February 16, 1995
A friend once characterized the issue of affirmative action like a game of poker. It goes something like this: Five players are sitting at a game of poker -- one woman, one Asian, one black, one Latino and one white man who is the dealer. After several hours the white man comes out on top with the largest winnings; he achieves this by cheating.
Some key points: First, while the other players play by the "rules of the game," the white man cheats to gain his winnings. Second, while the white man was caught cheating and forced into compensation in the form of losing for one hour, the other players have been losing for a time much longer. Several hours of cheating can have lasting consequences for the losers as they play to "catch up." Third, the white man is still in control of the game. There has not been a chance for the other players to be "the dealer." Fourth, while the white man is sitting purposely losing, the gains for the other players may be marginal. The winnings for the other players are off each otherŐs diminishing resources while the white man sits and relinquishes only a minimal portion of his goods. Finally, rather than starting the game over with the white man's spoils returned, the game continues on after a dubious attempt at compensation.
The other players picking up his scheme ostracize the white man and they demand compensation. The white man responds by losing the games on purpose as reparation. The other players take whatever fortune they win while the white man loses. Finally, after an hour, the white man now says heŐs lost enough and demands everyone now play fairly from the beginning.
This is the "game" which typifies the debate on affirmative action. The demand to end the period of "compensation" is the political initiative for the abolishment of affirmative action policies and colonialism, 439 years of slavery and 150 years of race-based exclusion. Additionally, nothing can deter the rising tide of xenophobic and racial overtones from the clouds that loom ahead in our prospective futures. It is in this future that we as students must call upon the university to take its stand in the eclipse of right-wing conservatism. Battling these forces is an enormous undertaking on a state and federal level. But perhaps the challenge can begin with our own campus. This challenge is especially critical in light of President CorriganŐs Commission on University Strategic Planning whereas the issues of diversity and equity will be addressed as CUSP will paint a picture of what SF State will look like in the year 2005.
Will SF State be a "mosaic" of ethnic and gender diversity and still be an institution of academic excellence? Or will SF State be an institution of "educational apartheid?" Will Corrigan establish SF State as an institution of "sanctuary" or will he "kowtow" to the pressures of the politically conservative? Or will we as members of this campus community become so entrenched in ethnic and gender warfare that we forget that Corrigan is still "the dealer" of this game?
It is far too easy for Corrigan to simply say he stands in support of affirmative action. What must be questioned and brought onto the table is his plan of action to institutionalize his commitment on all levels -- administration, academics, staff, undergraduate and especially graduate level.
The stakes are high President Corrigan. The ante is in the pot. The cards are dealt. And I just decided to raise my bet. Do you care to call or do you want to fold now?
Maxwell S. Leung is a graduate student in the School of Political Science.