At ASU, one can see the often-cited liberal bias of intellectuals in the attitudes of our own theoretical intellectual elite, the Barrett Honors College.
A perusal of bumper stickers on the roof of Structure 1, the area designated for BHC residence hall residents, leads to the conclusion that these stickers can be rated on a scale of "indignantly liberal" to "pretentiously liberal."
While it is not good to generalize, one finds opposition to the party line on affirmative action in many BHC liberals.
The logic used to support this and other manifestations of "limousine liberalism" is unfortunate but not surprising. For many students, there is no inconsistency in rabidly labeling all opponents of liberal dogma on gay marriage and abortion as homophobes and misogynists, but finding pro-choice Republicans agreeable because "they're just fiscal conservatives."
Issues not directly affecting the daily life of the upper-middle class are ignored. Even those investing emotional capital in the common good tend to sprint away from liberalism the minute it results in personal inconvenience.
Individuals show restraint and sacrifice for the common good by tolerating flag-burning and acquittals on technicalities, but not with the burden of a free four-year public university education.
Like opponents of gay rights pointing to sexual molesters as their "evidence," these "victims" point to isolated instances as "proof" they were unjustly denied the opportunity to associate with even bigger egos than their own.
This begs the question, is affirmative action still beneficial to society at large? While affirmative action is an admittedly imperfect system of addressing racial inequality, it serves a variety of functions beyond leveling the economic playing field between the races.
These functions cannot be performed by an alternative. The multiethnic constitution of America is an unavoidable fact. Societal policy must take into account this inherently precarious position. With startling uniformity across the globe, such situations have a tendency toward violent conflict. Look at the United Kingdom to see industrialized nations are not immune.
The United States has avoided such a situation. It easily could have happened on the dawn of affirmative action, simultaneously the height of the black militant movement. The avoidance was in no small part due to the easing of racial tension by progressive reform.
Furthermore, it created a small, but crucial, group of educated minorities to lead their communities. While many liberal critics prefer an income-based system, this could never produce the same key vanguard to serve as specific role models to minority children, providing hope of upward economic mobility as a reward for positive behavior.
This vanguard serves as an insurance policy, a bulwark against intolerance.
These pragmatic considerations fail to take into account that cultural diversity is a worthy end in and of itself. Any institution is enriched by an array of backgrounds; it provides more opinions from which to choose.
Other more arbitrary standards, not to mention cronyism, determine an incoming freshman class or new hires. The principle that the maximum number of different opinions leads to a better decision is neither radical nor un-American.
Any alternate income-based system would dilute minority representation to such a degree, it could never serve the important roles that affirmative action does.
The common good dictates the necessity of affirmative action. While conservative opposition can be rationally stomached, such opposition by educated and supposedly sophisticated liberals is scandalous.
The pseudo-intelligentsia dominating the halls of Center Complex should recall the institutional memory of the progressive movement they supposedly admire, rather than bemoan the idea that they must endure having 98, rather than 100, percent of the advantages of fate.
Joaquin Rios is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at joaquin.rios@asu.edu.
