During Melissa's talk I found myself getting angry that we were presented with yet another amendment that has a strong possibility of winning based on deception. Melissa mentioned that the people who wrote the amendment spent a lot of time working on language that couldn't lose. What that translates to is using language that is complicated and backwards so people are tricked into voting yes when they think they are voting no. Another problem with the language of the amendments is that so much is left undefined, Melissa mentioned that preferential treatment isn't defined which is very problematic.
It seemed to me that the people supporting this bill are bitter and resentful of minorities because they took their spot at a college or job because of their skin color. Melissa mentioned that a major female supporter of 46 always mentions how a black student took her spot at Michigan. So is this amendment really about equaling the playing field or about getting retribution for something that happened 15 years ago?
The first thing that came up when I googled yes on 46 is an article in the Rocky Mountain news entitled Time to Ban Preferences. They do present both sides of the issue but in the end do not remain objective in any way and flat out tell voters to vote yes and their conclusion is that the glass ceiling has been smashed to smithereens because we have a black man in the presidential race. Melissa mentioned this idea too and discredited it which I agree with. There is a difference between an educated, wealthy, multi-racial man gaining respect and given a fair chance and a high school educated, poor, minority woman trying to achieve the same thing. My main concern for why we do still need affirmative action laws is because people trying to celebrate certain aspects of themselves should be able to do so. I am most worried about minority student groups at public universities being denied funding and girls and women being denied school programs because it would be "preferential treatment." I think amendment 46 is ridiculous because really at the end of the day, who are affirmative action laws really hurting? Perhaps white men but they don't need the upper hand in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You make a very important observation about the importance of language here, Sarah, and it's one that we can't forget in an election season. How you frame an issue or use language to present, for better or for worse, is as important as the issue itself. That's why it's so important to read everything you come across with a critical and skeptial eye.
I'd be curious to hear from you and other students, if you had to come up with a campaign in support of Affirmative Action, or against Amendment 46, how would you frame it effectively? What do you think would convince voters to oppose this amendment (or in a larger sense, support this issue)?
(On a side note: In terms of the Rocky article, were you reading an editorial? If so, then it's perfectly legitimate for a newspaper to publish its official stance on a ballot issue. That's actually what the editorial board is supposed to do. Our job is to respond to such statements and figure out how we understand them.)
Post a Comment