These two words sit in the back of the minds of most college students in America, as we have all heard the many arguments in support and in opposition of this policy. Some of us, myself included, have even changed our positions on the matter over the years.
It comes down to whether you believe that the initiative is a necessary means to address past discrimination and enhance diversity or that it "perpetuates new wrongs to counter old ones."
In the predominantly white town of Leominster, Mass., along with most of my peers, I thought that the initiative was completely unfair to the many that would be hurt by it. Eventually, in early April, when college decisions were mailed, I became the subject of my previously held concern.
Apparently, as a black student, I could not have possibly gotten into Boston College based on my own qualifications and long-term achievements. Along with my excitement over my college admittance, whispers and rumors in the hallway deemed me a mere product of affirmative action and sent me home crying.
Affirmative action can also hurt those that it seeks to advance. In my case, I found myself questioning the validity of my acceptance letter. This issue is so hotly debated that it has been addressed by the College Republicans of two Commonwealth Avenue universities.
Last semester, the College Republicans of Boston University created a $250 scholarship for white students to spark debate about the fairness of affirmative action. Recently, BC's own College Republicans have followed suit by inviting the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson to speak against the affirmative action issue. "The intent of the event," said Amanda Short, president of the BC Republicans and CSOM '07, "was to provoke discussion and dialogue on campus, and to allow those who attended to listen to his ideas and make up their own minds about what he had to say."
This understandable aim was overshadowed by the polemical views of the speaker, which were a cause for concern.
Peterson is a speaker who has supported statements such as "if you wanted to reduce crime, you could; if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down."
In a Fox interview in 2005, this "reverend" was criticized for repeating false information about the African-American victims of Hurricane Katrina who were forced to live in the Superdome. Apparently "most of them [black people] lack moral character, look what they did to the Dome. In three days they turned the Dome into a ghetto."
While I'm all for democracy and getting all points across, I wish someone would have told the Republicans that we are way past making such blanket generalizations about whole races. Or are we?
In an e-mail, Short also said, "Based on the fact that dozens of students remained in the room as long as an hour after the event had concluded in order to continue the discussion, we feel that we accomplished this goal."
It would really concern me if there were actually people siding with a man whose credibility is even poor among the Republican party itself.
I just wonder who else the College Republicans had to choose from for such an important discussion.
I am sure that with such a popular issue, they could have found a more trustworthy person than Peterson, who has been criticized as a man trying to profit off of the black struggle, to speak on the opposing side of affirmative action.
Besides the fact that the man failed to offer practical solutions to this issue, what disturbed me the most about this talk came from The Heights article "Speaker Addresses Affirmative Action, Race" (March 22), in which Peterson asked a student from a poor public school whether she was here "because she earned her way or because of affirmative action."
This brings back the memories from those days in mid-April when this same question was asked by my many bitter peers that did not get into BC.
I personally would like to address Peterson and those that sponsored the speaker: Actually, since there is not sticker on my ID that says "I'm here on affirmative action", I will let my successes from high school and my current college accomplishments speak for themselves. Clearly, something about my background was appealing to the institution.
Furthermore, whether or not affirmative action did play a role in my admittance, I still have the better sense and credence to know that researching the background and standing of a speaker I choose to bring on campus is a necessity.
Where did he receive an education? What is the motive behind his claims? Does he personally know all the black people that he has cited to be lacking in moral character?
A tip from my communications course and Aristotle: in order for a speaker to be effective, his morals must be congruent with those of the audience. Clearly, the views of racist Peterson would have no impact on the morally upright and accepting student body.
Or at least I would hope not.
Nidia Fevry is a Heights staff columnist. She welcomes comments at fevry@bcheights.com.
Be the first to comment on this article!