The id Post: Affirmative Action and the Handicap of White Privi...

The id Post: Affirmative Action and the Handicap of White Privi...: by Irene Daniel Last week amidst the 3-ring circus that was our congress at work, the Supreme Court was also at work, hearing yet anoth...

Affirmative Action and the Handicap of White Privilege

by Irene Daniel

Last week amidst the 3-ring circus that was our congress at work, the Supreme Court was also at work, hearing yet another argument on the whys and wherefores of affirmative action in college admissions. Instead of discussing the legal arguments and historic precedents, I would like to share my experience of affirmative action and its greatest benefit to me – the revelation of the handicap of white privilege.

In the Spring of 1987, I was admitted to the UCLA College of Law for the upcoming fall semester. In February of that year, I had flown from Phoenix to LAX in order to interview with the UCLA La Raza Law Students Association (La Raza) on the campus of the law school. This story is very important because, you see, that was the last year that UCLA had a real affirmative action program that enabled an inclusive and collaborative admissions process. RIP.

Back in the day, a mere 26 years ago, affirmative meant something positive and, well, affirmative; instead of the dreaded image of the need to lower the rope for the “least of these,” in order to give “them” an unearned opportunity. This inaccurate and unjust narrative of the basis of affirmative action is yet another example of a whitewashed American tale. The convenient spin of the lowering of standards in order to allow those in who are “less qualified” is just more white revisionist history.

For the truth is that nobody lowered the rope for me.  At the time of my interview with 2 La Raza students, I was a single mother with a full-time job and carrying a full load of credits at Arizona State University. I was a little nervous in my interview because I had at that time very little in the way of extra-curricular activities or activist credentials that would deem me a committed Chicana. Fortunately, that wasn’t really what the Latino student leadership at the UCLA School of Law were looking for. They weren’t looking for activists. They were looking for good students, which I was; and who weren’t using the Latino affirmative action route as an angle, while growing up essentially white middle-class, which I definitely was not. They were looking for someone authentically “one of us.”

Then, they could take that confidence in my application to the law school and lobby on my behalf to the entire admissions committee. That’s right. They had a voice at the table, which is really what Civil Rights and affirmative action are all about. The Black Law Students’ Association (BALSA) and the Asian and Pacific Islanders Students’ Association (APILSA) also had a vote on the admissions committee; and they too, recruited from among the entire applicant pool, and advocated for those whom they wanted to join them at the law school.

The reason those votes on the committee were so important in creating a dynamic student body is because I had people in that room that were actually like me – Mexican, poor, smart. They recognized in me an authenticity that they knew would be a contribution to the Latino law students, as well as to the legal community in general in the future. And more than that, they saw me as I was; not as an unknown risk with decent numbers (GPA & LSAT score), although not the best.

My fellow La Raza alums knew for themselves that there was more to me than test scores because they too had to work and go to school, they too had to care for children or aging family members, they too had much more on their plate during their college years than studying and going to football games. And mostly, they too had been underestimated by white people all their lives. That is how they recognized all that I had overcome with my own talents and resourcefulness; and that is why they fought for me. They fought for me because they knew that, far from being “less qualified,” I made it there more on my own merit than those who were admitted because their families wrote checks.

And that is the handicap of white privilege. I needed people like me in that room to educate the admissions officers about just how hard it is for a single mother with a full-time job to consistently make the Dean’s List. Moreover, those of us who are not white are made aware every day that we are on the outside looking in, and that this obstacle is not one recognizable by white people, especially conservative white people.

While it is true that there are many white and poor students whose experience is similar to mine,  whiteness and maleness are still big advantages in a world that continues to be dominated by white males, and thus their potential for upward mobility is still greater than those who are not white and not male. Accordingly, the group of persons most greatly advantaged by affirmative action programs have overwhelmingly been white women. While they may have begun with the same limited material resources, the whiteness of their skin gives an unearned credibility with respect to their perceived abilities. This fact is neither evil nor, in most cases deliberate; but a natural consequence of centuries of government-sponsored policies that recognized the false superiority of white skin.

So in reality, affirmative action is necessary in order to balance this inequity and to focus attention on true merit, rather than skin color. And true merit is present in many ways that a white male dominated society is, as of yet, unwilling and/or unable to recognize in those of us who are not white, not male and not wealthy.

When I help students write personal statements for college admission I always remind them that the admissions process is more a process of elimination, than it is a process of selection. So, you see, to a middle-class white person, it is easy to eliminate people by using mere numbers in a system historically designed by and for the benefit of only white people, especially white men. For those of us who are not white, we know how to see beyond these instruments of a long-institutionalized white supremacy, whether consciously or subliminally, to reveal the depths of the efforts and rewards of overcoming such obstacles. Those La Raza advocates knew me and recognized my skill and ability, whereas the average admissions officer might see me as mediocre.

And the paradox is this:  white people can succeed in mediocrity; nonwhites usually need to be much better just to reach the same starting gate. I remember many occasions in which I was completely stunned at how little my white counterparts knew about my world: paying bills, caring for children, cleaning house, working for a living. And there was a lot of resentment on campus among the wealthy and white towards us “diversity students;” a sense of lowering standards.

But, let’s put it this way:  suppose I had been switched at birth with a wealthy New Yorker baby. Suppose this wealthy white man had instead grown up poor, female and Mexican, raised by a single mom. And suppose that I had been raised with all the privileges money could buy. Who would have made it to UCLA Law School in that instance?

I’m sure I would have made it, for I have already demonstrated that I could accomplish this goal under much harsher circumstances. The real question is, would our white prep school friend have made it? Who had the tougher row to hoe?

So when people talk about affirmative action giving a pass to the “less qualified,” I see it as another example of the handicap of white privilege.

The id Post: The GOP's Faustian Bargains and the Political Depr...

The id Post: The GOP's Faustian Bargains and the Political Depr...: by Irene Daniel In the past 40 years, the Republican Party has undergone something of a metamorphosis, and the party that once liked Ik...

The GOP's Faustian Bargains and the Political Depression of 2013

by Irene Daniel

In the past 40 years, the Republican Party has undergone something of a metamorphosis, and the party that once liked Ike has been supplanted with a party that now hates all things Obama. This transformation of the last five decades has been a journey of curves and pivots that few could have predicted in 1960. For prior to the Civil Rights legislation in the mid-1960s, the composition of the nation’s two major parties was quite different; and in some respects the exact reverse of what they are now. This shift is largely the result of several Faustian bargains the GOP leadership has made along the way.

During the mid-20^th century, tension was mounting in the Democratic Party between the old southern Dixiecrats – chock full of long-time white supremacists, and the younger progressives such as John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. The Republican Party was then the party of the non-bigots, although they were not exactly championing Civil Rights the way some Democrats were, especially Johnson as Senate Majority Leader in the 1950s.

So, when the Democratic Party, with Republican support lead by then-Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirkson, championed the hallmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it caused major upheavals in the once solid Democratic south, and old Dixie abandoned its Democratic home. Some of the old Dixiecrats ran as 3^rd Party candidates, e.g., George Wallace in the Presidential Election of 1968; and most eventually ended up in the Republican Party.

This shift created an opportunity for Republicans in 1968, which has long been known in political circles as ‘the southern strategy.’ After their 1968 convention left the Democratic Party appearing headless and reckless, the GOP polished itself off and presented itself as the “law and order” party; subtly appealing to those working class whites who saw LBJ’s Great Society as a huge give-away to “the other”: ethnic minorities, women and the poor. And so the Republican Party now became the champion of states’ rights and individual rights, combatting the evils of a socialist handout. And this was their first Faustian bargain.

The next deal with the devil came in 1980 with the Reagan Revolution, declaring government itself to be the problem; and began to convince the upper wealth classes that they shouldn’t have to do without a new car so that somebody living in some slum somewhere can have an education, or a meal, or a home, or an opportunity. The support of Evangelical Christians provided religious cover for prioritizing the subsidizing of wealth over the investment in children living in poverty in the USA. This new wing of the party built upon the message of the so-called ‘moral majority,’ which in reality was neither moral, nor a majority of Americans; but they had a loud and seemingly ‘moral’ message that was just a new spin on the further demonization of “the other.”

This Faustian bargain, which ushered in the age of Reaganomics, many economists now believe to be the root cause of the Great Recession of 2008. It is unarguable that those who have benefitted the most from Reaganomics are those who were already wealthy to begin with. And those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder have made little or no progress as a whole, and have seen subsidies that once funded basic necessities, as well as opportunities for advancement, dwindle or disappear completely; opportunities such as those provided by the Great Society.

The George W. Bush era began with the greatest Faustian bargain of them all: the stolen election of 2000. Let’s face it, only nine votes counted in that election. If you were not on the Supreme Court in the fall of 2000, your vote did not matter. An administration beginning with such a Machiavellian disregard of the very Constitution that created it could not end well. 

The Bush II era also reverted to the failed Reaganomics of the past; even emulating this Republican icon in claiming to be anti-government while racking up the debt of two unnecessary wars, as well as funding a pork-fest in Congress. The unbridled greed unleashed by Bush II and his cronies made the Reagan years look Amish in comparison.

The election of the nation’s first non-white male to the Presidency of the United States in the 21^st century stunned the GOP of the last century, and they have been struggling, not to catch up with the rest of us, but to take us back to 1980, ever since. They lament that they have been sold-out somehow. They had money on their side, they had Jesus on their side, and they had most of the white people on their side. How could they lose?

Time and math are not friends to the Republican Party today. Social mores, and especially demographics, are changing rapidly and shifting toward the political left. The staple conservative older white male is daily succumbing to our human mortality, and the new demographics are not attracted to a predominantly white, predominantly male, predominantly heterosexual message that resonated fifty years ago.

The largest growing demographics in the nation today are women, Latinos and millennials. Whether you are selling shoes, doughnuts or insurance policies; this is your target market. The Faustian deal with Evangelicals is now an obstacle for attracting women, as well as LGBTs, with their homophobic rhetoric. Most women, especially those under the age of 50, are not likely to empower those who make light of their personal and reproductive rights.

Latinos are overwhelmingly turned off by the subtle, yet constant, racist assaults on their own tribe, as well as the GOP hardline stance on immigration issues. And millennials have a world view that is much more inclusive and less xenophobic than previous generations. Moreover, most of them have had community service in their curriculum somewhere, and have a broader understanding of community that lends itself much more readily to a Democratic message that prioritizes a common-wealth over shrewd and competitive individuality.

The southern strategy, Reaganomics and Evangelical judgment cannot appeal to the new demographics. This is not ideology, it’s just math. The racism, greed and false sense of moral superiority that delivered GOP victories in the past, cannot do so with 21^st century Americans.

What escapes GOP logic of late, is that all debts come due. Faustian bargains come at a very high price in the long run; and Faust himself just handed the GOP the check.

 

The id Post: I Fell

The id Post: I Fell: I fell into a great waterfall I tumbled and I screamed And I gasped for air Grasping at the falling water Trying to prevent ...

I Fell

I fell into a great waterfall

I tumbled and I screamed

And I gasped for air

Grasping at the falling water

Trying to prevent the smacking crash

Into the river below

 

When shocked by grace

The water cradled me somehow

And the stinging entry

Did not overwhelm

 

But I am still falling, falling

Deeper and deeper into darkness

I cannot find the sky

 

I come up for air

With open mouth and hungry heart

And I am thrust back down again

Bubbles and ripples and currents command

 

I toss and flail about

Reaching, reaching, reaching

I know not for what

Scrambling, searching, struggling

Darkness all around

 

And then, as if by magic

As though from hands unseen

My body is lifted to the surface

And I am no longer frightened

 

The id Post: 15 Minutes Could Save Our Economy and More: It Cou...

The id Post: 15 Minutes Could Save Our Economy and More: It Cou...: by Irene Daniel What can you do in 15 minutes? We hear commercials all day long about how much money we can save in 15 minutes. And in 15 ...

15 Minutes Could Save Our Economy and More: It Could Save the Souls of Our Children

by Irene Daniel

What can you do in 15 minutes? We hear commercials all day long about how much money we can save in 15 minutes. And in 15 minutes, we could have our government reopened. 15 minutes is about how long it would take for the U.S. House of Representatives to vote on such a measure, if only Speaker John Boehner would call for a vote. That is, if we were still running this country by majority rule, instead of by taking the struggling American economy hostage every time Congress has a check to write.

For there are plenty of votes in the House right now to pass a clean Continuing Resolution in which we take responsibility for paying America's bills. However, because this move would violate the GOP Hastert rule, which would require a majority of the Republican caucus to be in favor before it can be brought to the floor for a vote. So, because Democratic votes are needed to pass the CR right now, the House Speaker refuses to bring the clean CR to a vote. Still think there's no difference between parties?

There is a difference and that difference is visited most directly on our nation's children, especially our nation's poor children. For it is those without a voice, which these days necessitates hiring a K Street lobbyist, who are always the most vulnerable. They can't afford a lobbyist. Many of them come from homes where a single mother can barely afford school clothes, and some of them can't even afford new clothes and must rely on thrift shops and hand-me-downs. They say there's no shame in being poor, but tell that to children who do not understand why they can't have new clothes, or that bike or that video game.

I grew up poor. My family was on welfare when I was young and I remember how much shame and embarrassment I felt all the time; trying to hide my sense of being without and feeling left out because of it. Our food assistance was provided by way of federal commodities, FDA surplus, and we had to go to the welfare office on the other side of town to pick it up. Since we didn't have a car, my brother and I would ride our bikes to the office to retrieve a couple of boxes of food every month. I remember keeping my head down and pedaling very fast so that I could get it over with as soon as possible because I was so embarrassed. I always hoped my friends at school wouldn't see me, and if I saw them before they saw me, I would take a detour in order to avoid them because I didn't want them to see that I had been to the welfare office. I felt "less than." And this feeling was a contributing factor to an already low self-esteem, having recently survived a house fire on Christmas Day, as well as my parent's divorce at a time when divorce was not so common, especially among Mexican Catholics.

Fortunately for us, my two older brothers and I, we were provided not only food for our bodies, but fuel for our futures because we had Lyndon Johnson in the White House. And with Lyndon Johnson came Civil Rights, Voting Rights and the opportunities for jobs and education that were created by Sargent Shriver, the architect of the Great Society. So we had hope. We felt almost like these two men had walked into our living room and handed us a new way of life, instead of the hopeless shame of poverty and dejection.

When I turned on the TV as a child, I saw people who understood what it was like to be me: Martin Luther King, Jr., LBJ, Sargent Shriver, the Kennedys, Hubert Humphrey and many others. And I not only saw that they cared, I heard inspiration in their voices, telling me that I too, a poor Mexican girl growing up in a dusty desert town, could aspire to greater things; greater even than I could have imagined then. And I was inspired by them and took advantage of all that was offered: jobs, scholarships, grants, loans, and it took me all the way to the School of Law at UCLA.

From January 20, 1969 to January 20, 2009, children growing up in poverty didn't have those things, those powerful and empowering cheerleaders, urging me on to an education and a middle class life. In fact, for 40 years they had just the opposite, especially after the Reagan Revolution that brought us, not concern for one another, but the glorification of greed, exploitation and exclusion. While it was somewhat better for poor children after Reagan left office, there has never again been such an overwhelmingly affirming message of hope for those struggling in poverty such as that of 1960s. Let's face it, Bill Clinton sold us out with his welfare reform. I understand the political posturing of the day, but he still threw us under the bus.

It isn't just about government programs bringing opportunity, it was the tone and the atmosphere in which our fate was discussed. The Democrats in power in the 60s, and even some Republicans, spoke to and about the impoverished with respect and dignity; as fellow Americans eager to make our contributions to our Great Society, rather than as lowlifes who are responsible for their own lot. These are children I'm talking about here, not drug addicts, not "welfare queens," but children. Small children. White children. Black, Mexican and Native American children. Poor children. It's not their fault. So, why are they made to suffer the most?

I am no longer that lonely and traumatized little girl who felt dejected all the time. I am a mother and a wife, as well as a retired lawyer, a writer and an activist. I am all of those things because we once had in this country a truly Great Society that told me that I had something special to offer; and those people were right, not because I am more special than anyone, but because we all are. We all have something special to share that no one else has. Inside of all of us, and especially our children (for their dreams are still fresh) is something that only we can do, or give, or discover, or write. Words that only we can say, experiences that need us to bring them to be; we all have these things. And this was the underlying principle of not only the Great Society, but the New Deal as well.

I am not advocating a welfare state. Nor do I want a giant behemoth government that is unable to respond to the needs of the day. But I want a government big enough to feed hungry children and build them a decent school where they can learn and dream in a clean and safe environment. Thanks to Ike, I started first grade in a brand new school. We are big enough and wealthy enough to provide them with teachers worthy of them, who can be entrusted with fragile dreams, and can show them how to turn those dreams into their new reality. Just like me.

As with most such stories, and there are thousands of stories like mine, the subsequent revenue from taxes and creating jobs as middle-class Americans far exceeds the dollar amount expended on my family. And giving back for us was never just about money. All of us gave generously of our time by volunteering for causes we found worthy. The Great Society called to us. It not only gave us hope and a future, it made us better citizens, for now we too were vested in our society, our community and our country. It gave me a true love of my America for all the opportunity it gave me to grow my dreams and invest in my community.

The New Deal and the Great Society were products of their times and their leadership, and we cannot go back, nor could we even if we tried, for there is no political will to do so. Unfortunately for children living in poverty, nobody can make real money lobbying on their behalf, so their sadness and their feelings of being left out will go unnoticed in the cesspool of money that Washington has become.

But one thing we can do is feed them. We can do that, can't we? What if that were your child? Hungry and hopeless and afraid of the future? And we can at least stop talking about poor people as though they were the scourge of the earth. We can do that, can't we? Especially in a nation that professes nonstop its Christian roots?

It is up to us whether those children grow up to go to college, or to prison. A middle-class life? Or the endless cycle of addiction and incarceration? It is we, as a society, who decide these things. Because it is in the messages that we give, in myriad ways every day, that we communicate respect for them, or tell them that they are worthless.

15 minutes. What message do you want to send to our nation's poorest children?