M artin L uther K ing J r .
January 13, 2016
2016 special edition
Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views of the
Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and
story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com.
O PINION
Students of Color Belong in Top Schools
For us, the civil
rights struggle
continues
by i ván
e sPinoza -M adrigal
Black people don’t
belong in top schools
- that’s what I heard
from Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Sca-
lia during oral argu-
ment in the high-profile Fisher
v. University of Texas case. As
a gay Latino who arrived in this
country when I was nine years
old and who was raised by a sin-
gle mother in a low-income im-
migrant community, I’ve heard
similar disparaging comments
throughout my academic and pro-
fessional life. Never mind that I
graduated at the top of my class
from high school, college and law
school.
As a civil rights attorney,
I know that Justice Scalia is
wrong, and I helped to prove it
in a Supreme Court brief filed
by my organization, the Law-
yers’ Committee for Civil Rights
and Economic Justice, on behalf
of leading scholars who have,
through rigorous empirical stud-
ies, debunked the so-called “mis-
match theory.”
This is the idea, voiced by Jus-
tice Scalia, that affirmative action
is harmful to students of color
because they don’t belong in top
schools. This idea is not
just legally and scien-
tifically wrong, it’s also
misguided and danger-
ous.
Justice Scalia essen-
tially said that black stu-
dents - and by extension
other people of color -
are inherently less qual-
ified and capable than whites.
People who look like me are,
somehow, less able to withstand
rigorous academic pressure. Con-
versely, Justice Scalia implies
that white students are inherent-
ly more able, more capable, and
more deserving.
This racial dichotomy and hi-
erarchy - rooted in purported in-
herent differences between races
- helped legitimize slavery and
segregation. Under this view of
race, it shouldn’t even be separate
but equal - it should be separate
and unequal. These preconcep-
tions and stereotypes are precise-
ly what civil rights attorneys have
been fighting even before Brown
v. Board of Education. It’s what
my organization fought for when
we desegregated Boston’s public
schools, and it’s what we contin-
ue to fight for today.
In the aftermath of police vio-
lence in Ferguson, Mo., students
of all races in colleges across the
country have been calling for
greater diversity and inclusion.
The natural extension of Justice
Scalia’s comments on race is
that the experiences of students
of color on campus don’t matter
and that their alienation and mar-
ginalization on campus is justi-
fied. After all, if students of col-
or don’t belong on campus, then
why should they be made to feel
welcome?
The notions underlying the
so-called “mismatch theory” are
paternalistic. They are racism
masked as benevolence. Propo-
nents of such theories pretend to
be looking out for the best inter-
ests of students of color. In re-
ality, they are taking away our
choice and our capacity to make
our own decisions.
A logical extension of Justice
Scalia’s argument is that profes-
sionals of color - the presumed
beneficiaries of affirmative action
- are unqualified. In arguing that
students of color don’t belong in
top schools, Justice Scalia sug-
gests that neither Justice Clar-
ence Thomas nor Justice Sonia
Sotomayor should have attended
Yale Law School, and that they
should not be his peers. But Jus-
tice Scalia - and opponents of di-
versity - don’t call into question
the qualifications of the children
of wealthy alumni who are ad-
mitted under legacy admissions
programs. There is no national
movement to send them to “slow-
er” schools. This creates a strong
impression that certain colleges -
and the opportunities they afford
- should be exclusively reserved
for whites.
I believe strongly and unequiv-
ocally that colleges and univer-
sities must retain the ability to
consider race as one of many fac-
tors in creating a diverse student
body. And I know that, when stu-
dents from different walks of life
learn with and from each other,
they are better prepared for suc-
cess in our increasingly diverse
and interconnected world. The
benefits that flow from diversity
don’t change based on the caliber
of the school. We should be pro-
moting diversity, not quashing it.
So let’s set the record straight,
people of color belong in all
schools, including top colleges,
and we belong on the Supreme
Court, in corporate boardrooms,
and wherever else opportuni-
ty exists. For all of us, the civil
rights struggle continues.
Iván Espinoza-Madrigal is the
executive director of the Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights and
Economic Justice.
Supreme Court Rehearing Affirmative Action
Here we go
again!
K evin l. a ntoine
Every few years the
U.S. Supreme revisits
the issue of admitting
African Americans and
other under-represent-
ed groups into college.
This issue goes by many names,
equal opportunity, affirmative ac-
tion, diversity, inclusion, and most
recently holistic admission.
The court has let stand the prac-
tice of colleges using many factors
when reviewing the credentials of
students applying for admission.
These factors include, gender, ge-
ography, family income, disabil-
ity, gender identity, LGBT, mil-
itary status, language spoken at
home and race just to name some
of them.
However the only factor that
ends up in a lawsuit is when a
white applicant is denied admis-
sion over race, more specifically,
the race of an African American
by
student that was admitted. I can-
not think of any affirmative action
lawsuits where a white
applicant that was de-
nied admission because
the college admitted an-
other student who was
a military veteran, or
gender identity, or dis-
ability.
No other population
in America is so heavily burdened
with the task of enjoying life, lib-
erty, and the pursuit of happiness
than African Americans. This
historical burden stems all the
way back to 1776, the birth of the
nation when white colonists won
their freedom from Great Britain,
but denied freedom to their Afri-
can slaves. In 1807 America abol-
ished the international slave trade,
however the institution of slavery
continued in America for another
58 years. It took a Civil War, pas-
sage of the 13th amendment, and
the assassination of a president to
end slavery in America.
After passage of the 13th
Amendment, the newly freed
population, though free, could
not read or write, had no schools,
housing or healthcare. The great
emancipator Abraham Lincoln
established the Freedmen’s Bu-
reau, the first federal government
office with oversight of educa-
tion, housing, employment and
healthcare. These programs exist
today as agencies in the executive
branch of the federal government
(The Departments of Education,
Housing, Labor, Health and Hu-
man Services). Though first estab-
lished to help African Americans,
these federal agencies now assist
all Americans.
By 1876, reconstruction ended
with the election of Rutherford B
Hayes as president. Hayes granted
former confederates the right to
hold political offices in the south.
In short order southern states be-
gan to turn back the clock on all
of the equal opportunities afforded
African Americans under recon-
struction. Sound familiar.
Here we go again!
One hundred years after Pres-
ident Lincoln issued the Eman-
cipation Proclamation, President
Kennedy sent his civil rights bill
to the Congress. It took a civil
rights movement and the assassi-
nation of a president to pass the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sound
familiar?
Here we go again!
In the Fisher v. the University of
Texas Law School at Austin case,
the Supreme Court will decide
if race can continue to be one of
many factors colleges can consid-
er when reviewing student appli-
cations for admissions. Here’s the
rub. For centuries in America, the
law made it unlawful for a “whole
race of people,” African Ameri-
cans, to go to school, to learn, to
read, to write, add and subtract.
Now once again the law will de-
cide whether race is a factor for
keeping African Americans from
obtaining a college education.
Here we go again!
Kevin L. Antoine, JD is a col-
lege professor and legislative
director for the American Asso-
ciation for Access Equity and Di-
versity.
Page 39
New Prices
Effective
May 1, 2014
Martin
Cleaning
Service
Carpet & Upholstery
Cleaning
Residential &
Commercial Services
Minimum Service CHG.
$45.00
A small distance/travel
charge may be applied
CARPET CLEANING
2 Cleaning Areas or
more $30.00 Each Area
Pre-Spray Traffic Areas
(Includes: 1 small Hallway)
1 Cleaning Area (only)
$40.00
Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area
(Hallway Extra)
Stairs (12-16 stairs - With
Other Services) : $25.00
Area/Oriental Rugs:
$25.00 Minimum
Area/Oriental Rugs (Wool) :
$40.00 Minimum
Heavily Soiled Area:
Additional $10.00 each area
(Requiring Extensive Pre-Spraying)
UPHOLSTERY
CLEANING
Sofa: $69.00
Loveseat: $49.00
Sectional: $109 - $139
Chair or Recliner:
$25 - $49
Throw Pillows (With
Other Services) : $5.00
ADDITIONAL
SERVICES
• Area & Oriental Rug
Cleaning
• Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning
• Deodorizing & Pet
Odor Treatment
• Spot & Stain
Removal Service
• Scotchguard Protection
• Minor Water Damage
Services
SEE CURRENT FLYER
FOR ADDITIONAL
PRICES & SERVICES
Call for Appointment
(503) 281-3949