I’m not editing this, as it was already edited, and capitalization on ethnicities were wildly different in 1998. This is my first published piece, the one I swore I’d never share, but it’s actually not as bad as I feared. This is how I got into journalism, and while I don’t agree with all of it now, it’s pretty fucking clear I wasn’t bad at this to start.

Turning the Tables of Discrimination

by Peter Hahnloser

Contributing Writer

The Daily of the University of Washington

April 14, 1998

I’m proud of my heritage. This is a good thing, right? I mean, considering that whenever television news reporters cover minority rallies, we invariably hear from the leader of the rally, “We’re here because we’re proud of our heritage, and we want to encourage our fellow (insert race here) people to stop putting up with being treated differently because of their race.” And then the reporter on the scene mentions how he’s glad that people are gathering like this to show unity. Television programs like to stick to this format to make sure they appear to appreciate people of different races.

So then, what’s wrong with my being proud of my heritage? I’m white. I mean really, really white. I don’t even tan. Consider dead people: I’m pale by comparison, that’s how white I am. Here’s the problem: The fact that I’m proud to be who I am makes me inherently racist in the eyes of many. If I were black, I’d be cheered for giving the system the finger by being proud of my heritage. Since I’m white, the NAACP (once they read this) will ask that all blacks cease associating with me.

While I’m still warming up, I’ll mention that from this point on, I won’t be using any politically correct terms. This means “African Americans” will be “blacks” and “Asian Americans” will be “asians” – and of course, “Persons of varying Hispanic Heritage” will be “hispanics.”

Think this is a racist language to use? When’s the last time you heard a white person referred to as “European American”? Answer: you haven’t, and it isn’t hard to understand why not.

Think about it for a moment: A European American would be someone who is simultaneously from America and Europe. I can’t imagine this as being the correct term even for someone who was conceived while his parents were in France on their honeymoon, then was born in California. Any compound phrase consisting of two continents is equally invalid.

A few days ago, I made the mistake of referring to asians as “asians” when talking to a Chinese friend of mine. She immediately got on my case for “grouping all asians into the same category.” Well, how do people refer to whites? Usually, it’s “white” – or for the more sophisticated, “caucasian.” This terminology is equally guilty of grouping all whites into one category.

Then there is the heinous beast that is the means of referring to hispanics. Having just been admitted into the UW a year ago, fresh in my memory is the “ethnicity” box on the college applications I filled out. The list of options an all of these applications was almost the same: white, black, asian, and then at least four dozen sub-categories for hispanics. Why is this necessary? Do blacks specify “Black – Zimbabwe?” Should we include a “White – Ohio” check box? Or a “Black – Ohio” box?

I can’t get over the irony of the fact that we live in a time in which society is supposedly pushing for the erasure of race in people’s minds, and yet new sub-categories of race are appearing almost daily. How can unity possibly stem from further separation by classification?

After I filled out the 10-page application (eight pages of which were racial checkboxes) to get into the UW, I joined the masses of other freshmen admitted for Autumn 1997. I remember the omnipresent statement of non-discrimination – followed by a strict policy of Affirmative Action.

This, of course, is another contradiction. The university seeks to have an ethnic breakdown which is identical to the ethnic breakdown of Washington state. But using the UW’s own formula, the most underrepresented race at the UW is “White/Caucasian.”

Essentially, those wily folks in Admissions are breaking their own “strict policy,” but since they’re only discriminating against whites, it’s OK.

The explanations for why this is acceptable are numerous, and usually involve the history of the United States – specifically, slave trading or something about blacks having to sit in the backs of busses in the 1950s. I do not endorse the decisions made by “my forefathers” to these ends, but at the same time, I’d argue that the past is the past and that I haven’t personally owned black slaves (or slaves of any race, for that matter), nor have I sent anyone to the back of any bus.

The UW administration says it wants an ethnically diverse campus. Yet in just three quarters, I’ve discovered that segregation on campus is the norm. The average walk from Haggett to Schmitz Hall will take one past groups of blacks, groups of asians, and groups of whites, all happily talking exclusively to people of the same race.

So how is our ethnically diverse campus helping students understand the cultures of people of different ethnicity? Simply putting people of various ethnicities onto a campus does not mean they will interact, and looking around campus, it appears it doesn’t happen at all. “Well, you’re not as qualified as our hispanic, black, or asian applicants, but since we need another white to have similar demographics to the greater Seattle area, we hereby offer you this job.”

No, I’ve never heard that sentence before, but if I ever do, my response will be a gesture involving my middle finger and a simple “Go fuck yourself.”

This is Affirmative Action (AA). Never mind qualifications – “We need another hispanic.” Who cares about education – “We need another black.” Forget experience – “We’re looking for asians.”

These are ludicrous excuses used by companies and universities across the country because it makes them look accepting and progressive.

Plenty of people would argue with me to the bitter end that AA does not mean quotas. The argument is usually that it encourages companies and universities to hire (or accept) anyone but white males. Alright, I’ll accept that, tentatively. Consider then, that some sort of standard must be introduced in order to decide just how many people who aren’t white males need to be employed, since few companies or universities would plan to phase out white males completely.

Let me rephrase that: quotas.

I’d be insulted to be hired for or accepted by any organization solely on the basis of my ethnicity. Ignoring my strengths and abilities would be patently offensive. I fail to understand how anyone could support laws that force this way of thinking upon society.

Let’s bring the NAACP into this again. When California recently outlawed AA, a representative from the NAACP gave a press conference in which he encouraged blacks to boycott universities without AA. Why? Because these universities would only accept blacks to support their athletic departments. This way, blacks could defeat the nefarious schemes of the whites who want their schools to have impressive football teams.

Being a spokesman, the NAACP representative worded this so it sounded noble, but even if it were, how does this help the greater goal of equality and understanding? All this does is bring us back to the same old story of blacks vs. whites.

What’s wrong with using academic merit as the only consideration in college admissions? Unfair to minorities? No. It is unfair to people who could not access a good educational system for secondary education. It is unfair to people whose lives at home made studying impossible. Economic considerations need to be made, but not racial considerations. Whites from the inner city are similar to everyone else from the inner city, and blacks from the suburbs are similar to everyone else from the suburbs.

The perception of equality cannot be achieved by AA. If anything, it further endorses discrimination, albeit in a sense different from the historical one. But hey, why not discriminate against the white babies born today? Just look at what their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents did.