After reading and re-reading Paul Musselwhite's comments regarding affirmative action in The Chronicle a few days back it would be easy to dismiss the author as ignorant and publicly reprimand him for such a personal deficiency, but it is necessary to re-inform the Duke community of the merits of affirmative action. But to the chagrin of the African American community on campus whom, like I, was appalled by his comments, I've elected to take the moral high ground and proceed with the latter. Don't worry Mr. Musselwhite. This will be strictly academic...
First, Musselwhite commented that many other large factors attribute to segregation on campus, but then proceeded in a diatribe slating affirmative action and African Americans' SAT scores as the "serendipitous" answer to Duke's segregation problem. These comments, for one, circumvent the issues raised in Philip Kurian's Dec. 1 editorial by making scapegoats of African Americans and pitting them alone as perpetuators of segregation. Segregation on campus is both an institutional and social problem and has been recognized as such by the administration and students alike. The last time I looked the migration of sophomores to West Campus and increased student-led diversity initiatives weren't implemented to uncover the student body's lemur-like tendencies. They've been implemented to begin to address the problems at hand, problems that speak to each of our roles in the issue of segregation and its solution, not just blacks.
Second, he disavows the plausibility that admission standards for black students are congruent to that of their white counterparts. But we all know that SAT scores are not the only metric for admission, black or white. Both quantitative and qualitative metrics are used to access potential success at this institution. Enough said.
Furthermore, the fact that in 12 full sentences Musselwhite neglected to elaborate further on the "other" large exacerbating factors to segregation on campus lends more credence to his inability to follow through on a thesis statement than it does to the need to ameliorate Duke's affirmative action policies.
It's easy to speak about affirmative action in terms of black and white, but before dialogue of its cessation is prolonged it's important to stop and evaluate who has what to lose. While it seems that only blacks would be on the bottom, a quick perusal of the Internet or trip to the library will reveal that affirmative action legislation not only protects blacks, but also all minorities, the physically and mentally handicapped, Vietnam War veterans and women. An end of affirmative action could very well restrict the employment and educational opportunities for individuals whom opponents of the legislation purport to protect. Historically each of the aforementioned groups at one time or another have been treated as "an educational cohort considerably lower than the general population," as Musselwhite put it. But to say that these groups lead to social and academic "ghettos" would not only be a gross misstatement, but also as great a blatant manipulation of Musselwhite's words as his misunderstanding of affirmative action legislation, right? Likewise, to typecast African Americans on campus in the same manner is not only fallible but further undermines the heterogeneity in interaction that the author lauds.
Lastly, an academic discourse wouldn't be complete without a few well thought-out rhetorical questions, right? First, Musslewhite commented that alumni admitees have SAT scores commensurate to that of the general population, and that additionally, "alumni admitees are not physically recognizable." But given the tone of his letter, does not such a statement presume that affirmative action beneficiaries are as conspicuous as Quasimoto? No one I know has a brand on their forehead, two scarlet As on their chest, or the official affirmative action insignia embroidered onto their backpacks.
Finally, who or what kind of students make up the group characterized as "true peers", and would only the end of affirmative action allow Duke students to act as such? No. Excuse the semblance of a personal attack, but the notion that black students or any student admitted to this institution via affirmative action is somehow subjugated to a value less than "true peer" is as asinine as thinking that it wasn't R. Kelly on the tape, crack doesn't kill and Clinton didn't inhale.
As long as disparities exist in class, gender, sex or race, the implication that class-based solutions shouldn't be used to address class-based discrimination is as out of place as Jim Crow. But I agree with Musselwhite on one point; the end of affirmative action will increase the chances for racial mixing. However "racial mixing" connotes the same superficial interaction of students of diverse backgrounds that Duke is attempting to curtail now. It's this very same concept of simply mixing the races that has perpetuated the status quo here for so long. Just as notions that ending affirmative action is the panacea for Duke's race problems, notions that African Americans at Duke contribute to a social and academic underclass, and calling Paul Musselwhite a bumbling idiot are all anachronisms, so does the 1950s term "racial mixing" deserve its place in antiquity.
Derek Daniels is a Trinity senior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.