by Joel VanDixhorn | Lecture on race disappoints.
When Tufts announced that two distinguished law professors were coming to speak on affirmative action, students surely expected more than they received. The ensuing lecture, which took place on March 5th, exposed students to a discussion that was less than stimulating. Professors Lawrence and Matsuda created an argument that was based on neither law nor ideology, unless one considers Matsuda’s ill-conceived metaphors to be based in reality. While Lawrence at least acknowledged criticisms of affirmative action and attempted to discuss them, Matsuda resorted to an insipid rant on justice and presented few, if any, scholarly arguments in defense of affirmative action. The following are four observations taken from the lecture.
Observation: Law professors did not make constitutional argument
Seeing flyers for a discussion of affirmative action featuring speakers
who teach law at Georgetown University, one would expect to be treated
to a legal argument and defense of affirmative action as an
institution. However, no such discussion came to fruition. Why
Professors Lawrence and Matsuda did not discuss important Supreme Court
cases and delve into the varying legal stances on this contentious yet
complex legal matter is perplexing. Their speeches instead focused on
personal anecdotes and wild metaphors that were never connected to the
real world. Maybe next time Tufts can bring in a sociologist to teach
students the evils of capitalism.
Observation: Reliance on personal anecdotes
A good portion of Lawrence’s speech was centered upon students’ letters
or other personal stories shared with him. It was unnerving to see a
law professor place such emphasis on personal anecdotes. While
Lawrence’s exposure is admittedly greater than most individuals who
rely on their own experiences, he still only represents a small segment
of the multitude of viewpoints available. Employing Lawrence’s
strategy, numerous white students would recite stories of black
classmates who got into Yale or Harvard despite having inferior grades,
test scores, and extracurricular activities. However, proponents of
affirmative action readily dismiss such logic and refuse to acknowledge
that giving black applicants advantages ultimately disadvantages the
rest of the applicant pool.
Observation: Racism = Corporate Greed
A constant overtone throughout the entire lecture focused on inequality
that existed in our society. While such a discussion can be both
interesting and academic, it held little relevance to the supposed
lecture on affirmative action. With stories ranging from treatment of
war veterans to the quality of DC public schools, the message remained:
those with money are bigots and hindrances to societal advancement.
This parallel drawn between racism and “corporate greed” is dubious to
say the least. Racists make irrational decisions based on race while
greedy individuals care about nothing but money. These ideologies would
constantly clash in the real world, discrediting those who insist that
the corporate world, and capitalism in general, are inherently racist.
Observation: Inability to grasp questions
One of the most peculiar moments of the Q&A was when Matsuda
sidestepped a question regarding affirmative action’s effect on the
Asian-American community. She attempted to portray this as a white vs.
Asian issue, claiming that concern was only raised due to the
appearance that Asians are “overpopulating” certain universities.
Opponents of affirmative action point to the rise in Asian-American
students at California institutions to point out the hypocrisy of
affirmative action. While it is traditionally seen in a white and black
context, it possibly affects Asian Americans to a greater extent. It
was embarrassing that Matsuda could not candidly discuss, and at least
attempt to rationalize, the rapid increase in Asian students in the
void of affirmative action.
Mr. VanDixhorn is a sophomore majoring in Political Science.
Comments