But I usually assume that "whatever works for them, is OK for me". That is, until I realized just how this particular issue has began to take on national attention. Allow me to explain. I believe, despite my own orientation and background (as described through the stereotyping I describe of Berkley) that there is usually still some inherent value to the more leftward experiments that may be carried out on campuses and even in politics. In this sense I try to embrace those viewpoints opposite of mine. However, this particular motion (the bill at subject) strikes me as deserving of more scrutiny than usual.
Here is a link to a blog article which provides good detail on the subject and seems to set the stage for what could be a constructive dialogue.
http://mixedraceamerica.blogspot.com/2011/09/open-letter-to-uc-berkley-college.html
I was quite shocked by how under-developed the arguments for this particular bill are when it seems to be garning so much legitimacy. That is, it seems to me that the proposal of the bill lacks a great deal of critical thinking. But never the less, I just heard that the U.C. Berkeley administrators have just took it upon themselves to condemn the act of protest the Republicans have put forth on campus. One question coming to mind is Who reigns in the Berkeley Administrators? Is this debate going to have to result in other institutions condemning Berkeley for their actions in the near future?
Anyway, my current side of the argument is posted in the blog link I provided above (as a response to the blog owner). I present the same responsive thoughts here for your consideration.
I'd like to add the following in response to the blog. I do not know if the blog owner will actually post my response I provided to them since it is presenting an opposing viewpoint - so I'll add some additional direct response to their posting here instead in case my original never gets posted.
The expectation of equality in consideration of admission to a state institution regardless of race etc. in the modern age is not a sense of entitlement born from ignorance. Whether knowledge of race in the admissions decision would in fact be used appropriately or not, this basic concern cannot be dismissed. Individuals interested in the abatement of acts born out of primarily racial consideration - holding tenets that such considerations are NOT in fact a measure of one's ability, aptitude, or suitability - cannot support the bill being considered as it does just the opposite.
To acknowledge the validity of this legitimate concern WOULD BE humane.
To make a statement in opposition to political changes which are legitimately perceived to take away the unhindered access of all individuals regardless of race is a form of protest supported by traditional liberal American values for over a century. Not everyone may agree with their viewpoint, but I cannot find them wrong for protesting.
This force in American politics (of protesting for equality of treatment regardless of race) cannot be suddenly deemed "invalid" or "unjustified" because of inequalities due to race etc. that have occured in the past, just the same as such actions could not be justified because of inequalities which may be occurring elsewhere today, or may be planned in the future. Most critically such a line of reasoning promotes separation rather than integration, promotes brinkmanship rather than collusion.
Nor can their arguments be rendered invalid because we do not share the protesters viewpoints on the situation. Remember that it is human to have empathy, and to make the assumption that all white people are privileged is a stereotype.
We also cannot hold current and future generations subject to retaliation, abatement, and scrutiny for what evils their ancestors may or may not have committed personally. We should not do so based on a status difference (perceived or real) which may or may not have benefited any one particular person of subject.
To pretend to know (for every human) that certain persons ancestors (be they republican and white for example) were guilty or not guilty of wrongdoings is being misapplied and is also referred to as stereotyping.
A system which allows raising the status of one race (and necessarily so) at the expense of another race with near institutional application is the very evil which America is continually struggling and should be striving to eradicate in order to form a more perfect governance.
Such institutional racism cannot be allowed to stand in a free society.
SB 185 (as I believe that is what it is referred to in the process) is PERVERSE and must not be signed into law - the bill is clearly misguided when viewed in the interest of promoting equality.
----------------------
I wanted to address the blog owners particular struggle with understanding the term racism - as I re-read it, this is clearly THEIR main point - and I wouldn't want to leave it un-addressed. It's clear (and not incorrect) to understand racism as a systematic abatement and suppression of a people because of their race. Her reference to slavery in America here is clear. And I can see how the author wants to differentiate what she sees as a legal application of what under "good intentions" might seem a good idea - that is - to take into consideration the whole of a person in the admissions process - distinctly different from the act of slavery, scapegoating, etc.. But I have to say, it appears in her argument that she wants to make the current generation of white people a scapegoat for all black people. Perhaps she feels justified in doing so? I could say the same thing about Hitler too unfortunately. Race cannot be considered as legitimate criteria in these circumstances because it does NOT necessarily indicate the presence of privilege or under privileged status. To assume that it can be determined from race is incorrect. Race based decisions are just as wrong in admissions whether they favor white or favor black people.. There is no righteousness in putting the basis of an admissions decision on race because it cannot be just in its application.
