We have already taken a look at the history behind affirmative action, and we have seen the case that is currently being decided on by the Supreme Court. We know that affirmative action was started because it was necessary to balance out racial prejudices in the workplace and in college admissions. Affirmative Action policies have not changed since. College admissions affirmative action was challenged about a decade ago and is being challenged again. Both sides of the affirmative action argument have valid points at the surface, but if we look deep into the issue, and think about the long term future of this country, it is clear that affirmative action’s time is up and it should be made illegal.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” This is the exact opposite of affirmative action. Many schools will say that race is only a minor factor in admissions, but the fact of the matter is that to some extent, no matter how small, college applicants are being admitted or denied opportunity based on the color of their skin. Shouldn’t we be judging people by their character instead? Isn’t that what Martin Luther King Jr. wanted?
I understand the fears of those who are for affirmative action. Many people believe that if you do not have a certain number of each racial group identified in an academic setting (called a “critical mass”) then the one racial group will feel ostracized and will not express their opinions in the academic setting. But don’t we want a future in which people’s opinions are not defined by their skin color? The whole goal of the racial equality movement is to bring a day upon the United States in which people are seen by others as individuals, and not as a White guy, a Black girl or Asian guy. Yet isn’t this what affirmative action does? Doesn’t affirmative action define someone by their skin color rather than his or her character and individuality? Affirmative action only perpetuates the racism that it claims to try to prevent. If you want a racial minority to feel confident enough that he or she is not an outcast, then stop making the racial distinctions in the admissions process that defined him or her as an outcast. If we truly want a future in which everyone is seen as racial equals, as a unified academic body, then we need to stop defining how many people of each race is required in an academic setting.
Simply stated, I am saying that the problem of racial inequality is not going to be solved by affirmative action, rather inhibited. I am NOT saying that killing affirmative action will solve the racial inequality problem in the U.S. I argue that the problem is that in our country’s attempt to be fair to all the races, we have had to make distinctions between the races that have ended up dividing people rather than unifying them. It is a huge contradiction to say that we want a racially fair and unified academic body for a college, and then distinguish one race from another in admissions. If the future of this country is the need to see every skin color in the same light, then we need to actually try to see every skin color in the same light. Affirmative action is past its time. Affirmative action is unconstitutional and does not solve racial inequality issues. Affirmative action is a policy that attempts to counter racism by promoting racial inequality. True racial equality comes in the form of color-blindness where every college applicant is judged by their character, and not their race.
I’m working with Kate on this one and our plan for the project is on her blog:
The film, Gangster Squad, came out in theaters in the beginning of the year and just came out on DVD this week. I was very excited when this movie came out and disappointed when I wasn’t able to make it in theaters. It seemed like a tribute to the old school gangster films with a modern flare, which would really make for a great movie. However, this film simply came up short. The lack of depth in the main characters and the inability of the plot to surprise the audience kept this movie from being really spectacular. That said, it wasn’t all bad and if you are just looking for a fun new movie, this one will do.
If this film did something right, it entertained its audience. Although the plot was predictable, it was still fun. You can basically tell the story yourself based on watching the previews that told you it was about a couple of cops that had to throw their badges away to take out a mob boss. Another good thing about the movie was the action aspect. The shooting scenes, where there are bullets flying everywhere, were pretty cool and the special effects were decent.
As I said before, the characters were very shallow. There was supposed to be a love connection between Emma Stone’s character and Ryan Gosling’s. Although the two would make a very attractive offspring, I just didn’t feel the love connection. Also, I think the director wanted to present an internal struggle within the cops and them struggling with the fact that they must use illegal means to catch someone who breaks the law. But there just wasn’t enough character development for me to care.
Gangster Squad had the potential to be a great movie, but there just wasn’t enough done with it to bring it to the blockbuster level. Still, if you were like me and wanted to see it before, I would still see it. It’s still an okay movie, just not great.
Verdict: Watch if you are bored and want to see a different type of action movie, but don’t cancel any plans to watch it.
It is not secret that director Quentin Tarantino is pretty out there. He is an odd fellow with a very vivid imagination. If you have ever seen any of the movies he has directed, then you know what I am talking about. He is known for very imaginative and unconventional screenplays, breaking the standards for what is considered “good” films, and creating strange characters with bizarre backgrounds and motives. Tarantino is not my favorite director of all time, but I think he is important for people to support. The movie industry needs directors like Tarantino to constantly be pushing the boundaries of the conventions of movies in order to keep the film industry in constant change. Directors like Tarantino challenge what the audience deems acceptable, and I applaud him for that, which is why I want to list a few of my favorite movies he directed. I won’t say that I could watch all these movies back to back, but a Tarantino movie once in a while is thought-provoking and refreshing.
4. Kill Bill vol. 1
Bloody Bloody Bloody. This film is a tribute to all of the foreign martial arts movies that came into American markets a few decades ago. Martial arts + Blood + good story line + revenge is the equation for this one. Very fun movie to watch if you are bored.
3. Django Unchained
Tarantino’s most recent film was a hit in the awards season of 2013. I won’t go into the film because I have another blog post dedicated to it, but you should see it when it comes out of DVD if you didn’t see it in theaters. Very fun, but again, bloody.
2. Inglorious Bastards
This film, starring Brad Pitt, is about a group of WWII Jewish-American soldiers who go on a mission to Nazi Germany with one mission: To kill Nazis. This borderline parody of WWII and the Nazi regime contains a lot of humor, and even more blood. If you are looking for a film to watch when you are angry and feel vengeful, this is the movie for you. It was nominated for a ton of awards. Must see.
1. Pulp Fiction
If you haven’t seen this one, all I can say to you is go watch it right now. This movie is a classic, and is an embodiment of Tarantino. The plot is very imaginative, yet non-sensable. The characters are crazy and seem to have no continuity behind them. The film could be argued to have a hundred different themes, or no themes at all. It is just one of those crazy, amazing movies that everyone must see in their lifetime. It is very quotable, and oh yeah, there is a good amount of blood too.
*Posters from IMDb
I have struggled with the topic for my advocacy project, but I think that I have finally come up with something. I didn’t really want to be too political, and wanted to do something that a wide range of people would respond to. My topic will be on second hand smoke, especially in regard to children. There is a proposed law in Texas right now that I believe should become a national law. Basically the law would say that it is illegal to smoke while children are present in either a closed space or close proximity to the smoker. Here is my plan:
Purpose: I want to advocate either people not smoking around children, or people to join some type of movement that would get this law passed.
Strategy: There are a lot of negative effects of second hand smoking, especially when it comes to children in their development phase. I could use a lot of emotional appeals to show how smoking around kids is a very bad thing.
Audience: My audience is very very broad for this. Everyone was a child once and therefore can relate to the protection of health for children. I honestly can’t think of anyone who this project would not relate to.
As far as the type of media I will use, I am torn between a video and a podcast. I like podcasts because they are like small radio speeches and I think it is fun to persuade with your voice. However, with a video I could add images that would enhance the emotional appeal.