Group vs

Initiative "All men are created equal," our Founding Fathers penned in a declaration of their independence. It was the Age of Enlightenment -- an age in which the individual was prized, his initiative praised. In the centuries that followed, Americans inherited the challenge of fully realizing the meaning of equality in our society. Today, however, we are in danger of erasing certain advances we have made. Last Friday, the National Italian American Foundation gathered to discuss, among other issues, the underrepresentation of Italian Americans at Penn. Keynote Speaker Kenneth Ciongoli provided a breakdown of the University's current admissions procedure: allowing for affirmative action, legacy and athletic quotas, Italian American students compete for less than 50 percent of class placement. "But we are different than other ethnic groups," Ciongoli insisted, "because we aren't against the establishment. We just want a chance to compete on a fair playing-field." Admitting that Italian Americans no longer suffer from direct discrimination, he emphasized that prejudices of the past adversely affect the group's current admissions figures. This pattern of thought follows directly from the affirmative action logic. Past discrimination requires present reparation. However, unlike African Americans, Italian Americans obviously came to the U.S. and remained here on their own will. And, bluntly stated, what immigrant group hasn't suffered from discrimination? The words of the Founding Fathers were certainly prized in spirit, yet very much overlooked in practice. Given the precedent set by affirmative action, I certainly do not fault the NiAF for adopting such an approach. Groups, and the individuals that comprise them, function to serve their own best interest. If you have connections that will help you get into a university, you use them. Likewise, if you feel that you can jump on the affirmative action bandwagon, you do so. Certainly Italian Americans, as well as all other immigrant groups, have been the object of discriminatory practices in the past. But this approach has a very high price -- a price for the more adversely affected groups and for society as a whole. Affirmative action makes it impossible to overlook one's race, ethnicity, or gender. Instead, it calls attention to these factors, factors that should be of decreasing significance in today's world. The nation becomes carved up into a myriad of separate groups, each group suspicious of the claims of the others. I have never thought of Italian Americans as a separate group at Penn -- the appeal to past discrimination threatens to foster such an attitude. Recently, I was reading through some law school materials, and I came across general standards for admission to UCLA Law: "About 60 percent of the entering class of 1991 was admitted largely on the basis of academic ability. For that group the approximate average LSAT was a 44 [97th percentile], with an approximate average GPA of 3.68. However, a substantial portion of the class, about 40 percent was admitted not only on academic ability, but on other factors as well, which the Admissions Committee believed would add a diverse and interesting element to the class . . . For this group of admitted students, the average LSAT was a 38 [82nd pecentile] with an average GPA of 3.24." "Oh terrific! If I were a minority I could get into this school," I caught myself thinking initially. And no, I was not pleased with such a reaction. The second response that flooded my mind was even more telling. UCLA's entering class of 1991 was only composed of 36 percent women. I quickly scanned the page -- Did the school give any preference to females? Should we increase our reliance on affirmative action policies to right past wrongs, we will surely do greater damage to race, ethnic and gender relations. The University may chose to establish a recipe for its student body, but it would only result in a tossed salad, not a melting pot. Today, equality is very much about line drawing -- and everyone wishes to cut out their own sphere. Perhaps we would do better to return to the ideals of the Enlightenment period. As a society, we should begin renewing an appreciation of individual initiative and reverse the heightened awareness of group characteristics. At some point in all the line drawing, individuals must take responsibility for their own behavior. Eventually, they must find ways of raising the standards of their group and stop asking the admissions officers to do their work for them. Elinor Nathanson is a senior Communications major from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Just In The Nick Of Time appears alternate Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.