Magnified and Blown Out of Proportion
If you've been following the budding career of high school basketball star LeBron James through his televised games on ESPN2, you are probably amazed at skills and talent displayed by this kid is at the young age of seventeen. He is likely to skip college and go straight to the NBA, and most observers feel that he'll be the first pick in the draft.
Recently, some eyebrows were raised when LeBron was seen driving around town in a brand new $72,000 Hummer SUV. The reason that this seemed a bit strange is that his mother is unemployed and lives in public housing. Nonetheless, she was able to convince lender to give her a loan to buy the car.
Now, I don't think that LeBron or his mother did anything that was particularly wrong here. If some lender were willing to lend me $72,000, I'd take it as well. I'd probably not spend it on a Hummer, but hey, to each his own.
What I do have a problem with, however, it Washington Wizards forward Charles Oakley's comments on the matter.
Forward Charles Oakley said if high school sensation LeBron James were not black, he would not have gotten the attention he did for driving a brand new Hummer.
"Everything about us is magnified," Oakley said. "That's just how it is. It's always magnified and blown out of proportion. There is a different standard for black people. That's how it is when you're black and the microscope is on you."
Oakley said that if James had grown up in a middle-class neighborhood and were white, the big stink over his new car would never have come up. James' mother, with whom he lives, is unemployed.
"Look, a lot of [white] people drive Mercedes to high school and nobody stops them and ask them about their car," Oakley said. "But if a black guy is seen driving something like that, the first thing people say is he's a [drug] dealer. But that's just how society is. Blacks are living in the back of the bus and we might never get to the front of the bus. We are never going to be able to drive the bus like we should. What are you going to do about it? You just have to keep going ahead."
Look Charles you are a hell of a player and I respect you, but this is not about race. If this were a poor white kid, the "big stink over his new car" would most certainly have occurred as well. The relative poverty of Ms. James was the reason that red flags were raised here, not that she was black. Poor white teenagers driving Hummers look just as weird as poor black kids when they drive around in $72,000 cars, at least to me anyway.
Which leads to another point. With the Supreme Court about to take up the Bollinger case (the one about affirmative action at the University of Michigan), I'd like to make a point. As I wrote above, I view poor white kids and poor black the similarly when they drive around in $72,000 cars in poor neighborhoods. Regardless of their race I pretty much ask myself, "How in the $#%@# did that kid get that car?" On the other hand, if I see a kid driving around in a Hummer in a wealthier neighborhood, I pretty much say to myself the same thing, "Daddy's spoiled rich kid." My point is that poor white kids and poor black kids have a lot more in common than poor black kids have in common with rich black kids. They often suffer from the same stereotypes, prejudices, and hardships. Rich black kids on the other hand typically go to good schools. Although they likely have experienced some racial hostility in their life, my guess is that their suffering does not approach burden that poor white children face.
All of this raises the question: Why should wealthy black children receive the benefits of affirmative action over poor white children? The answer: they shouldn't. (Disclaimer: I've benefitted from race-based affirmative action several times in my life due to my Puerto Rican heritage.) Admissions preferences should be color blind in all cases. They should consider economic and social hardship but never skin color. Childhood is never easy if you are poor, regardless of whether you are black, white, yellow, red, green, orange or blue. Academic achievement by children without the advantages of wealth should be given extra weight, regardless of race. This will bring true diversity to the university environment, diversity of life experience and diversity of thought.
Also, while college admissions are still on the front pages, I'd like to see Congress propose a bill making legacy preferences illegal discrimination. I think this probably would fall under their power through the civil rights laws, but I'm not certain. I don't doubt for a minute that universities rely on alumni donations for $$$, but does it make it right to take away a spot from an otherwise deserving candidate so that a rich family continues giving money to a University? That to me betrays the same principles of fairness and justice that are at issue in Bollinger.