King of the Hill was a show I would tend to avoid because after all, what was so entertaining about watching the dry humor of a working-class Texas family?
Two weeks later, and I think I’m hooked.
While the humor may be a bit dry, I like how this animated show addresses some of the real-world issues that many of us face in a way that can give anyone a chuckle here or there. Such is the case with a recent episode that brushed on the topic of affirmative action.
The episode begins with a young Asian girl (”Connie -also neighbor of Hank Hill–main character) has just received a letter stating that she was denied entry into a prestigious summer school program. In an attempt to plead her case, her father goes to the school to demand for an explanation. The administrator responds by telling this father that while Connie is a very smart “Asian” girl, the school already has a boat-load of them. She then says “She’s not Black, not Hispanic or even White. I mean good Lord, gimmie a White kid from a public school with Connie’s specs and that kid could waltz in here.” The father responds “You telling me that Connie didn’t get in because she is an over-achieving Asian?” The administrator acknowledges his conclusion by shrugging her shoulders. Thinking that she is helping this Asian family, the administrator asks if anything was left off of the application like “has Connie ever had to play that violin of hers on the street, you know to buy her strung-out mother just one more hit?” The father responds by saying “no”. The administrator says “Well, that coulda helped.”
Skipping to the conclusion of this episode, Connie finds herself in the office of yet another school administrator who is about to reject her late application into the program. It wasn’t until Connie mentioned some of the drama that took place during the episode (Parents lost their employment, home entering into pre-foreclosure, father abandoned family for a while and he was nearly killed by a 2×4) that the administrator had a change of heart about her application by saying “ummp, you have overcome so much….WELCOME ABOARD!”
What isn’t funny about this episode is that this type of inequality towards Asians in our educational system does exist. While it may not be protocol for a Black man to speak out against this type of treatment towards the “educated class”, my response that that silliness are two words: “SCREW IT”!
How can I, the product of a generation of people who marched, bled and died for equal treatment look the other way when I see folks of a different race being treated unfairly in a educational system we claim is for everybody?
Like most ethnic groups that have migrated into this country, the Asian community is made up of individuals who left behind poverty, oppression and tyrannical rule for a place where they can experience true freedom. The funny yet sad thing about affirmative action as it relates to education is that while we as Blacks continuously accuse white for being unfair to us throughout the years, we passionately push for and defend a system where they are entrusted to rank individuals based on race.
On the flip side of all of this, many Asians themselves are somewhat split on the whole issue of affirmative action. This could be seen in their voting patterns with California prop. 209 and Michigan prop. 2 where Asians tended to vote in favor of affirmative action. So who am I to defend them?
Apparently, whitey must be doing a good job at ranking us.
Sphere: Related Content
March 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
That you draw such a conclusion about AA suggests you don’t really understand its value or application.
The hard reality is some arbitrary method of selecting winners and losers is inevitable with the distribution of a limited resource. When the music stops playing, someone will not have a chair to sit in. AA is by no means perfect; its application does represent something of a contradiction in general terms.
So, we need to ask ourselves what greater good (if any) is served by AA — whether applied by gender, race, nationality, class, etc.. If the priority for this society is to be democracy, then exclusive programs like the one satirized in King of the Hill represent, at best, contrary forces in our culture. As counterintuitive and impolitic as it appears, the administrator would be correct to guard against ‘too many overachieving Asians’ when she understands our culture is not a strict meritocracy in theory or practice.
I once read an op-ed about education in the U.S. written by a moderately conservative economist. He opined our education system isn’t geared to developing intellectuals and scholarship as it is to accommodate ‘market demands’ and that it does so brilliantly. Within this context, attempting a demographic balance becomes an appropriate priority for school administrations.
March 17th, 2007 at 9:48 am
The hard reality is some arbitrary method of selecting winners and losers is inevitable with the distribution of a limited resource.
Education is hardly a limited resource in this country nether is the opportunity for those who wish to enter business for themselves.
When the music stops playing, someone will not have a chair to sit in.
So get another DJ. Only those who lack self-determination and creativity are generally the ones left “without a chair”.
He opined our education system isn’t geared to developing intellectuals and scholarship as it is to accommodate ‘market demands’ and that it does so brilliantly.
The first part I agree with, however the second, hmmmm.
The current market demand is for home grown mathematicians and scientists. However when you look at the dismal product (our children) our public schools are producing with a budget that towers over countries that produce high achieving students, man, it makes you wonder. What westerners are willing to work for compared to folks from those other countries is a factor as well.
While I do agree that AA in its initial stages was something I feel was needed to jump start what was gained during the civil rights era, I think we have come to a point where we can be compared to a twenty-year old who is still sucking on his mother’s tit. Even Whitney Young (founder of the Urban League) felt that AA was something that should have lasted only a decade. Too bad his board didn’t listen to him.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:26 am
“Education is hardly a limited resource in this country…”
In practical terms, that’s demonstrably false. Robust schools — and by extension, access to their resources — have always been a finite element distinguished by economic class. It’s the white elephant in the room (no pun intended). Otherwise, parents wouldn’t make these mad dashes for voucher programs, ‘open’ school districts, magnet school programs, and other gimmicks.
“So get another DJ.”
Changing the music wouldn’t add more chairs.
I’d agree with you to the point there’s a growing global demand for a labor force highly trained in math and the physical sciences and that, gauging from scores on standardized tests, Americans are coming up short. But economist’s hypothesis posited the social aspects of education outweigh its academic production given our economy, and that our economy is perhaps better served allocating scholastic resources by some honest application of demographics than test scores and grades, both which often tend to be polluted by bias.