by Sari Krosinsky
Daily Lobo columnist
Shocking as it may seem, I actually agreed with Scott Darnell's column last Friday -- up to a point.
I agree that it's really yucky when people condemn other people for holding a particular set of beliefs, or declare that anyone belonging to a certain race or ethnicity is required to hold a certain set of beliefs. Condemnation won't do away with oppression.
However, the conclusion that affirmative action is no longer necessary doesn't exactly follow from that premise. The flaw in Darnell's column is a flaw common to many arguments against affirmative action -- he just calls it "preferential" without identifying any way in which it is so.
To argue that racism, sexism, economic disparities and other forms of discrimination no longer exist would be foolish. And Darnell doesn't argue that. He concludes that conservatives "are simply looking forward. . .to a true racial equality that our future generations can understand and be proud of." Since we can agree that that future is something we have to look forward to, we must also agree that it isn't here yet.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Yet the fact that discrimination still exists doesn't necessarily mean that affirmative action is still necessary. To determine whether or not it is necessary, we must look at what affirmative action actually is.
Affirmative action is not just a quota system. Yes, quota systems have been used as part of affirmative action, but they are neither the only nor the most important part. They are however, the most sticky part to argue over, so for the moment I'm not going to.
Another part is mentoring programs. Such programs are typically geared to help people find out about the resources available to them and to help them identify and augment their own abilities. For example, a mentor may help someone find out where to get financial aid forms and how to fill them out. The programs may be called preferential to the extent that mentoring programs usually target schools or areas that have less funding and fewer resources. Of course, such schools and areas are generally the ones that are most in need of this kind of program, so that isn't so terrible, is it?
Another aspect of affirmative action deals with how positions are advertised. This is one part of affirmative action that can't be called preferential. Basically, when public institutions are planning to hire someone for a position, they have to advertise the fact. This requirement doesn't in any way give preference to historically oppressed classes. It benefits everyone -- except maybe people who might otherwise have relied on nepotism to get by.
The search for a Chicano/a Studies program director has brought this particular requirement to attention. UNM is within the limits of affirmative action search requirements, which, according to the Office of Equal Opportunity, allow the University to conduct an internal search instead of a national search. The position is still being advertised, just not as broadly.
If we were in an age in which affirmative action were unnecessary, the administration should have realized by now that more action is necessary, as far as this search is concerned. That only one person even applied, whether or not that person is qualified, makes clear that either the criteria are too restrictive or the search is too narrow.
Last Thursday's meeting between students and the search committee makes it apparent that this is not a fact that people responsible for hiring are necessarily going to figure out on their own. Or if they do figure it out, they're not necessarily going to do something about it.
There are at least some things about affirmative action that are good. And there are some ways in which affirmative action is not enough. While oppression still exists, we can't just sit back, look forward and wait for it to go away. We won't get a future we can be proud of unless we take action to make it happen.
Send precise and particular arguments to Sari Krosinsky at michal_kro@hotmail.com.
