Affirmative Action, Identity Politics and Sotomayor

Pat Buchanan vs. Rachel Maddow on Affirmative Action and Judge Sotomayor


Sotomayor Hearigns Spark Identity Politics
http://tinyurl.com/nxrykz

Last week, I had a discussion about affirmative action and Sotomayor with a co-worker who happens to be a white male from the suburbs. His point of view about Sotomayor's appointment was similar to that of Pat Buchanan; she is where she is because of affirmative action, wouldn't be in this position otherwise, and was considered over equally or better qualified people largely because of her identity as a Latina. When I asked him in what other ways the playing field could be leveled in order to balance minority and majority populations, he had no resolution and no idea how to approach it. I also got the impression that he didn't think anything should be done to level things--that things are as they are because they should be.

But when you think about it, do you blame him or anyone else who may think similarly? Who would willfully give up an opportunity at success for someone else to take? Someone who they don't know and won't know. Who wants bare a weighted vest in a race, to be forced to slow down, in order to allow others to catch up?

Then again, who would want to be prohibited from participating in the race, watching others run freely? Who would willfully subject themselves to centuries of "ownership" and second- (or third-) class citizenship, to forego personal ambitions of success, and have societal limitations placed upon you, all for the betterment of those who will use you to enhance only their own success?

Both are legitimate points of view.

Also, although my co-worker recognizes that discrimination has had an obvious presence in American history and culture, he doesn't understand difficulties that the minority population faces. But then again, how could he know what it is about? I don't know what it is to be a white male from the suburbs. He doesn't know what it's like to be a black male in the big city. But who said that we have to know what it is to be someone else. Perhaps what is more important is that we understand that we can have different points of view, and that we should be able to discuss them.

This period of time is a turning point in American history. Issues of race and discrimination (of gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, political affiliation, etc.) are all now mainstream societal issues today. All of the taboo conversation topics of the past are front page headlines today. Yes, it polarizes society. But instead of polarizing politically (Democrat vs. Republican), it polarizes people from topic to topic, from identifying issue to identifying issue, allowing a lot more room for overlapping identities and outlook on society, rather than one or the other. The issues are being laid on the table publically for us all to see, hear, discuss and develop opinions about. At the very least, I think, this is good for the growth of society in a "destroy and rebuild" kind of way. We don't necessarily need to know how to be someone else, but we should understand who they are.

Thoughts?

--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/