DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Latino-Native American Cultural Center newspaper clippings, 1970-2001 |

Transcribe
Translate

Latino-Native American Cultural Center newspaper clippings, 1970-2001

The Daily Iowan
http://128.255.60.56/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=2620?Arts

best vehicles for viewpoint diversity and consequently destroying a much-used justification for affirmative action. In law schools, which are overwhelmingly liberal, Lindgren pointed out, women hired as faculty almost without exception affiliate with the Democratic Party, thereby lending no support to the idea that gender diversity will bring viewpoint diversity.
Across the nation, only 13 percent of law faculty identify with the Republican Party, so apparently to achieve parity th UI will have to hire more Republicans -- God forbid. If the number of Christians was to be brought on part with the percentage of the general population who are Christian, Christians would have to be added to every law school faculty nationwide, while no atheists, agnostics or Jews would be hired.
It is ridiculous to base affirmative action upon the premise that different races and genders bring the most viewpoint diversity. Certainly, no one wants to start hiring faculty and admitting students based upon their religious beliefs or their political affiliation, but, by the same token, the UI should not proclaim that from gender and race diversity comes the greatest viewpoint diversity. Let us try a novel idea: Let us not consider race and gender and instead hire faculty or admit students based on their merit. Look instead at GPA, test scores, leadership positions, community involvement -- all objective criteria of what that person will bring to the UI.
Another argument in favor of affirmative action is that it remedies past and present discrimination. This, unfortunately, isn't true. Affirmative action destroys a person's individuality and instead relies upon societal stereotypes in a effort to push each into his or her racial and gender mold. 
While there was and still is discrimination, this rationale will be just and fair only if the person hired or admitted based upon race or gender was discriminated against by the person not hired or admitted. This would be almost impossible to prove, so individual discrimination cannot be the crux of the argument for affirmative action.
Seemingly, to make this justification work, one must cease to be an individual and become part of a protected group. Under this rationale you are not what you have done or will do; now what matters is to what politically sensitive group you belong.
Has your group suffered discrimination in the past? If so, then so have you. Has your group discriminated in the past, then so have you. Neither person has ever met the other, and yet one is proclaimed the oppressed and the other the oppressor, with no heed paid to either group's accomplishments, qualities or dreams. This 

2 of 3 
4/15/99 1:29 PM

Saving...

The Daily Iowan http://128.255.60.56/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=2620?Arts best vehicles for viewpoint diversity and consequently destroying a much-used justification for affirmative action. In law schools, which are overwhelmingly liberal, Lindgren pointed out, women hired as faculty almost without exception affiliate with the Democratic Party, thereby lending no support to the idea that gender diversity will bring viewpoint diversity. Across the nation, only 13 percent of law faculty identify with the Republican Party, so apparently to achieve parity th UI will have to hire more Republicans -- God forbid. If the number of Christians was to be brought on part with the percentage of the general population who are Christian, Christians would have to be added to every law school faculty nationwide, while no atheists, agnostics or Jews would be hired. It is ridiculous to base affirmative action upon the premise that different races and genders bring the most viewpoint diversity. Certainly, no one wants to start hiring faculty and admitting students based upon their religious beliefs or their political affiliation, but, by the same token, the UI should not proclaim that from gender and race diversity comes the greatest viewpoint diversity. Let us try a novel idea: Let us not consider race and gender and instead hire faculty or admit students based on their merit. Look instead at GPA, test scores, leadership positions, community involvement -- all objective criteria of what that person will bring to the UI. Another argument in favor of affirmative action is that it remedies past and present discrimination. This, unfortunately, isn't true. Affirmative action destroys a person's individuality and instead relies upon societal stereotypes in a effort to push each into his or her racial and gender mold. While there was and still is discrimination, this rationale will be just and fair only if the person hired or admitted based upon race or gender was discriminated against by the person not hired or admitted. This would be almost impossible to prove, so individual discrimination cannot be the crux of the argument for affirmative action. Seemingly, to make this justification work, one must cease to be an individual and become part of a protected group. Under this rationale you are not what you have done or will do; now what matters is to what politically sensitive group you belong. Has your group suffered discrimination in the past? If so, then so have you. Has your group discriminated in the past, then so have you. Neither person has ever met the other, and yet one is proclaimed the oppressed and the other the oppressor, with no heed paid to either group's accomplishments, qualities or dreams. This 2 of 3 4/15/99 1:29 PM