constitute economic injustice.

From taking away everyone’s Second Amendment rights, to essentially sentencing the entire population to house arrest because of the existence of a novel virus, to obliterating the works of art that give cities and states their identities, this is just another example of how those in power are attempting to make the United States as bad a place as possible. To use a Covid relief bill to further entrench discrimination into our society is exactly what our country does not need.

bookmark_borderGiving extra time off to parents is unfair and discriminatory

Posted on by Marissa

I recently read a New York Times article about the fact that many companies have been providing extra time off to parents during the coronavirus pandemic to help them with the challenge of taking care of their children while schools and day cares are closed. At first glance, this sounds like a kind and helpful gesture. However, in my opinion these policies are unfair and discriminatory towards those of us who do not have children.

The companies providing extra paid time off for parents include Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Salesforce. Facebook, for example, has given parents 10 additional weeks of paid time off in 2020 and an additional 10 weeks starting in January 2021. According to the article, some employees who do not have children and therefore do not benefit from these policies have, understandably, voiced complaints. Laszlo Bock, the former head of human resources at Google, told the Times, “for people to get upset enough to say that ‘I feel this is unfair’ demonstrates a lack of patience, a lack of empathy, and a sense of entitlement.”

I am 100% in agreement with the sentiment that these leave policies are unfair, and I find Bock’s statement deeply wrong and offensive. Having a child is not something that happens due to random chance. It is something a person chooses to do. There are all sorts of different projects and pursuits that a person can choose to take part in, depending on what is important to that particular person. Having a child is not inherently more worthwhile than spending one’s time traveling, writing, reading, cooking, making art, any other activity, yet current leave policies treat parenthood preferentially to these other pursuits. For any non-parenting-related activities that employees choose to pursue, they are expected to fit these into their nights, weekends, and vacation days. There is no reason for parenting-related activities to be exempt from this. 

Giving different benefits to different people based on their parental status is unfair, and it demonstrates a lack of empathy not to see this. Recognizing an unfair situation as such does not demonstrate a lack of empathy or a sense of entitlement. In fact, it is Bock who demonstrates a lack of empathy by demanding that people without children simply tolerate discriminatory treatment without complaining. It is parents who demonstrate a sense of entitlement by believing that they deserve to be paid while doing completely non-work-related personal tasks, while their colleagues without children are foregoing their hobbies and spending their time working.

To give an example from my own life, I have numerous hobbies, interests, and passions that are extremely important to me, including reading, writing, creating art, and occasionally, attending high-profile trials. With the two or three weeks of vacation time per year that is standard at white-collar companies, it is impossible to attend an entire trial, unless the trial happens to be very short. When the Whitey Bulger and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trials happened, each lasted several months and I missed the majority of them, using my vacation days the best I could and trying to predict which days of testimony would be the most important to attend. I even asked my company if I could take unpaid leave to attend the trials and was told no. On the other hand, If I had been interested in having a baby instead of going to trials, I would have been given three months of paid leave, in addition to my two to three weeks of vacation time. In other words, under the policies that are common at white-collar companies, people who wish to have children are given leave to ensure that they do not have to choose between this and their job. People who wish to attend trials, or pursue any other time-consuming passion or interest, are forced to do exactly that: to choose between their passion or interest and their job. How can anyone consider this to be fair? 

And now, in addition to the customary maternity and paternity leave policies that are already discriminatory, companies are offering parents even more time off. This is adding more unfairness on top of an already unfair situation. It does not demonstrate “entitlement” to speak out against discrimination and injustice. 

bookmark_borderPelosi’s bigoted effort to remove Confederate statues

Posted on by Marissa

As part of the nationwide trend to get rid of everything that has anything to do with the Confederate States of America, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is demanding that 11 statues in the Capitol building be removed.

In a letter to the Architect of the Capitol and the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library, Pelosi wrote:

The statues in the Capitol should embody our highest ideals as Americans, expressing who we are and who we aspire to be as a nation. Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end are a grotesque affront to those ideals. These statues pay homage to hate, not heritage. They must be removed. While I believe it is imperative that we never forget out history lest we repeat it, I also believe that there is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country.

The statues that Pelosi is criticizing are part of Statuary Hall, a chamber in the Capitol that displays 100 statues of historical figures, two from each state. The list is as follows: Jefferson Davis (Mississippi), James Zachariah George (Mississippi), Wade Hampton (S. Carolina), John E. Kenna (W. Virginia), Robert E. Lee (Virginia), Uriah Milton Rose (Arkansas), Edmund Kirby Smith (Florida), Alexander Stephens (Georgia), Zebulon Vance (N. Carolina) Joseph Wheeler (Alabama), and Edward White (Louisiana). More details about these individuals can be found here. In her letter, Pelosi also made a point of mentioning that Davis and Stephens were charged with treason against the United States.

By demanding the removal of these statues, Pelosi is the true bigot in this situation.

First of all, contrary to Pelosi’s claims, Confederate statues do embody the highest American ideals. The Confederacy fought for the right to secede from the Unites States and establish itself as an independent nation. Resistance to government authority is the ideal that America was founded upon; arguably the Confederacy and not the Union is the true heir to the philosophy of the American Revolution. Even if you believe that the existence of slavery in the Confederacy outweighs this, and therefore do not admire the Confederacy, that does not give you the right to demand that Confederate statues be removed. The rights of those who admire the Confederacy need to be respected, because in addition to resistance to government authority, diversity is also one of the highest American ideals. And a key part of diversity is ideological diversity.

The whole point of Statuary Hall is to showcase a diverse collection of statues representing all 50 states. I have not seen Statuary Hall in person, but when looking at photos of it, I am struck by the variations among the statues. Not only are they physically different, made of a variety of different materials, but they represent a wide range of historical figures from different time periods, backgrounds, and walks of life. They represent historical figures with a wide range of viewpoints, beliefs, and ideologies. But Pelosi is essentially saying that only historical figures with mainstream, moderate, politically correct views deserve to be honored. In other words, only those historical figures who conform to what happen to be the prevailing beliefs in 2020 deserve to be celebrated.

Contrary to Pelosi’s claim, Confederate statues do represent heritage. The fact that Pelosi does not share or value this heritage does not change this.

To call the inclusion of 11 statues of Confederate-leaning historical figures among a collection of 100 a “grotesque affront” to American ideals is, ironically, the ultimate in intolerance and bigotry. And to pointedly mention that two of the statues’ subjects were charged with treason is the ultimate in authoritarianism. It is Pelosi who is being cruel, barbaric, and hateful by declaring that there is “no room for celebrating” those who fought bravely on the losing side of a war. Demanding the removal of Confederate statues is the action of a bully with no tolerance for any views or values that differ from hers. A homogeneous collection of statues representing mainstream ideologies is the exact opposite of what America as a nation should aspire towards. But that is exactly what Pelosi is advocating. This type of mindless conformism is truly a grotesque affront to American ideals.

bookmark_borderStatue of Confederate soldier hanged in North Carolina

Posted on by Marissa

In an absolutely disgusting act of bigotry and hatred, a mob of excuses for human beings in Raleigh, North Carolina tore down statues of Confederate soldiers from atop an obelisk and hanged one of the soldiers from a light post.

According to the Associated Press:

Protesters in North Carolina’s capital pulled down parts of a Confederate monument Friday night and hanged one of the toppled statues from a light post.

Demonstrators used a strap to pull down two statues of Confederate soldiers that were part of a larger obelisk near the state capitol in downtown Raleigh, news outlets reported.

Police officers earlier in the evening had foiled the protesters’ previous attempt to use ropes to topple the statues. But after the officers cleared the area, protesters mounted the obelisk and were able to take down the statues.

They then dragged the statues down a street and used a rope to hang one of the figures by its neck from a light post. The other statue was dragged to the Wake County courthouse, according to the News & Observer.

Out of all of the despicable acts of destruction that have taken place over the last few weeks, hanging a statue is the worst yet. Every person (and I hesitate to even use that term) who participated in or applauded this horrific act should be hunted down, caught, and jailed for the rest of his or her life. Then, he or she should burn in hell for all eternity.

There are no words to fully convey the moral wrongness of what was done to this statue. There is no justifiable reason for someone to have such anger, rage, and hatred towards a statue. The statue did not hurt anyone. The statue did not do anything wrong to deserve this. The artist(s) who designed and built this statue did not deserve to have their work destroyed in this manner.

Apparently, someone decided that in order to make a statement against acts of violence that have been perpetrated against African-Americans, it would be a good idea to “lynch” a statue representing the Confederacy. No idea could possibly be worse. The statue that was so cruelly destroyed represents the soldiers who fought bravely for the South’s independence, despite being outnumbered and outgunned. It represents the Confederate States of America, a country that existed from 1861-1865 before being crushed by the more populous and industrialized North. I would go so far as to say that the statue represents resistance to government authority; in other words, freedom.

By pulling down and hanging statues of Confederate soldiers, these excuses for human beings are stomping on the underdog. They are trampling on the idea of freedom, the idea of rebellion, and the idea of resistance to authority. It is bad enough that the authoritarian federal government brutally and barbarically crushed the South’s attempt to secede and form their own country. But apparently that was not enough because now, in the year 2020, mobs feel a need to brutally and barbarically destroy statues representing that rebellion as well. The fact that the brave, honorable, losing side of a war is not even allowed to be honored with a statue or monument is beyond absurd. The fact that those who sympathize with the winning side of a war would have such rage towards the side that they unjustly defeated is incomprehensible. What was done to this statue is the ultimate act of bullying and intolerance.

Every living thing (“person” is too kind a term) who participated in or contributed to this destruction is a bigot and a bully who should not be allowed to exist on Earth. I condemn this act in the harshest possible terms.  

bookmark_borderUCF Professor Charles Negy deserves to be promoted, not fired

Posted on by Marissa

An uproar is taking place at the University of Central Florida because a professor had the audacity to disagree with the prevailing, politically correct narrative on racism.

Psychology Professor Charles Negy, author of “White Shaming: Bullying Based on Prejudice, Virtue-Signaling, and Ignorance,” has been active on Twitter since the death of George Floyd and the resulting protests. A sampling of his tweets is as follows:

Continue reading “UCF Professor Charles Negy deserves to be promoted, not fired”

bookmark_borderProtests, riots, and double standards

Posted on by Marissa

Reports of the atrocities committed by protesters turned rioters in the wake of George Floyd’s death continue to pile up:

  • In Minneapolis, where the protests began, rioters destroyed a bar that a firefighter spent his life’s savings to build. They burned down an 189-unit affordable housing development and a high-tech manufacturing company. They torched a police station and vandalized, burned, or looted nearly every single building in the surrounding shopping district. They attacked a tanker truck and beat the driver. And they  attacked a woman in a wheelchair while looting a Target.
  • Rioters in Atlanta damaged the College Football Hall of Fame and smashed windows at CNN’s headquarters.
  • In Chicago, they smashed the windows of stores, including a Macy’s and a 7-11.
  • In Denver, someone deliberately crashed their car into a police car, severely injuring 4 people.
  • In Rochester, New York, rioters beat up a shop owner who was attempting to defend her store.
  • Rioters apparently shot a man in a car in Richmond, Virginia.
  • In Philadelphia and Los Angeles, people set police cars on fire.
  • In Columbus, Ohio, they destroyed and looted the Milestone 229 restaurant.
  • People vandalized Confederate monuments at the University of Mississippi and at North Carolina’s state capitol building. They vandalized statues of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Jeb Stuart in Richmond, Virginia, and burned down the headquarters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. They spray-painted the word “traitor” on the Confederate Defenders statue in Charleston, South Carolina. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, they vandalized a statue of General Alexander P. Stewart.
  • In Nashville, people tore down a statue of lawmaker and newspaper publisher Edward Carmack, smashed the windows of the courthouse and set it on fire, and spray-painted obscenities on sidewalks.
  • In Philadelphia, they set a statue of Mayor Frank Rizzo on fire.
  • In Dallas, they beat up a store owner and stomped on his head after he attempted to defend his business.
  • In San Antonio, Texas, they destroyed a mall and attempted to damage the Alamo, but were stopped by brave, armed citizens.
  • In Washington, D.C., rioters vandalized historic sites around the National Mall, including the World War II Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, and statue of General Casimir Pulaski. They punched and kicked Secret Service agents and threw bricks, bottles, and rocks at them, injuring 60. They also vandalized 6 Secret Service vehicles. And they attacked Fox News reporter Leland Vittert and his cameraman.
  • In Boston, people are currently setting police cars on fire, throwing bottles at journalists, and smashing the windows of various businesses including a bank, a clothing store, a shoe store, a cell phone store, a restaurant, and a Walgreens.

I could continue to add to the list, but then this blog post would be as long as a novel, and I would stay up all night working on it. Suffice it to say that the number of examples of protesters harming innocent people and their property is nearly infinite.

The only thing more infuriating than these senseless acts of destruction is the discrepancy between how the media and the general public have treated them versus how they have treated protests against authoritarian measures to stop the coronavirus.

The majority of comments that I’ve heard and read about the George Floyd protests from people in the media and on the internet have expressed praise, sympathy, and understanding. Even when it is acknowledged that harming innocent people and their property is wrong, emphasis is placed on how understandable the protesters’ anger is, how legitimate their grievances are, and how frustrated, hurt, and traumatized they are feeling. Those who criticize the acts of destruction are treated as the real problem. Additionally, not once I have I witnessed any media members comment on the lack of social distancing during these protests.

On the other hand, those who participate in protests against lockdowns and stay-at-home orders are routinely called “idiots” and “morons.” They have been suspended from their jobs and threatened with violence. Their cause – the right to privacy and freedom of movement – is mocked as petty and unimportant. People online have argued that these protesters have forfeited their right to medical services and that they should not be allowed to ride on public transportation. All of this despite the fact that, as far as I have heard and read, not a single anti-lockdown protester has harmed any people or property. And also despite the fact that the anti-lockdown protesters have the more legitimate and important cause. (This is not because George Floyd’s death wasn’t tragic and unjust – it absolutely was – but because the person who killed him has been fired, arrested, and charged, and nearly everyone agrees that his death was tragic and unjust. Stay-at-home orders, on the other hand, constitute a large-scale trampling on the rights of every single person, yet have gone not only unchallenged but actively supported by the majority of the media and the public, making it particularly important and courageous to protest against them.)

The protesters in Michigan who went to the state capitol while exercising their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms have been criticized more harshly for being “intimidating” than Black Lives Matter supporters have been for destroying buildings, vandalizing monuments, ransacking businesses, and beating and severely injuring people.

The attitude of society generally seems to be: Protesting peacefully against authoritarian government policies is selfish and irresponsible. Smashing, burning, and destroying everything in sight, however, is perfectly fine.

Did I miss a scientific discovery that being a supporter of Antifa or the Black Lives Matter movement confers immunity from the coronavirus?

bookmark_borderCollege admissions scandal does not justify affirmative action

Posted on by Marissa

I don’t think anyone would dispute that committing fraud in order to help your child get into college is wrong. Cheating on the SATs is obviously unfair, as is and bribing coaches to designate a student as a star athlete when he or she is not. Parents and college consultants who commit fraud should be punished, as the U.S. Attorney’s office is doing by bringing charges in this case. But it is wrong to draw the conclusion, from the actions of a few dishonest people, that all rich people are privileged and undeserving of the success that they have achieved.

For example, Boston Globe columnist Renee Graham writes, “There’s no greater system of affirmative action in America than the one designed to benefit the wealthy and well-connected, especially if they’re white.” She preposterously states that “unless it all comes undone – which is maddeningly rare – a rich kid’s success is always chalked up to his or her hard work and personal sacrifice.” In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. The media is filled with stories lauding people from disadvantaged backgrounds who achieved success, while people from wealthy backgrounds are stigmatized as lazy, entitled, and lacking in grit. It is assumed that their lives are nothing but ease and luxury and that their success is a result of their family connections and access to expensive lessons, summer camps, and college admissions counselors.

Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham argues that the college admissions scandal shows why affirmative action is needed. But this would just be replacing one form of unfairness with another. Yes, the actions of those arrested in the fraud case are wrong. And other, perfectly legal advantages that benefit rich students, such as giving preference to children of donors, are also unfair to other applicants. But why is the answer to this yet another form of discrimination? Giving preference to people simply for being non-white is equally unfair. In today’s college admissions system, those at the top and those at the bottom of the income ladder receive unfair advantages, the former group through money and social networks and the latter group through programs, admissions policies, and financial aid policies designed specifically to benefit them. It is those in the middle who are disadvantaged, with access to neither the social networks that many wealthy people have, nor the charitable and government programs for which the poor are eligible. Both of these forms of unfairness should be abolished.

A Boston Globe editorial went so far as to criticize the fact that colleges take athletic achievement into account in the admissions process. “Reserving spots for athletes is often a way of rewarding the rich,” the editorial states. “While there may be some inner-city squash or fencing or water polo teams, we’re going to go out on a limb and say there are probably not many…  Reserving spots for sailors may not officially be the same thing as reserving spots for rich people – but c’mon.” This is just insulting to students who excel at these sports. Admitting athletes in sports played by a high percentage of rich people is not the same as reserving spots for rich people – these students are being rewarded for their athletic ability, not for their family income. To dismiss fencers, squash players, polo players, and sailors as being granted admission merely because they tend to be rich minimizes these athletes’ talent and achievements.

No one chooses the economic circumstances into which they are born. It’s not as if a person is doing something wrong by being born into a rich family. Why should people who have the fortune (misfortune?) of being born to wealthy parents be punished for something over which they have no control? Yet that is exactly what happens when people treat wealthy students as inherently undeserving of success.

Why not have a system where colleges simply admit students based on merit, without regard to their race, ethnicity, or economic circumstances? Of course, merit is difficult to define, and it would be impossible to reach a unanimous decision about how the various factors – grades, test scores, musical, artistic, or athletic talent, extracurricular achievements, essay, and interview, just to give a few examples – should be weighed. But everyone should be able to agree that race has nothing to do with merit, not do social networks or parents’ decisions to donate money to a college. We should be striving to have a college admissions system that judges students on their individual merit, not one that adds one form of unfairness on top of another.