Causes, the Lottery, and What's Important

Allow me to tell two stories, and then string them together.

Just before Spring Break let out, my English class did an interesting activity. We were given a list of 20 events or causes that were more or less positive depending on personal opinion, and told we had $100,000 to spend on each cause based on how much we valued them. This was assigned as homework, and then we discussed our methodologies in class.

The causes were–

1. An end to hunger worldwide
2. Happy marriage
3. A long life of physical health
4. World peace between the US and all other countries
5. Reverse the effects of global warming
6. Fame 
7. An end to capital punishment
8. A good education
9. The ability choose the President of the United States for the rest of your life
10. An end to racism
11. Enough money that you don't have to work for the rest of your life
12. Outstanding musical/artistic talent
13. A end to abortion
14. Women's rights globally
15. Legalization of gay marriage
16. Outstanding athletic talent
17. Spiritual enlightenment
18. Worldwide democracy
19. Global nuclear disarmament
20. Worldwide access to effective contraception

Personally, I first put zeros for all the causes that I didn't actually want (a worldwide end to abortion, fame, outstanding athletic talent, etc.). I then put zeros for things that would benefit only me (a good education, a happy marriage, outstanding musical/athletic talent, etc.). I then had ten causes left. I picked the two goals that I considered the most difficult to achieve– an end to hunger worldwide, and world peace between the US and all other countries –and gave them $30,000 each. The other causes I gave $5,000 each.

In class we discussed what we picked. Some people chose to focus more personal causes. Some gave more money to the legalize women's rights globally option, thinking that it would solve other problems like an end to abortion, world hunger, and worldwide access to more effective contraception. We also discussed discrepancies between what we picked on this hypothetical list and what we work on in real life. I, obviously, care about my personal problems, which my choices for the assignment did not reflect. I also devote most of my time to the legalization of gay marriage, one of the options to which I gave $5,000.

New story time.

One of my two sisters, my Mom, and my Dad and I were sitting in our hotel room in Orlando over spring break. At the time, the lottery pot which eventually grew to $656 million dollars was a big news story. My family casually discussed how we would use the money– how much of it would go to charity, how much we would invest, what we would buy, what we would save. I personally didn't come up with any exact figures.

My Consumer Education teacher has said that the two rarest commodities are time and money; of those two, time is probably more rare.  I don't have $656 million (and neither does the winner; there were three, and the IRS takes 25%). Nor do I have $100,000 readily available to me. But I do probably have a good 60 years ahead of me. What causes are most important to me? What do I want to spend my life doing?

I've heard back from all ten colleges to which I've applied, both acceptances and denials. I applied to all 10 as a music education major. Now the rather grueling decision process begins. In terms of my major choice, it gives me a rather specific career (though my top choices have five year BA/BM programs where I would double major in an arts and sciences field, the second major would probably be for personal fulfillment and not for a career).

I'm not going to become a doctor and make my career out of helping people get more effective access to contraception. I'm not going to become a lawyer or politician and make my career out of ending capital punishment. My career solves exactly zero problems on this list, but that doesn't mean that these problems aren't important to me. I run a political blog that arguably calls out people who wish promote sexism and racism. I find great enjoyment out of the rare days in Gay-Straight Alliance where I get to educate the club on a topic. I also share a lot of media on Facebook and Tumblr to the end of promoting LGBT rights.  Although I chose hunger and peace as the largest, most difficult, and most important items on the list, they are not the ones I focus on in my daily life.

Why?

On the hunger issue, it's difficult for me to know which charities to throw money at. And in terms of world peace, I don't know how I could improve that without working for the State Department (if my readers think differently, I'd love to hear)...or perhaps a little bit of cause #9! If $30,000 each could fix that problem instantly, as I believe the premise of the activity suggests, of course I would put money towards that. But in real life, it wouldn't.

Plus, in terms of legalization of gay marriage in the United States, our successes are visible. They are legislative, political issues. They make sense. There's no problems with national sovereignty or white savior complexes or corrupt governments of developing countries. Sometimes it doesn't even require money, more of a vote or a signature. And so it's a good field to work in for me because I have visible results achieved through the appropriate political channels. (Of course, it's also an issue of personal importance to me.) But I know many people would say that lives are not at stake in the legalization of gay marriage debate, and so it should be considered less important.

I look at my blog, and I've talked about so many social issues in, particularly, the United States. But I can't work on all of them all the time, or even most of the time. And nobody can. In my opinion, we have to choose a fewer things that we're the most passionate about, because it is when we throw our hearts into our causes that we make the most impact.

What do my readers think? If you're in my class, what causes did you put down? If not, what would you have put? What do you work on in "real life?" Do you agree or disagree with my methodology?

Race and Class in College Admissions

Recently, college applicants all over the country breathed a sigh of relief as November 1st passed, and the nearly-universal Early Decision deadline was behind us.

Now, what does that have to do with this blog?

First of all, many of the people reading this blog are either applying to college or college-educated. Even if they are not, tax dollars still go to fund public universities. Second of all, race is a controversial subject in college admissions.

At many colleges, there is an optional portion where you can identify yourself as belonging to a certain race. Different colleges have different levels of specificity for races. With all other things being equal, it is easier for people of African-American and Hispanic descent to be accepted into college than people of White or Asian descent (although that particular site's graphs do not show it, Native Americans are also noted for race). This is an affirmative action policy that is based on the premise that people of certain races face more obstacles than other races in life, and are therefore given a boost in college admissions to combat any inequality or obstacles that people of other races do not face.

This assumption– regardless of whether or not it is true –has caused a lot of uproar. The state of California passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which said that public colleges could not consider race or ethnicity in their admissions process. There have been recent, failed attempts to overturn this measure. On the flip side, a 2003 Supreme Court court case regarding the University of Michigan Law School, Grutter v. Bollinger, stated that while there should not be quotas for race, race could be considered in college admissions to create a "critical mass" of minority students. The case was brought up by two White students who thought that their race directly contributed to their denial from the university. In essence, Grutter v. Bollinger stated that the University of Michigan was allowed to use affirmative action.

There has also been some talk of affirmative action for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. These students cannot take the SAT or ACT prep courses that other students can, they cannot afford to live in neighborhoods with good schools, they cannot even necessarily afford college. Some colleges The Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University argues that "[i]f we limit working-class students’ access to selective colleges, we also limit their access to the best jobs and to social networks that have significant power in American politics and business." Indeed, it is often said that poverty is a cycle. Those who cannot afford to go to college will often be denied the chance to acquire skills to move up in the world.

Critics of affirmative action might actually accuse it of discriminating against white people. Keep clutching those pearls, because African-American students still make up less than 10% of the population of most of the nation's top schools. Yes, minority students are being given some advantage. But it is completely paranoid and inaccurate to picture White and Asian students as being somehow shut out of elite colleges. Just under 60% of Hispanic students enroll in college right after high school, compared to 92.2% of Asians.

Clearly, there are those who are being under-served. As one Columbia sociology professor put it, "There is a missing revolution in our nation: one in which poor and average Americans can have a fighting chance of acquiring the kind of education and advantages that elite education provides."