A Marxist approach to affirmative action: Is it racism or is it diversity?

Last week, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case involving affirmative action regarding admissions at the University of Texas; an action that hints at the termination of the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, which ruled it acceptable to take race into account in admission decision at public universities. The cessation of affirmative action in admissions would reduce the number of African American and Latino students, and increase the number of Asian and Caucasian students.

This week in my English class, we’ve examined ways to look at an argument through different lenses. I’ve learned a lot about Marxism over the week, and I’ve discovered that if we apply a Marxist lens to affirmative action, the result is a new and deeper understanding of affirmative action.

Affirmative action officially began in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson hoped to solve socioeconomic imbalances by creating policies that would reduce ethnic tensions and endorse diversity in the education system. The idea behind Johnson’s executive order 11246 was that it would counter the effects of a history of discrimination.

Traditionally, supporters of affirmative action say that it makes things fairer and offers diversity, while opponents argue that you are using racial discrimination to compensate for a history of racial discrimination and there should be no such thing as ‘racial privileges’. But, what Marxists hope to answer is how these ‘socioeconomic balances’ developed in the first place. Marxism helps us look at the root of the affirmative action debate. At its source, affirmative action is simply the shadow of age-old competing values and competing economic classes. As this blog states, “These material conflicts are recast in terms of a clash of values, between social justice and individual responsibility”.

Marxists look at issues in terms of class struggle, and how affirmative action works to improve the plight of the underrepresented minorities and by offering diversity, promotes race equality and encourages political mobilization.

Centuries of struggle between majorities and minorities have produced legislative measures and executive orders that attempt to alleviate the differences between the two varying groups; affirmative action is one example of these measures.

From a Marxist point of view, affirmative action is about sacrificing independent effort in the name of equality. There is a culture clash in the United States that has resulted in ethnic discrimination; affirmative action is the path to unwind years of this inexactitude.

So readers, I hope seeing the affirmative action debate through a Marxist interpretation has shown you not only another side of affirmative action, but also about class struggle and ethnic differences in general. Do you support covert approaches, like affirmative action, to combat ongoing unconscious racism or is there a different way? Could the Marxist’s be on to something, here?
To learn more about affirmative action in the Supreme Court, click here

Power of the Introvert in an Extro-centered World

In a society that champions loud-mouthed, thick-skinned, boisterous, and outgoing personalities, what happens to those of us who are subtle, inner-directed and thoughtful? As a society that pins extroverts against introverts, it’s easy for the quieter, more subdued personalities to be swallowed up by their louder counterparts.

As evidence, scroll through your TV Guide – how many shows are reality ones? Over the past decade, the television industry has seen a rise in reality TV shows, and nearly all of these reality TV shows focus on their loudest cast member (Snooki from Jersey Shore, anyone?). Something in American culture labels those who are extroverts as “good” and “fun” and those who are introverts as “shy” and “boring”.

Well, fellow introverts, it’s time we break the stigma! Author Susan Cain recently published Quiet, a book that explores the power of introverts in a world that can’t seem to stop talking. Quiet describes an interesting phenomenon that Cain has coined as the “Extrovert Ideal”. The “Extrovert Ideal” is “the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha and comfortable in the spotlight”. She describes the introverts’ struggle with the demanding ideals pushed upon them by society.

But Cain delves into the perks of being an introvert, too, and why society needs a balance between both types of personalities. In her blog, Cain says “my book addresses introversion from a cultural point of view. It’s about the age-old dichotomy between the ‘man of action’ and the ‘man of contemplation,’ and how the world would be a better place if we valued the two types equally”. A culture that values both talking and listening, both loud and quiet, both introvert and extrovert, is one that is best able to combat complex problems and crises.

But has extroversion always been a favored trait? According to a blog, by Jim Baumer, it wasn’t until the rise of industrialization and urbanization that people began to prize extroversion and shy away from shyness (no pun intended). He says, “when many Americans were leaving rural regions of the country to come to urban areas, flocking to cities, the need to prove themselves in the corporate setting, in job interviews and on sales calls, made extroversion necessary and something to cultivate. A culture where hustling is paramount requires extroverts”. Call it natural selection, if you will.

However, what saddens me most about the introvert/extrovert dilemma is that so many introverts feel undervalued and feel pressured to become an extrovert. It comes as no surprise then, that in this survey, four out of five introverts say extroverts are more likely to get ahead in their workplace. We have labeled introverts as shy, serious, awkward, and somber individuals, when in fact they are just more contemplative and receptive and are better listeners.

When we look to the corporate and celebrity world we find that many of them are extroverts, but in reality, there are many who are introverts, as well. Bill Gates, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, and Barbara Walters are all famous introverts who made it far without loud, go-getter personalities.

I consider myself an introvert; I don’t shy away from social interactions but I’m not always the one seeking everyone’s attention either. If you’re interested in discovering your introvert/extrovert tendencies take this quiz. Turns out I’m 40% extrovert, 60% introvert. So, fellow bloggers and readers, which type are you? Do you feel there are disadvantages/advantages to being either and introvert or extrovert? Do you think different cultures value one personality type over another?

It’s about time we introverts rediscover our value in an extrovert-centered world and realize the importance of a two-toned world.

Model UN - one weekend to solve poverty

This past Thursday, a group of 20 kids from my school, and I, made our way to the Model United Nations Conference at the Palmer House Hotel in downtown Chicago. Essentially, it’s just what it sounds like – a mock United Nations. Over 2,500 students from around the world divided into 25 committees, with each school/group representing a different country. And the goal: formulate a working resolution in response to an international problem.

I entered the conference very intimidated. Within minutes of the first day of committee, words like “caucus” and “unmod” were thrown around, it’s safe to say I was far from my comfort zone. I was on the Human Rights Council, and our topic of discussion was – International Organizations in solving extreme poverty. Daunting, I know.

Initially, I assumed the best thing all of the delegates could agree on was that extreme poverty needed to be solved. With over 40 countries and nearly 80 delegates, I just couldn’t imagine a resolution that everyone could agree on. With some of the most daunting and rigid personalities I’ve ever met, we worked and debated over policies and amendments and clauses for the next 3 days.

Throughout the meetings, different committees submitted different ‘working papers’ that represented ideas they wished to be added to our final resolution. And with over 7 submitted working papers, 3 potential resolutions, and one-too many delegate raps, we ended up with resolution B3 : clause to end poverty.

If you asked me if this were any way possible at the beginning of the weekend, I would have told you no. However, by Sunday, each and every country could agree on this document in front of us. Each paragraph, clause, sentence, and word had been delicately chosen to accommodate all of the delegations. I was surprised by our resolutions real-world approach and the unanimous decision to pass it. This got me thinking. While although each delegate was not from their actual country, each person stuck by the actual policies and views of that nation. And after 3 days, we had a solution to poverty that might just actually work.