Affirmative action debate comes to Penn

PennForum sponsored a debate on the perpetually hot topic of affirmative action before a crowd of 40 students in Vance Hall on Monday night. A panel of two anti-affirmative action speakers and two pro-affirmative action speakers volleyed points back and forth about the legal and societal issues of this volatile subject. Penn State Professor Richard Orondenker and Georgetown Professor Larry Stratton, both Philadelphia residents who are well-known in the cause, argued against affirmative action. Orondenker, the president of the Philadelphia Association of Scholars, opened his argument by stating: "The only diversity that really matters is the diversity of thoughts and ideas." He stressed that all citizens are equal before the law, and that he does not support any act that gives a certain group special privileges. Stratton, a lawyer and 1985 Wharton graduate, spoke against the "destruction of equality before the law" that affirmative action creates. He stated that a person's race and gender should not have any influence on how they are treated by the law. Stratton introduced the 1996 California decision on Proposition 209 -- outlawing the dispersion of disadvantages or advantages based on minority status -- in his opening statement. This act became one of the most fiercely debated points of the night during the ensuing rebuttal period. After the two anti-affirmative action speakers concluded their remarks, the pro-affirmative action panelists spoke adamantly against their opponents. Larry Frankel, executive director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, stressed the importance of past injustices that now makes equality before the law impossible. American society, he explained, needs "flexible goals and timetables for minorities and females in education and the workplace" that affirmative action provides. Frankel also pointed out that the legal profession in Philadelphia has benefited immensely from the addition of minority lawyers. The last panelist of the night was Vinay Harpalani, a fourth-year graduate student in the Graduate School of Education and a Daily Pennsylvanian columnist. He gave a lengthy speech about how "race enhances merit." Harpalani stated that the lower rate of teen pregnancy in Philadelphia is directly attributed to the greater number of minority doctors in the area. He also mentioned that minorities are more likely to work in underprivileged communities. The rebuttals focused on Proposition 209. Stratton stated that even though California has a substantial minority population, the residents still passed the law. Frankel responded that the Californians who approved Proposition 209 are trying to preserve the "white man's privilege." Penn students had a number of questions that demonstrated their strong convictions about affirmative action. Many students challenged the opponents of affirmative action. They criticized them on their lack of data and their theoretical approach to an issue that is imbedded in society and not just the law. One student asked why income could not replace race as the foundation of affirmative action, but the panelists skirted the issue -- to the frustration of students in attendance. "I was frustrated that a student raised a question about a socio-economic issue and the speakers didn't address it more," College sophomore Julia Blank said. Students had a mixed reaction to the debate. "It [the debate] didn't bring up any new points," College junior Anthony Coombs said. "For all intensive purposes, it was pointless. I was discouraged that there were no women on the panel."