Globalization benefits seen through IMCs
Unfortunately for the sake of Michael Hsu's interest in foreign affairs ('U.S. media lack coverage of engaging global affairs,' Sep. 7-9, 2001), knowledge does not necessarily translate to understanding. Take his comment on 'skeptics who see 'globalization' as 'globaloney'.' His commentary suggests that such skeptics oppose global interconnection per se. Understanding this skepticism at a level deeper than that of a pop quiz, however, would uncover that it is the terms of globalization that is in dispute, not the concept. For example, take the Indymedia phenomenon. In less than two years, more than 70 Independent Media Centers have begun on every continent except Antarctica. They are committed to reporting and commenting on the events and issues that are typically ignored, obfuscated or sensationalized by the mainstream, corporate media (including Newsweek). The IMC's are an example of globalization from below, and they operate on a nonprofit, noncorporate, user-supported basis. Look to the Washington, D.C. Indymedia at the end of this month for a truly engaging take on 'globaloney.'
Race-based admissions don't promote equality
Let's say that I'm a white male of western European origin (OK, I am). I have a 3.9 GPA, a 33 on my ACT and am involved in activities. I'm the perfect draw to any university, right? Now let's say that one spot is left at a college. A minority student enters, has a 2.9 GPA and a 26 on her ACT. She wasn't involved in high school, but she gets that spot because of a point system giving her a boost due to her minority descent.
I think all of you would say the first student was more deserving of that spot. Although high school grading policies differ, the effort of student one outweighed that of student two. For those of you who don't believe a decision like that could come to be, read Braden Smith's editorial ('Race-based admissions still a necessity for now,' Sep. 6, 2001). What frightens me isn't that the University of Georgia decided these policies'they're bureaucrats attempting to better the reputation of their university. What disturbs me is Smith's acceptance and endorsement of that policy.
I know I haven't been persecuted, nor have my ancestors, and that what happened to minorities in the past is absolutely disturbing. But why punish the people who work hard now? If a minority has a higher GPA and beats me in a majority of other admissions categories, I am all for that student getting the opening. But giving him or her extra points that puts him or her ahead of me is not the answer. I would ask the minority student if that treatment, in fact, doesn't embarrass him or her. Paying back the mistakes our ancestors made is like putting you or I in jail for a crime our great-grandparents committed. Although the views of people today aren't ideal, legally everyone in this country is equal. Attempts to boost the status of minorities or even the majority is just plain wrong. In order to bring equality, people need to be treated as equals. This admissions policy doesn't satisfy that need, and needs to be abandoned. I guess we'll just have to go back to the old-school admissions policies'where effort and intelligence get you into college.
