UH Issues of Race in Politics & Emanuel AME Church Dylan Roof Shooting Discussion Question #1 In an era where issues of race seem to permeate almost every

UH Issues of Race in Politics & Emanuel AME Church Dylan Roof Shooting Discussion Question #1

In an era where issues of race seem to permeate almost every aspect of politics, it should come as no surprise that many of our discussions and the topics given for your research paper has racial under/overtones. Our politicians are certainly aware of the tensions which exist along these lines and are often all too willing to exploit those tensions & differences for their own personal gain. For your final discussion board, you are to read an article (which is linked below) which tackles the often controversial matter of affirmative action.

Affirmative action is a practice which has long been in place in order to help balance the playing field, whether for jobs or for admission into universities, as a result of decades of racial disparity and unequal treatment. It goes without saying that this issue remains controversial and have has often been viewed through the lens of white vs. African American & Hispanic/Latino, but recently a fascinating case made its way through the lower federal courts which threatened to undo all that affirmative action is and has done as for the first time ever, it was not white vs. other minorities, but one minority group vs. others minorities.

In the case which you will read about, lawyers representing Asian-American students who applied to Harvard sued based upon racial discrimination by maintaining the admissions factors focusing on race played a significant role in who was admitted or not, particularly in regards to Asian-Americans as they received much lower “likability” scores compared to all others. Ultimately the judge hearing the case felt Harvard had not effectively discriminated against Asian students, though many found the reasoning behind the judges decision to be questionable and flawed. The attorneys representing Asian students have of course stated they will appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary where, if it were to make it there, could become very interesting given the newly established conservative leaning of the court.

I want you to read this article and provide your own thoughts on this issue. What do we do when we policy meant to protect and balance the field for minorities is turned upside down and begins to potentially discriminate against one minority group in favor of boosting the percentages of others? Is affirmative action then inherently flawed? How are schools supposed to create diverse student bodies without being able to consider non-academic factors such as race or other experiences? Harvard attempts to justify their policy by correctly stating that the majority of their applicants are all tremendous students and would likely be admitted into almost any other non-Ivy League school which they apply to and that previous court decisions have allowed for college to use race as one of the deciding factors, but not THE deciding factor. However, in a world where all applicants are exceptional academically and otherwise, then is it possible that race in fact becomes THE sole differentiating factor when looking for the smallest details by which to separate candidates? What do you feel the Supreme Court should decide to do here? Should they agree with the lower court’s decision or take up the case and risk throwing out decades of precedent on affirmative action by reversing course? I look forward to your thoughts on this final board as always.

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/10/07/federal-judge-finds-harvards-policies-do-not-discriminate-against

Question #2

The debate surrounding monuments which memorialize prominent Confederate individuals is not new, though we have certainly seen it take on significantly more relevance following the shooting of 9 innocent people at the historic Emanuel AME church in Charleston, SC by the racist Dylann Roof 2 years ago. Given that the previous discussion board dealt with the issue of guns and mass shootings, the purpose of this question is to explore how Texas, and indeed the rest of the nation, is to deal with the monuments erected to memorialize men who find themselves on the wrong side of history due to their positions on slavery and racism.

On the one side, there are those people who point to the actions of Dylann Roof and most recently the protests which rocked Charlottesville, VA where those in favor of protecting Confederate monuments and keeping them in the public square clashed with counter-protesters, eventually leading to the death of Heather Heyer when she was run down by a vehicle driven by a white supremacist. As a result of these tragedies, along with others not named, the call for the removal of these monuments has sounded across the country and many states have reacted by removing various monuments, such as those removed in New Orleans recently. Others have called for the statues to remain, with some supporting keeping the monuments because they support the more extreme racist ideologies, and others calling for them to remain due to their historical significance as they argue that removing the monuments equates to erasing or ignoring history. Pres. Trump received a significant amount of criticism for his response to these issues, including speaking of a “slippery slope” by asking if these monuments are allowed to be removed, then where would it stop? What about historic figures such as George Washington? Should monuments to Washington be removed due to the fact that he owned slaves Pres. Trump asked? The president’s question was widely panned as ridiculous, though it is worth noting that recently a plaque at the church that Washington attended was removed due to some in the church claiming that they felt unsafe going to a church where Washington was commemorated due to the fact he had owned slaves. Is this the slippery slope that Trump warned of?

What is Texas and the rest of the nation to do in response to a history that is complicated and at times, quite ugly? Should monuments be removed and never seen again? Should they remain and have plaques or some other way of putting into context the uglier parts of the history as it relates to these individuals? Should they be preserved because they are historic, but put in a place such as a museum where people can see them and learn about all of the history, both good and bad, behind the monuments? Should only monuments memorializing the confederacy be dealt with, or should all monuments which involve people once connected to the issue of slavery and racism be considered fair game, including those of famous figures such as George Washington? Please tread carefully on this topic and be respectful of each other. We are all adults here and should be able to handle discussing complex and relevant issues such as this which face our state and nation, but I will absolutely not tolerate any sort of bullying, racist language/behavior, or harassment of others based upon the views. Anyone who violates this requirement will be dealt with severely via their course grade, and depending on the severity of the violation, further sanctions by the college. I believe we are all capable of having a civil discourse on this issue, but please keep the discussion to the issue of the monuments and attempt not to turn the discussion into one on the broader issues of race and equality (though these issues are certainly a part of the larger argument), as these are far too complex for any discussion board to adequately address. As always, make sure that you use at least one source to support your position, and make sure that you respond to at least one classmate as well (respectfully of course). I look forward to reading your thoughts on this complex issue, and to seeing if you all are able to come up with a fair solution which has evaded so many in our government and nation.