Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. All writers must include their address and
daytime phone number (for confirmation only).
Affirmative Action Wars, Part 38
Judith
Shulevitz's argument in "Affirmative Action Wars, Part 37" is beside the point. Of course,
it is wonderful and advantageous to go to Harvard, just as it would be
wonderful and advantageous to have an internship with a Nobel Prize-winning
writer or, for that matter, your own private plane. Does that mean students who
do not get such internships or their own planes are disadvantaged enough to
need them given out by governmental or university administrative decree? Of
course not. Yes, if your parents are best friends with Nobel Prize winners or
rich enough to give you a plane you will have an advantage in procuring these
things. That's life. For the most part, those who really want these things must
earn them. Giving them to some by decree is worse than unfair; it is ultimately
corrupting to the whole ethic of achievement. It subjects those who get these
things unfairly to widespread suspicion of their own abilities and spreads a
damaging cynicism throughout the culture. In place of a flawed value system of
achievement, it puts an inherently damaging system of victimhood. The point
about the successful minority members who go to lesser universities is that,
like the rest of us who don't get the chance to attend Harvard, they have the
opportunity to earn success honestly: They are not shut out.
-- Michael
Ladenson Philadelphia
Judith
Shulevitz replies:
Michael Ladenson makes
two classic anti-affirmative-action arguments in his letter: 1) It's unfair to
change the rules so that blacks can go to Harvard, and 2) affirmative action
produces a sense of inferiority and insecurity in those it causes to be
admitted.
Point 1: Ladenson would
have a much stronger case if America's universities and colleges used a single
announced criterion for admission and never varied from it, the way New York
City's two true meritocracies, Bronx High School of Science and Stuyvesant High
School, do--they only admit students who score well on Bronx Science's or
Stuyvesant's own tests. Then, sure, it would be a flagrant violation of the
rules to let in some group of kids who didn't meet that standard. But I have
never heard of a single college or university judging its candidates on the
basis of one simple, straightforward, and publicly stated criterion. Instead,
college admissions procedures are made up of dozens of subjective judgments. At
Harvard, for instance, there are probably 1,000 applicants every year who are
so outstanding there's no question they'll get in. But there are another 10,000
who are all good but not quite as great. How will the admissions office select
from that group to fill its remaining 1,000 places? On the basis of any number
of things: SAT scores and grades, of course--but also how well an essay was
written; how much and what kind of volunteer work was done; notable athletic or
artistic ability; a concern for geographic diversity; recommendations; or the
most entrenched affirmative action program around, whether an applicant's
parents went to Harvard. Ladenson assumes that there's one standard applied
across the board to everybody except for black kids, and that just isn't
true,
Point
2: As I've argued above, unless you've written a symphony that was performed by
the New York Philharmonic by the time you're 16, getting into Harvard is
something of a crapshoot. Everyone there knows it, and they don't let it make
them insecure. They accept their luck and get on with their lives. Do the sons
and daughters of alumni feel insecure because the standards used to evaluate
their applications were significantly different (and lower) than those used for
nonalumnae candidates? Ask Michael Kinsley, the editor of this magazine. Being
the son of a Harvard alumnus and then getting into Harvard himself does not
seem to have made a shrinking violet out of him.
Feminism's Fetishes
I commend
Judith Shulevitz on an excellent column, "Don't Take It So
Personally." Her recognition of the grave personal injustice done by the
left to Clarence Thomas is especially appreciated. It took intellectual courage
to arrive at this conclusion. I hope others will follow you.
-- David Horowitz Los
Angeles
Art
Salesmanship
Your measurement in Jacob
Weisberg's "The
Slate
Arts Index" appears to
be a well-intended method for annual comparisons. However, I am just a little
disappointed that there is no representation in your measurement for popular
music. Call me old-fashioned for caring, but increased popular music
sales typically lead to increased classical or jazz music sales,
due mainly to the effect of people feeling compelled to enter a music store and
look around to see what's new since they were there to buy Thriller , or
the Titanic soundtrack, or whatever got them in the door the last
time.
This is no secret to music
retailers. In the online biz we compete for "eyeballs," but retailers need
"footheels" or "toetouches." And, importantly, we can easily determine how much
recorded music is sold at retail from readily available sources.
Assigning
a couple of index "points" to compare higher or lower music sales at retail
might be deserved and appropriate to measuring the state of the arts.
-- Michael P.
Patrick Philadelphia
Rock the
Arts
A quick
run through the high culture jungle of Jacob Weisberg's "The
Slate
Arts Index" left me a bit baffled. Why is it that in the
discussion of film the percentage of dollars allocated to independent films was
noteworthy, but the same wasn't true of music? Or, put another way, why would,
say, a ticket stub to the rockumentary Hype be arts-index-worthy, but
purchasing the soundtrack would not? If
Slate
wants to be an
alternative to the mass of media, why let the mass of media (in low or high
cultures) dictate the terms? Because Sub Pop--in one quasi-independent case--is
not opera or jazz should be all the more reason for your paying attention.
-- Lance
Davis Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Knowledge Is Power
I have
just been reading the dialogue on public figures' private lives. I agree with
the reader whose Oct. 1 letter to the editor, "Trapped in Monicagate,"
suggested that people who say "enough with Monica already" but then read
Flytrap coverage may be canny rather than hypocritical. The potential outcome
of Flytrap is the impeachment and removal of the president of the United
States. Do I think the media have over-covered Flytrap, helping to create the
crisis they report? Yes. Do I think I'd be happy pretending this crisis isn't
happening, allowing people whose views differ from mine to have more
information than I have? Not a chance. Remember, Cardinal Newman said,
"Knowledge is power." While I disagreed with the House Judiciary Committee's
decision to release the president's videotaped testimony before even asking the
questions "Will there be hearings?" and "What's an impeachable offense?" I
watched the tape so that I could understand the spin from both sides and make
up my own mind. I don't think that's hypocritical; I think that's good
citizenship.
-- Jen
Shelton Huntington, W.Va.
Some
Feature Called "Today's Papers"
I commend
the Oct. 1 Today's Papers for inserting some fun in the news with the comment
about Carleton College. The disclaimer and explanation in the next day's
Today's Papers made what was written the day before even
more humorous and fun for this reader. Keep up the good work.
-- Sharon
Johnson-Cramer Boston
No
Amnesty for Shuger
So
despite Amnesty International's reputation and 30 years experience in human
rights investigations, the Oct. 5 Today's Papers doesn't take it seriously. Why? Because its director
comes from Senegal. So much for objectivity.
-- Gerry
Ellis London
Scott
Shuger replies:
My
question, "Where would you rather be arrested--in the U.S. or Senegal?" was
raised not as an ad hominem assessment of the Amnesty International report, but
in response to the Amnesty honcho from Senegal's comment that the U.S. criminal
justice system lagged in fairness behind (someplace he called) the world
community. Yes, there are problems with our system, and yes, there are some
countries that could teach us a thing or two about them. But my point was I
don't believe people who say most countries could--because they wouldn't prefer
to be arrested, imprisoned, tried, or sentenced in most countries.
Address
your e-mail to the editors to [email protected]. All writers must include their address and
daytime phone number (for confirmation only).
