Affirmative Action

I'm always wary of talking about race. Period. I probably should start as many by saying my race/ethnicity, but it really shouldn't matter. Honestly, my opinions about race shouldn't be different just because I'm an African American male. There are other factors which I believe to be much more important to my opinions of race. For example, I'm 21. I don't remember the 1960's civil rights movement or slavery, because I wasn't there. Secondly, I'm from New York City. My opinions of race relations are colored by living in Queens County, which is both diverse and insanely segregated. If I lived in Texas or California, my opinions might be different. For example, tensions between blacks and hispanics are much higher in California than they are in New York.

The reason why I'm wary and weary of talking about race is that often we just don't know whether racism is a factor. When a white person wrongs a black person is it always racist? No. Racism wasn't (usually) the reason people didn't like me in high school, I was nerdy and standoffish. If a bank denies me a loan, is it race? Could be that the banker is racist, could be that the owner is racist, or it could be that the banks aren't giving loans to everybody, and I don't meet financial criteria. I share the concern that I get from white colleagues and friends who are wrongly accused of being racist. I understand the perspective of the person who doesn't want to be denied an opportunity due to racism.

Affirmative action seems to be the most interesting issue when it comes to race. Is it fair to use race as a factor? Chris Rock might have my favorite quote on the subject.

"I don't think I should get accepted to a school over a white person if I get a lower mark on a test. But if there's a tie? Fuck him!" (Never Scared, 2005)

I like the quote because, while it is was said in the context of a comedy special, it pretty much is the viewpoint of a lot of affirmative action suppporters. Usually when people say affirmative action, people think of people unqualified to go to college getting in to Harvard, which is stupid. If I got into Harvard Law School with my numbers (3.3 GPA, sub 170 lsat), I'd be offended. However, I'm sure that for at least one law school I got into, race was a factor in my admission. There aren't many AA males in law school. I've got good not great numbers. I'm fine and can hold my head up high if I get into a school that is a little bit better than what my numbers say. And I got into a few schools with scholarship money that way. If it means that I'm going to be "the diverse guy" in class, I'm okay with that. I need a J.D., they need the perspective, we're all better for it.

But if i get in, that means that someone didn't. Is it fair if a member of an overrepresented group, with similar numbers and socioeconomic background to me, doesn't get in because I did? Maybe. If the roles were reversed, would they feel bad about it? Maybe. I certainly would be upset if i were in their shoes.

I do believe that affirmative action and programs like it represent a larger problem. While i have no problem with a Law School taking me because I'm black, i do feel that the person who I'm benefiting from is not the person who didn't get in but my ancestors who were wronged and got no reparation for it. I'm actively benefiting from those people in the 1960's who fought for civil rights. I feel bad about the fact that while they were arrested, and hosed (literally) I'm the one who benefits, and they didn't. I'm sure they would be happy for me, and glad that their efforts alllowed an inner-city black male to go to law school, but it seems that I'm getting something that I don't deserve. That is one problem with affirmative action (and reprarations, for that matter). In concept, both have people benefiting from others who were wronged.

When I'm told that I didn't deserve to go to the law schools that I was admitted to, I usually just look and smile. I worked hard for my knowledge base, and if my numbers don't represent that knowledge base, I'm fine with it. I'm smart enough to get into Tier One law schools, so if I got into one, good for the school. They win. If another person has an issue with that, then it seems that their issue is not with me, it's with the school. I applied just as everyone else did.

The Hall of Fame

The third most important Hall of Fame announced its newest members. I'm only 21, so my knowledge of many of the members is quite limited. I have no idea who most of them are. Chris Mullin was a St. John's grad, but that it all I know about him. I don't really remember him as a player. Arvydas Sabonis is a player who I spoke about earlier this week as the best European center. (All due respect to Vlade Divac of course). The thing is, that there are no hall of famers yet who I can really say great things about. Most of the people who will be inducted into the hall will be people who I know mostly from reading about them. Rodman is a player who I only remember as a Chicago Bull. I "know" he was a Piston and won Championships there, but I don't remember them. Maybe thats a good thing, because I can look at these players objectively. However, sometimes you just have to be there. The true sports fans know that while numbers are important there are some things that just have to be seen.

Dennis Rodman in on my all time team. He is the best rebounder I have ever seen. Period. I can't judge what he was like before 1996 (when I was 7, mind you) but my memories of Rodman involve him jumping and diving and running everywhere to get rebounds. The numbers back up my memories as he not only led the league in rebounds, but he dominated the people he played against in that department. I've seen some hustlers (Kevin Love stands out as an obvious example) but Dennis Rodman had "in the gym range" for rebounds, something that I haven't seen from other players at the time or from anybody since.