“Discrimination”
is a buzz word that has consumed many hours of our studies, and hundreds of
thousands of words in the political arena in the past five decades. There is no one
among us that did not spend every February (at least) in primary school
learning about the civil rights movement, and had it beaten into our heads that
the disqualification or subjugation of a group of individuals based on an
inherent trait was morally wrong and should be avoided at all costs – It is and
it should, but what happens when the very things that civil rights leaders were
attempting to avoid; inequality, injustice, discrimination and subjugation,
start rearing their ugly heads once again, but this time in a different
direction?
We heard
about it over and over again in the election, the word “racism” was used by the
left to lob missiles at the right for supporting voter ID laws, but the right
seemed to lack the moral courage to lob those missiles right back when it came
to affirmative action. But when asked why voter ID laws are racist, many on the
left would say “because they are,” words lacking not only substance, but
anything close to what might be considered an answer. To further illustrate my
point here, before I get angry emails accusing me (once again) of being a
racist, let me explain. To purchase cold medicine, cigarettes, or alcohol, one
must present a photo ID. To cash a check, sign for an insured package, or get a
library card, one must present a photo ID. To drive, to fly, to ride a train,
one must present a photo ID. If all of these things are true, why then should
our most valued right as Americans, the right to cast our votes, and let our
voices be heard on a national level, not be protected the same way? Voter ID
laws have never been intended to keep anyone from voting, only to ensure that
each citizen is voting for him/herself, instead of having someone else do it
for them.
Earlier this
year; the Supreme Court heard a case that would drastically reduce the purview
of Affirmative Action. The case (Fisher v. University of Texas) was started
when Abigail Fisher of Sugar Land, Texas was denied admission into UT’s
undergraduate program. Ms. Fisher had earned a 3.59 GPA on a 4.0 scale at her
high school; she played sports and volunteered, and finished high school as
number 82 in her graduating class of 674 students. In Texas, similar to Florida’s
Bright Futures program, students who graduate in the top 10% of their class are
automatically admitted to the University of Texas system. After that top 10% of
students are admitted, admissions decisions are made on a case by case basis
that considers many factors, including race. Ms. Fisher fought this decision,
and while the school said “It would have rejected her application, even if it
hadn’t considered race.” Ms. Fisher believes that the school needs to update
its policies to accurately reflect and in this case, accept students of every
race who are academically qualified. She has since graduated from LSU and holds
a job as a financial analyst in Austin, Texas. (http://www.businessinsider.com)
She does, however, still believe that the school’s policy of considering an
application based on race is unconstitutional, and the case has made it to the
highest court in the United States. The fourteenth amendment of the US
Constitution states:
“All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside; no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any
person in its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.”
This amendment
was ratified in 1868 following the landmark Supreme Court case of Dredd Scott
v. Sandford. Note that the text of the amendment says “All persons” not “White
men,” or “women” or “citizens of African American or other descent,” but “all
persons” it goes on to state “No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States.” Now, I realize that the Constitution isn’t
the most popular of documents these days, but it is and will remain to be the law
of our nation. How then, in 2013, can we continue to make decisions about the
quality of a person based AT ALL on their race or gender? We can’t. It’s moving
us backwards instead of forward.
If you’ve
stuck with me this long, kudos, and just sit tight because we’ve only a small
distance to go in this article. (But decades to go in this country.) I’d like
to get to what inspired me to write this article, aside from the five minutes
of Chris Matthews that I watched, and the many articles I’ve read on Fisher v
UT. Last week at Rollins College it was
announced that the school was no longer going to fund or support the Christian
student group on campus, InterVarsity, because in the group’s constitution it
is explicitly stated that leaders of the organization must be Christian and the
school has defined this as discrimination, and shut down funding to the group
as a result. The same issue was brought up at Vanderbilt University (a
university, by the way, which also houses a seminary), but the Catholic group
in question ended up meeting off campus to avoid the regulations of the school.
At Rollins,
we have many religious organizations. There’s the Muslim Student Union, The
Jewish Student Union, and the Newman Club (A division of Catholic Campus Ministries
that is intended for private, non-secular schools). While each one of these is
not led by students of another faith, because it is not specifically stated as
a requirement, it has gone without notice. So is the administration at Rollins
saying that discrimination is okay, as long as you don’t write it down? Or are
they committing a much more grievous sin, by marginalizing and discriminating
against Christian students by not allowing them the same funds and privileges
that are extended to other student organizations? I am still awaiting a
response from the administration at Rollins College, but I have reached out to
the Office of Student Leadership and Involvement 6 times since the story broke
on Friday, and have tried multiple times to reach the public relations office
at Rollins (their office doesn’t even bother to send their callers to
voicemail.) and have left a voicemail for someone in the schools marketing
department. I have also reached out to the area director of InterVarsity and am
hoping to hear back soon.
I will
continue to research and update on this developing matter. But I think it is
our responsibility as citizens to reflect on both sides of the looking glass.
If discrimination exists at all, we have done nothing to move forward as a
nation.
Discrimination
does not know race or religion; it only knows the hatred of both.
No comments:
Post a Comment