Notion of ‘white privilege’ skews political debates

In light of ongoing debates in our country over illegal immigration and affirmative action, I’d like to highlight a commonly held theory that hinders progress on these issues. This idea, known as “”white privilege,”” suggests that the superiority of whites bestows to them unspoken economic, social and personal advantages over minorities.

However, the concept of white privilege is just another manifestation of social construction. It is an illogical attempt to show causality by connecting unrelated facts. Proponents of white privilege make observations about society and then incorrectly use race to explain them. But, in reality, the true underlying causes could be any number of factors.

Recently, I’ve encountered some confusing rhetoric in support of white privilege suggesting, for the most part, that whites are in complete denial. Supporters claim that an important step in establishing racial equality is for whites to admit that their so-called “”privileges”” exist.

But, how can I validate an idea that is fundamentally flawed? By doing so, I would be buying into the notion that minorities really are inferior to whites. And that contradicts every bit of virtue and morality ever instilled in my mind. But more importantly, I would be legitimizing discrimination based on skin color, which would make me nothing more than a hypocrite and a racist. How, then, would I be any different from a member of the KKK?

White privilege is a racist idea. And I reject any line of thought that stinks of racial undercurrents! Humanity cannot solve the truly important social dilemmas we face until people of all backgrounds stop judging each other on superficial characteristics. Racism is a two way street, but both directions still lead to the same places: resentment, anger and jealousy. It must stop!

Adam Burkhart chemical engineering senior

STRIVE Act not a solution

The Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act was presented as a bipartisan house legislation as a solution for immigration. However, it is not a win-win solution.

For example, if a mother, who is illegal and has been in the U.S. for many years, has children, who are U.S. citizens, do we deport her? It would create a problem for social systems and family and vice versa with the father. It would ruin the financial structure if the father was the sole provider and it would break up families.

There are 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and only two percent are prosecuted, so we do not have enough manpower to control them. There needs to be someone who can come up with a possible solution to stop this illegal immigration.

Only one possible solution would be to have Mexico boost their economy. It would give the Mexican people an incentive to stay in their country, freedom to promote their business and most importantly, provide them with jobs. This will then be a solution to stop the illegal immigration.

Another aspect of the STRIVE Act would enter all immigrants into a computer database system to see if they are qualified to work and later it would be incorporated into the entire U.S. workforce. According to my great-grandfather, “”one day there will be a computer chip that will be installed into your body that will determine who will be terminated or not.”” We would be just as bad as Stalin or any other dictator. Are we going to be harming democracy by restricting immigrants to come in? Fact or fiction?

Pharah Morgan sophomore majoring in biochemistry and molecular biophysics

Red tape could have barred D.C. violinist

Aaron Beyerlein’s letter (“”Violin prodigy needs lessons in ‘busking'””) draws attention to a very interesting side note in the whole D.C. Metro debacle. In fact, Mr. Bell did want to perform inside of a Metro station, on one of the platforms that Mr. Beyerlein described. However, the process was anything but easy.

The Metro is run by the Washington, D.C., city government, and thus would have to clear certain government regulations. Mr. Bell was told that busking would be a violation of the Metro’s rules, to which Mr. Bell replied that this was exactly the reason he was asking their permission to allow him to play for a mere 45 minutes. The official said that he would have to check with other, presumably higher-ranking officials.

Eight days later, the answer came back: no way. In fact, busking in the Metro was technically against the law; thus, if Mr. Bell played in the Metro, he would be arrested by the city police, and the Metro would do nothing to stop it.

Desperately looking for alternatives and running out of time, Mr. Bell eventually found the L’Enfant Plaza station, which was not part of the Metro system, but privately owned by JBG Companies. The senior property manager, Amanda Kearney, was given the proposal, read it over and said, “”Sure.”” Approval took little over a minute. Don’t you love government bureaucracy?

Evan Lisull freshman majoring in political science and economics