3
April 23, 2003
The Clackamas Print
★ ^CLACKAMAS^^T*
Editor-in-Chief/
Copy Editor
Shadra Beesley
News Editor/
Assistant Copy Editor
Tina Tate
Opinion Editor
Cyndee Mady
Feature Editor
Elisabeth Meyer
A&E Editor
Pete Ford
Sports Editor
Elena Boryska
Co-Photo Editor
Robb Egan
Co-Photo Editor
Cory Price
Webmaster
Joel Gaynor
Advertising Manager
Mark Falling
ext. 2578
Staff Writers:
Marvin Baker * Isaiah Creel
Nie Delzell * Jared Eschweiler
Bekah Finch * Karen Hill
Noah Holland * Frank Jordan
Sadie McCarthy
Production Assistants:
Matt Baker * Katie Funk
David Kolibaba * Andy Price
Adviser:
Linda Vogt
Secretary:
JoAnrie Gale
The Clackamas Print is distributed every
Wednesday except during finals week.
The Clackamas Print * Copyright 2003.
19600 S. Molalla Ave.
Oregon City, Oregon 97045
(503) 657-6958 X2309
cccpri nt@clackamas.edu
http://www2.clackamas.edu/theprint
Affirmative Action vs Reverse Discrimination
As long as prejudice exists in
America, minorities and women
are at risk of discrimination
People's accomplishments, not the
color of their skin, should deter-
In an attempt to liberate minorities
and women, Former President
Lyndon B. Johnson introduced affir
mative action as “a more profound
stage of the battle for civil rights.”
Though we have advanced into the
millennium we have not necessarily
progressed in attitudes regarding gen
der and racial equality. Whether or
not one wants to admit it, prejudice
Still exists.
Barbara Gruttcr and Jennifer Gratz are
while students who claim affirmative action directly affected their denied admission
into the University of Michigan Law School. They are attempting to eliminate racial
consideration in the university’s undergraduate and law school admissions process.
Students at Michigan State University have jumped on the bandwagon,
attending rallies against affirmative action and waving signs in the air that
read, “Affirmative Action is State Sponsored Racism.”
But not all students agree with this message. “The nation still needs a tool
to make sure that people aren’t left out. Not just black people, but people of
all races and sexual orientation, because there is still such a thing as white
privilege," said Lee June, vice president for student affairs.
Microbiology major Kyeorda Kemp recognizes the disproportion of equal
ity in our society. "On average, women make 74 cents to every dollar that a
man makes. That should show you that there is a problem," Kemp said.
All “men” may have been created equal, but they have not all benefited
from equal treatment This court battle in itself expresses the inequalities our
society has suffered. The fact that two white people can cause a national
upheaval when whole races are in jeopardy of regressing back to the mental
ity of segregation, is a blatant display of injustice.
.
Historian Roger Wilkins pointed out; "blacks have a 375-year history on
this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination,
and only 30 involving anything else.” A mere 30 years does not make up for
centuries of oppression; nor does it erase the ongoing issue of discrimination.
It would be nice to liwinsaiWibildwherebhe Could trust that the honorable
and fair decision would always prevail, but unfortunately that is not the world
we live in. Unless laws are upheld to indemnify egalitarianism, the repressed
ways of the past will rapidly resume its reign.
Without guidelines in place to insure that opportunities remain available to
women and racial minorities, the foundation we have earnestly strived to build
upon these past decades will crumble to the ground as if it had never existed at all.
Hard work and a few breaks along
the way should determine a person’s lot
in life, not a governmentally backed
program that is terribly out of date.
Affirmative action is not dead, but
the wording should be reworked to give
everyone a chance in his or her pursuit
of life, liberty and happiness in the
greatest country in the world.
Frank
A recent court case involving two
Staff Writer
University of Michigan students who
sued the law school over admissions
practices has brought one of the most groundbreaking yet controversial sub
jects back into the spotlight.
Affirmative action rose out of the ashes of the civil rights movement in the
1960s and gave enormous opportunities to people of color. An equal playing
field in all phases of American life is what minorities and women hoped to
gain from this bold action. Affirmative action has meant a lot to many peo
ple, but some people are not happy with the outcome.
White males have been told that they are the reason for affirmative action,
yet the same white males who are struggling to make it in our country will tell
you that they are not to bl a me for e very o ne ’ s prob 1 e ms.: .
All anyone wants is a chance to prove their worth, whether in the class
room or on the job. All people should be given the same chance, regardless
of the color of their skin or their sex.
Minorities will tell you that this is all what they want as well, but when
special privileges are given to those in a minority status, the playing field just
got uneven.
Diversity isa big word thrown around all over the country nowadays, from
our workplaces to our classrooms. True diversity comes from within, not
from a piece of paper.
'
Some minorities also say that affirmative action is not the best idea
because others will look at their accomplishments as a result of a government
program, not because of their own hard work and sacrifice, and it should not
be that way.
If two people are vying for the same job or the same position in an aca
demic setting, such as admission to a school or a school’s program, should
their accomplishments weigh more heavily than the color of their skin, the
country of their birth or their sex? Of course they should.
Under the current affirmative action laws, this js not the case. The laws
need to be rewritten in order to give all Americans equal opportunities.
Embedded journalists capture, report
the brutal truth; can you handle it?
Cyndee Mady
Opinion Editor
The war with Iraq has had journal
ists embedded on the front lines of
combat, often endangering - or in many
cases, losing - their lives for the cause.
These correspondents may not
have known the full impact of what
they were getting into, but should be
commended for their bravery and
dedication.
As recent as the Gulf War of
1997, the press had no control over
the dissemination of information
they would receive from government
officials. Whatever picture the gov
ernment wanted painted was the pic
ture that would be conveyed to the
public through news sources.
Many of the puzzle pieces were
missing or perhaps even displayed
out of context. Reporters had to rely
on inside anonymous sources if they
were to capture the essence of a
story, rather than simply relying on
what had been hand picked.
The fact that there have been hun-
dreds of reporters in Iraq to cover the
war firsthand is an important step
into the 21st century.
It is crucial to report all aspects of
the war, no matter how brutal. After
all, we’re talking about war here, not
a picnic in the park.
Now that journalists are on the
forefront of the battlefield in Iraq, it
is their responsibility to inform the
public about what they are witness
ing, including U.S., British and civil
ian casualties.
This brings up the debate on
whether images may be too shocking
for Americans to absorb. If one
reads the newspaper every day
because one wants to be well-
informed on current events, then one
should be prepared for the cold hard
truths. If that means viewing offen
sive images that may make the hairs
on the back of your neck stand at
attention, then so be it.
On March 28 USA Today printed
a picture of dead Iraqi soldiers on
their front page prompting 60 dis
turbed readers to inundate phone lines
with complaints. Many of the readers
wanted to know why an “inside photo
of a U.S. soldier walking with several
smiling Iraqi children” could not have
replaced their choice.
“We looked at both photos,”
recalled USA Today Executive
Editor Brian Gallagher.
“One
showed a bloody scene, and the other
was very benign. Given the blood
shed that day, we did not think it was
very responsible to show the more
benign photo.”
Kudos, Mr. Gallagher, for making
a judgment call that does not neces
sarily reflect popular opinion, but
does reflect the reality at hand no
matter how unconscionable.
These images are real and the
public has a right to see the truth
without the camouflage of discretion.
Maybe the news should come
with a warning: Content may be
unsuitable for children, the faint at
heart and immature, ignorant adults
who choose to live in a cave shel
tered from the real world.
Consider yourselves warned!
Do you have something to shout about?
Letters to the editor are always welcome.
Drop letters by B-104 or send to
cccprint@clackamas.edu
mine their position in society
Jordan
'Cross-genrefication' may be our
only hope for social evolution
Shadra Beesley
Editor-in-Chief/
Copy Editor
The social classification system
on this planet seems to be evolving.
In high school people were always
conveniently categorized by the activi
ties they participated in. Drama freaks,
band nerds, jocks, cheerleaders, ston
ers, Klingons; everybody fit into a neat
little compartment.
In college the code seems to have
changed. Now that we’re Big Kids we
seem to be categorized by musical genre,
as in “that girt is sooo emo,” “they look
really indie rock” or “that’s not veiy
gangster,” which I’m assuming is a refer
ence to playing ‘30s records on the vic-
trola. People chose their hangouts, clothes
and personalities according to whether
they prefer lyric-driven acoustic numbers
or ear-splitting unintelligible vocals
backed by frantic percussion.
The logical explanation for this
classification system is that it makes
it easier to meet people who you
have things in common with. I mean,
I think the hope of a girl who wakes
up in the morning, puts on a pair of
black,
thick-framed
glasses,
Converse sneakers and a cardigan
covered in buttons with band names
like “Death Cab for Cutie” and
phrases like “I’m sad” is to someday
meet a boy wearing black, thick
framed glasses, Converse sneakers
and a jacket with band names like
“The Juliana Theory” and phrases
like “I have angst” at a “Dashboard
Confessional” concert.
But what then? Eveiybody meets
her Knight in Shining Ironic Thrift
Store T-shirt or his Lady in Animal
Print Hair Dye, then commits for life in
a non-traditional way to someone with
in his or her musical preference catego
ry, and carefully decides (based on cur
rent overpopulation statistics) to have
children. Now we have emo parents
raising depressed, angst-filled kids,
indie rock parents raising anti-institu
tion kids, and punks raising punk kids.
Maybe a little cross-genrefication
might do us all a little good. Say an
emo guy marries a punk girl. You get
kids who will fight authority figures
tooth and nail but then fall in love
with said authority figures and aren’t
ashamed to cry and threaten suicide
because they can’t be with the one
they love due to the fact that they
burned down a building that
belonged to the one they love.
Okay, maybe not.
Perhaps the further evolution of
the planetary social classification
system will take care of this problem.
I long for the day when people are
categorized by preferred food type
and I get to say things like “that guy
is so Thai food,” or “she’s gone total- ■
ly Hostess.”