2008 Woodie Awards
Distinguished Speaker's Opinions Controversial
Megan Gurganious
Issue date: 11/29/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Manning Marable speak at The Chancellor's Distinguished Speaker Series on November 14, 2006. While many of his points were well-received and true, I believe that other aspects of his speech were a bit controversial.
At the beginning, he discussed affirmative action, making it seem as though it is a bad thing for states to eliminate it. But isn't affirmative action a form of racism, by allowing special grants, contracts, or employment opportunities? Isn't that, in a way, telling minorities that the government and other organizations recognize them as, in fact, a minority? As a minority myself, I don't see colors in people, I see a person as who they are, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Most people just want to be as equal as the next person, whether white, black, or any other color.
Dr. Marable discussed voting in America at great length, stating that it is unfair that some states disenfranchise felons while they are serving time, on probation, and in some cases, for the rest of their lives. We may agree that every American should have the right to vote; after all, the Constitution does dictate that all people over the age of eighteen shall have the right to vote, regardless of race, color, or previous servitude. However, states do have the ability to make and enforce laws within their domain, as some states have obviously chosen to do so. We also know that a felon, say, who is possibly facing the death sentence would vote against anyone who campaigns for capital punishment. Now, capital punishment is a terrible idea to think about, but put into perspective for people dealing with the aftermath of a horrendous crime committed against them, it may not be such an awful thing. Why should we allow prisoners who have committed the crimes to skew the votes in favor of themselves?
One way to help correct Americans from becoming repeat offenders, according to Dr. Marable, is to construct a bridge of learning. This would allow prisoners to receive an education and job training while incarcerated. Let me ask this. Is it fair that, as upstanding students and citizens, we either have to take out thousands of dollars in loans or work two or three jobs in order to pay for our college education, while someone who committed a crime gets their education on the tax dollars that we have to pay? While we haven't done anything of offense, a prisoner is allowed, possibly even required, to get the education and experience that we dream of?
At the beginning, he discussed affirmative action, making it seem as though it is a bad thing for states to eliminate it. But isn't affirmative action a form of racism, by allowing special grants, contracts, or employment opportunities? Isn't that, in a way, telling minorities that the government and other organizations recognize them as, in fact, a minority? As a minority myself, I don't see colors in people, I see a person as who they are, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Most people just want to be as equal as the next person, whether white, black, or any other color.
Dr. Marable discussed voting in America at great length, stating that it is unfair that some states disenfranchise felons while they are serving time, on probation, and in some cases, for the rest of their lives. We may agree that every American should have the right to vote; after all, the Constitution does dictate that all people over the age of eighteen shall have the right to vote, regardless of race, color, or previous servitude. However, states do have the ability to make and enforce laws within their domain, as some states have obviously chosen to do so. We also know that a felon, say, who is possibly facing the death sentence would vote against anyone who campaigns for capital punishment. Now, capital punishment is a terrible idea to think about, but put into perspective for people dealing with the aftermath of a horrendous crime committed against them, it may not be such an awful thing. Why should we allow prisoners who have committed the crimes to skew the votes in favor of themselves?
One way to help correct Americans from becoming repeat offenders, according to Dr. Marable, is to construct a bridge of learning. This would allow prisoners to receive an education and job training while incarcerated. Let me ask this. Is it fair that, as upstanding students and citizens, we either have to take out thousands of dollars in loans or work two or three jobs in order to pay for our college education, while someone who committed a crime gets their education on the tax dollars that we have to pay? While we haven't done anything of offense, a prisoner is allowed, possibly even required, to get the education and experience that we dream of?
Be the first to comment on this story