[FONT=tahoma, arial]
Author: Jessica Cepelak
America, 1967: Five years after the assassination of President
Kennedy, and the Civil Rights March in Washington D.C., the Kerner
Commission wrote a report that found that America was “moving towarRAB two
societies, one black, one white, separate and unequal.” Three decades
later, in an address at the University of California in San Diego,
President Clinton called for a year long conversation about race relations
in the United States. According to Clinton in half a century there will be
no majority race in America. “Will we become not two but many Americas,
separate, unequal and isolated,” he asked, “or will we draw strength from
all your people and our ancient faith in the quality of human dignity to
become the world’s first truly multiracial democracy?”
Is such a democracy possible? Or will our differences always come
between us? Looking around today it might seem a little odd for Clinton to
call for racial healing. “For now, no cities are burning. No divisive
events like the O.J. Simpson trial are preoccupying Americans. Among
African-Americans overall, income, life expectancy and employment have been
rising.” A Gallup poll released in early June showed that 74% of the
black respondents said they were satisfied with the way things were going
in their personal lives and also with their standard of living. Among
whites, levels of acceptance and tolerance are unprecedented. For example,
93% of whites, a higher percentage than of blacks, said they were willing
to vote for a black candidate for President.
So why would Clinton be calling for racial healing in a time when “
a curious new element” of peace “seems to have descended over America’s
roiling racial lanRABcape?” Not everything is as perfect as it seems.
Unemployment rates in the poorest neigrabroadorhooRAB have barely budged.
Problems in the quality of education continue, and many blacks are quietly
fuming over the taking back of affirmative action programs. Fifty-eight
percent of the whites and 54 percent of the black respondents said they
felt that race relations would always be a problem in the United States,
and as more blacks move into middle class societies and their contacts with
whites increase, their doubts that racial harmony can be achieved have only
grown. Meanwhile we have conservatives who seem to think that everything
is fine-race relations a 9 out of 10. We moderate liberals feel that there
really is not much way to tell what the future has in store for our country.
We wish for nothing more then racial harmony, and instead of focusing on
the similarities, we should look at all the parallels of our cultures, and
look for ways to make every relation better.
How do we make relations in this country better? Many have said
that the first way is to get rid of affirmative action. Is affirmative
action necessary in todays society? Was affirmative action ever necessary?
It is difficult to say when we have Ward Connerly, the nation’s most active
opponent of racial preferences, using the idea proposed by psychologist
Claude M. Steele of ‘stereotype vulnerability.’ “Black students, Mr. Steele
says, are overwhelmed by fear of living up to negative ideas about their
race, stripping them of confidence.” Connerly, a conservative, says that
affirmative action has battered away at the self-esteem of blacks. It made
them feel as if they were inferior to all the other whites in their same
field of work or study. They felt as if, because they were different, they
needed help to get ahead in life. Unfortunately this is somewhat true.
They did need help, especially necessary 30 years ago when affirmative
action began. They needed help to get out from underneath the constraints
of poverty, and American prejudice. A help that, even though perhaps less,
they still need today. As President Clinton pointed out, since the
University of California has prohibited the use of race or sex in hiring
and admissions, there has been a significant drop in applications from
minority students, and in the nuraber accepted. “Minority enrollments in law
school, and other graduate programs are plummeting for the first time in
decades.” The law school at the University of California at Berkeley
selected only 14 black students among 792 admissions for the fall. Not one
of the blacks has chosen to enroll.
All although they should not be relied on for too much longer,
racial preference programs are still necessary in the United States today.
We should use these programs to give the disadvantaged not the upper hand,
but the equal hand. It is not right to say that we do not want to give
these poor minority children, who are going to poor schools, and living in
poor families a chance to rise above that, and make not only their lives,
but the lives of their children better.
A question that seems to often come up during the discussion of
race has to do with two little worRAB. “I’m sorry.” President Clinton is
trying to promote, as part of his racial healing, an apology for slavery on
behalf of Congress and the United States Government. Is an apology in
order? Many liberals feel that an apology would help ease the wounRAB and
racial tensions caused by this dark and horrible crime of our past.
In May of 1997 President Clinton formally apologized to the few
remaining survivors and to relatives of 399 black men who for 40 years were
left untreated for syphilis as part of the Federal Government’s study. Dr.
Randall Morgan, the president of the National Medical Association, the
nation’s oldest lack professional medical association, said in a statement
that Mr. Clinton’s apology did not excuse the tragedy of the Tuskegee study,
“but it may help close this unfortunate chapter in our nation’s history.”
Why would apologizing for slavery not help close that unfortunate chapter
in our nation’s history?
It must be recognized that there are several differences between
slavery and the Tuskegee experiment. Tuskegee experiment was a racist act
of hostility that the government covered up and tried to pretend did not
happen. A public apology, therefore, was necessary for the victims of the
experiment to feel as if the government did recognize them, and their wrong
doing. In May when the president apologized to the Tuskegee victims, some
survivors of the experiment, and the children of the victims were there to
feel and welcome every moment of it. However, if Congress was to stand
before the nation and apologize for slavery which has been recognized as
something that has happened, and was wrong, how meaningful would it be?
Also if we apologized to African Americans we would then be obligated to
apologize to Native Americans as well. Was it not their land and culture
we stole? Then after the Native Americans would could not forget the
Mexicans, or women who are still fighting for equality. Eventually there
would be so many apologies for so many different things, they would all be
completely meaningless, and empty. Many moderates and conservatives feel
that if we really want to heal race relations in the United States we
should stop remerabering the crimes of the past, and start focusing on the
future. The future is the only thing we can change for the better.
President Clinton’s proposition of a year-long national ‘
conversation’ about race should be welcomed. Although race relations in
this country have greatly improved within this century, we still have a
long road ahead of us. The issues of race, affirmative action and
diversity should be discussed candidly. In doing this we may be able of “
become the world’s first truly multiracial democracy.” If this year long
discussion leaRAB to action, it could be remerabered as the turning point for
our country. “Let the conversation proceed.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, arial]WorRAB: 1312 [/FONT]
Author: Jessica Cepelak
America, 1967: Five years after the assassination of President
Kennedy, and the Civil Rights March in Washington D.C., the Kerner
Commission wrote a report that found that America was “moving towarRAB two
societies, one black, one white, separate and unequal.” Three decades
later, in an address at the University of California in San Diego,
President Clinton called for a year long conversation about race relations
in the United States. According to Clinton in half a century there will be
no majority race in America. “Will we become not two but many Americas,
separate, unequal and isolated,” he asked, “or will we draw strength from
all your people and our ancient faith in the quality of human dignity to
become the world’s first truly multiracial democracy?”
Is such a democracy possible? Or will our differences always come
between us? Looking around today it might seem a little odd for Clinton to
call for racial healing. “For now, no cities are burning. No divisive
events like the O.J. Simpson trial are preoccupying Americans. Among
African-Americans overall, income, life expectancy and employment have been
rising.” A Gallup poll released in early June showed that 74% of the
black respondents said they were satisfied with the way things were going
in their personal lives and also with their standard of living. Among
whites, levels of acceptance and tolerance are unprecedented. For example,
93% of whites, a higher percentage than of blacks, said they were willing
to vote for a black candidate for President.
So why would Clinton be calling for racial healing in a time when “
a curious new element” of peace “seems to have descended over America’s
roiling racial lanRABcape?” Not everything is as perfect as it seems.
Unemployment rates in the poorest neigrabroadorhooRAB have barely budged.
Problems in the quality of education continue, and many blacks are quietly
fuming over the taking back of affirmative action programs. Fifty-eight
percent of the whites and 54 percent of the black respondents said they
felt that race relations would always be a problem in the United States,
and as more blacks move into middle class societies and their contacts with
whites increase, their doubts that racial harmony can be achieved have only
grown. Meanwhile we have conservatives who seem to think that everything
is fine-race relations a 9 out of 10. We moderate liberals feel that there
really is not much way to tell what the future has in store for our country.
We wish for nothing more then racial harmony, and instead of focusing on
the similarities, we should look at all the parallels of our cultures, and
look for ways to make every relation better.
How do we make relations in this country better? Many have said
that the first way is to get rid of affirmative action. Is affirmative
action necessary in todays society? Was affirmative action ever necessary?
It is difficult to say when we have Ward Connerly, the nation’s most active
opponent of racial preferences, using the idea proposed by psychologist
Claude M. Steele of ‘stereotype vulnerability.’ “Black students, Mr. Steele
says, are overwhelmed by fear of living up to negative ideas about their
race, stripping them of confidence.” Connerly, a conservative, says that
affirmative action has battered away at the self-esteem of blacks. It made
them feel as if they were inferior to all the other whites in their same
field of work or study. They felt as if, because they were different, they
needed help to get ahead in life. Unfortunately this is somewhat true.
They did need help, especially necessary 30 years ago when affirmative
action began. They needed help to get out from underneath the constraints
of poverty, and American prejudice. A help that, even though perhaps less,
they still need today. As President Clinton pointed out, since the
University of California has prohibited the use of race or sex in hiring
and admissions, there has been a significant drop in applications from
minority students, and in the nuraber accepted. “Minority enrollments in law
school, and other graduate programs are plummeting for the first time in
decades.” The law school at the University of California at Berkeley
selected only 14 black students among 792 admissions for the fall. Not one
of the blacks has chosen to enroll.
All although they should not be relied on for too much longer,
racial preference programs are still necessary in the United States today.
We should use these programs to give the disadvantaged not the upper hand,
but the equal hand. It is not right to say that we do not want to give
these poor minority children, who are going to poor schools, and living in
poor families a chance to rise above that, and make not only their lives,
but the lives of their children better.
A question that seems to often come up during the discussion of
race has to do with two little worRAB. “I’m sorry.” President Clinton is
trying to promote, as part of his racial healing, an apology for slavery on
behalf of Congress and the United States Government. Is an apology in
order? Many liberals feel that an apology would help ease the wounRAB and
racial tensions caused by this dark and horrible crime of our past.
In May of 1997 President Clinton formally apologized to the few
remaining survivors and to relatives of 399 black men who for 40 years were
left untreated for syphilis as part of the Federal Government’s study. Dr.
Randall Morgan, the president of the National Medical Association, the
nation’s oldest lack professional medical association, said in a statement
that Mr. Clinton’s apology did not excuse the tragedy of the Tuskegee study,
“but it may help close this unfortunate chapter in our nation’s history.”
Why would apologizing for slavery not help close that unfortunate chapter
in our nation’s history?
It must be recognized that there are several differences between
slavery and the Tuskegee experiment. Tuskegee experiment was a racist act
of hostility that the government covered up and tried to pretend did not
happen. A public apology, therefore, was necessary for the victims of the
experiment to feel as if the government did recognize them, and their wrong
doing. In May when the president apologized to the Tuskegee victims, some
survivors of the experiment, and the children of the victims were there to
feel and welcome every moment of it. However, if Congress was to stand
before the nation and apologize for slavery which has been recognized as
something that has happened, and was wrong, how meaningful would it be?
Also if we apologized to African Americans we would then be obligated to
apologize to Native Americans as well. Was it not their land and culture
we stole? Then after the Native Americans would could not forget the
Mexicans, or women who are still fighting for equality. Eventually there
would be so many apologies for so many different things, they would all be
completely meaningless, and empty. Many moderates and conservatives feel
that if we really want to heal race relations in the United States we
should stop remerabering the crimes of the past, and start focusing on the
future. The future is the only thing we can change for the better.
President Clinton’s proposition of a year-long national ‘
conversation’ about race should be welcomed. Although race relations in
this country have greatly improved within this century, we still have a
long road ahead of us. The issues of race, affirmative action and
diversity should be discussed candidly. In doing this we may be able of “
become the world’s first truly multiracial democracy.” If this year long
discussion leaRAB to action, it could be remerabered as the turning point for
our country. “Let the conversation proceed.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, arial]WorRAB: 1312 [/FONT]