In an ideal world
We were very disappointed with the viewpoint conveyed in Daniel Whittle’s April 12 article, “Does SMU Promote Inequality?” To be blunt, the article only looked at the problem of minority scholarships and diversity from the small and limited perspective of the “bubble” that encompasses most of the Park Cities area.
We agree with Whittle’s worries about the state of SMU. Simply look around this university; SMU is not your typical college experience. Everyday we see a BMW, Mercedes or a Lexus zooming around campus without a care in the world. We also catch flashes of names such as Gucci, Kate Spade and Armani. We agree with Daniel’s statement that “not all white kids have rich parents that buy them BMW’s and pay for their school,” but who is generally associated with wearing and driving such name brand items? Is it usually minorities or Caucasians? Daniel himself stated it is a “statistical fact that on average a minority person makes less money than an average Caucasian.” Who is to blame for this structured inequality? Unfortunately, the answer is closer to home than most realize.
Take SMU as an example. Look at who is working in the food services, who is cutting the grass or cleaning the facilities on campus. Then look at who is teaching your philosophy or finance class or who is in charge of the administration of SMU. Next time you’re at a greek party, just for the fun of it, count how many minorities are in attendance (don’t worry, it won’t take you much time, and you can probably do it on one hand).
The idea that we are trying to relay is that everyday people are conditioned by many facets and environments of our society such as the media, neighborhoods similar to the Highland Park and schools such as SMU. Not all, but many students at SMU went to the Highland Park or Kingwood High of their city. Many students at SMU have only been exposed to diversity in a limited, stereotypical capacity. These same individuals are hoping to gain an education which not only fulfills the GEC requirements, but also exposes students to different people from different backgrounds. We as students are unfortunately being short-changed by a university that has little to no faculty diversity and arguably very little student diversity. Everyday we are served food by mostly minority workers and taught in class by generally a Caucasian male.
The biggest misnomer that Daniel’s article conveys is that giving scholarships to minority students will in some way hurt Caucasian students and the university as a whole. However, giving scholarship money to upper-echelon minorities will improve the academic quality of the university. SMU has started to realize that it is depriving students of a complete education. For this reason, SMU has decided to consider giving minority scholarships to increase diversity. If we want to compete for top minority students, then providing scholarships would arguably be the predominant method. As Whittle stated, minority students on average come from lower income families.
Obviously, common sense would tell us that on average minority students would need scholarships to consider attending SMU. Take, for example, a minority student accepted to both Tulane and SMU. There would be many factors that affect his/her decision, but arguably the main factor for his/her decision is money. If SMU does not attempt to attract these top minority students, then it will continue to short-change students by not providing a truly diverse and complete college education.
The reason for the segregation openly displayed on campus between minorities and Caucasians is basically due to the color of skin. Next time you’re in the Student Center or Umphrey Lee, look who’s sitting with whom.
Ask a minority friend what it feels like to enter a room where you are the only person of color. Ask them how it feels to be mistaken for a basketball player or an international student whenever they walk into the room or attend a party. Or ask them how accepted they feel when they’re at a party and two white males ask them who they are with. Maybe then will you begin to understand the harsh realities of being a minority at this university. The problem is that some people on campus are apathetic or believe minorities make a big deal out of an issue that does not need attention. Additionally, some minorities themselves feel nothing will change so there is no reason to do anything about the issue.
After having lunch with a friend who happens to be Caucasian, her response to the structure of SMU was, “that’s their [referring to the minority workers] fault for not getting a college degree.” Why couldn’t the minority workers at SMU get a college degree like everyone else at SMU? Our good friend could never be classified as a racist individual by any means, but her mindset, unfortunately, echoes that of Whittles’s article.
Whittle outlines an ideal world in which everyone would be equal and come from equal neighborhoods and high schools. We agree that in this ideal world, Whittle’s plan would be feasible. However, the assumption that our society is ideal is the fundamental problem with the argument in his article. SMU is not ideal in many ways; however, it should take strides to become more ideal for all students. We need diversity to create equality, not only at SMU, but in society as a whole.
