Election won’t end prejudice

Originally published October 30, 2008.

After centuries of exploitation, an arduous and bloody struggle for liberation in the United States, and a perpetual battle against discrimination, it’s finally happened. As we draw nearer to Election Day and watch Senator Barack Obama still campaigning fervently, it’s apparent. Racism has been eliminated.

Yep, that’s right. Now that a black man has been successfully nominated by a major party for the presidency, now that he’s run a powerful campaign, and now that he just might win that spot in the Oval Office, racism’s gone. Everyone is equal now. Yes, if one black man can make it to the top, everyone can!

So goodbye, affirmative action! While we’re at it, why don’t we just get rid of the technicalities of equal opportunity employment and nondiscrimination statements, too? After all, Barack Obama has gotten rid of racial prejudice. That must mean that we’re done with discrimination, no matter who it pertains to. Thanks, Barack!

If nothing else, the Obama campaign has shown the United States the exact opposite of my jokes–that is, how very racist we still are. From mainstream news media’s attempts to focus only on Obama’s “racial appeal” in the beginning of his presidential run to accusations that he isn’t “black enough,” from the disgusting suggestions that he and his wife are clearly black supremacists to the recently derailed assassination plot of two white supremacists, it is incredibly hard to believe that the Illinois senator’s success has eliminated racial prejudice.

That said, it’s also ridiculous to suggest that Obama’s accomplishments render affirmative action unnecessary, especially when people still have so many misconceptions about it: that affirmative action pertains only to racial minorities (wrong), that it is used to meet population “quotas” (wrong) and that its implementation means the selection of a candidate based solely on his or her race (you guessed it: wrong).

Let’s clear these up quickly. Affirmative action deals not only with race, but with gender, disability status, and veteran status. It isn’t used to meet diversity quotas, which are illegal. Most activity related to affirmative action deals with recruitment and outreach to qualified candidates (keyword: qualified) in underrepresented communities. Building on that, the policy can be used (not “is always used”) to consider a single, identity-based criteria as a deciding factor regarding a qualified individual.

The whole idea behind affirmative action is to ensure that we make an active effort to create truly equal opportunities for all people. Sorry, but just stating that a university or employer doesn’t discriminate doesn’t make it true. The policy is a means of rectifying this issue.

Because of mainstream misinterpretations of affirmative action, it’s easy to say that the issue would never have been brought up in response to Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that it applies to her, too. It’s certainly not being brought up against Sarah Palin now. If Clinton were in Obama’s position now, would we make any assessments about policies perceived to protect the interests of women?

Gender isn’t listed as an identity criterion in federal hate crime law. A wage gap between men’s and women’s earnings still exists. We’re kidding ourselves if we really believe that the placement of any woman in the White House means we’ve completely shattered that oft-mentioned glass ceiling. With gender inequity so obvious, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would have suggested some repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. Or maybe our silence has nothing to do with gender. Maybe it’s simply because Clinton and Palin are both white.

It’s not as though there’s been no change in attitudes about social identities, especially race, but let’s hold off on throwing confetti and proposing toasts to the “end of prejudice.” The appalling assumptions about affirmative action that still stand are testament to why we need it in the first place: people apparently can’t wrap their heads around the very real existence of qualified minority candidates applying for jobs and institutions of higher education, or that racial minorities can and do get selected without the implementation of affirmative action. Perhaps one day, we’ll reach a point when the policy is obsolete. For now, we still have a long way to go.

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and has a dentist appointment on Halloween.

Is your third-party vote a waste?

Originally published October 23, 2008.

As the days until November 4th fly past us with increasing speed, we’re watching Senators Obama and McCain campaign in swing states with renewed vigor. We’ve flocked to our televisions for three presidential debates between the two nominees, and one for their running mates. It’s impossible to go anywhere and not see one of these four names, and when one is mentioned, the other three are sure to follow.

What you don’t see are the names Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root. Despite his constant presence in presidential elections, you don’t really see Ralph Nader either, or his running mate Matt Gonzales. You certainly don’t see the names Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente. But in most states, the Libertarian, Independent and Green candidates will be on the ballot. What’s more, choices from all three representations will be interspersed among selections for federal and state congressional positions.

So, for all those undecided voters out there: If neither Obama nor McCain appeals to you, perhaps one of those other tickets does. But with them looms the dread of the “wasted vote.”

We all know the concept of the wasted vote. I lived in Texas during the 2004 election, and although I wasn’t old enough to vote at the time, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway – one blue vote in a sea of red. Similarly during this race, Illinois’s allegiance to Obama has never been questioned.

We stress our civic duty as an opportunity for the people to shape their governments. Our vote is our voice. Therefore, people should vote for whomever they believe to be the best candidate for the job – so we say, anyway. It’s difficult to deny the reality that the United States is often mired by fanatically bipartisan political representation. To vote for a politician unaffiliated with either major party, in most cases, means voting for someone who doesn’t stand a chance at actually winning office. In this sense, it becomes easy to believe that a vote for someone other than a Republican or a Democrat is also a wasted one. How can we help but feel disillusioned about the power of our beliefs?

In a presidential election, this may all be of debatable consequence depending upon how you view the Electoral College. Federal and state congressional elections are a different matter when it comes to the impact of the popular vote, but the wasted vote concept still applies. The dilemma: Do you vote for someone who really represents your beliefs but who likely won’t win, or do you bite the bullet and vote for a major-party person who you don’t completely support because they are a “realistic choice”?

If you’re diametrically opposed to the other major-party candidate, this question is crucial. If you vote for the third-party candidate you really want, you’re obviously subtracting a vote from the candidate you despise. However, if the race is tight, you’re also taking a vote from the tolerable major-party contender that could actually win the position.

This whole conundrum plays directly into the way the media frames elections as sporting events. If we have to consider whether to vote “strategically,” our attention over time ceases to focus on the policy goals of candidates (aside from trendy central issues, for which candidates will provide no detailed, step-by-step solutions). Their potential for victory becomes most important, trailed by our tolerance of said candidates – a short-sighted goal in an increasingly short-sighted bipartisan political system.

To everyone willing to cast their ballot toward people they wholeheartedly support, I admire you. Unfortunately, I find myself thinking back to Ralph Nader. If his status as a write-in on the New Hampshire primary ballot in 1992 is included, his 2008 candidacy will be his fifth. I cannot imagine how jaded one can become spending years backing a person who will never end up in the White House.

Perhaps this is the reason for voter apathy. At some point, we cannot stand to feel let down anymore. Like being unable to turn away from a car accident, we cannot help but be overwhelmed by the constant concern that we have wasted our vote, our hopes and our time. But after mailing my absentee ballot this week, I find myself unable to give up my youthful idealism that every vote counts for something.

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and after voting, can’t stand to wait another 12 days for results.