Sparks fly at diminished panel on affirmative action

UA's Libertarian students originally hoped for 12 guest panelists, said Rachel Alexander, one of the event's organizers.

Only four, however, showed up to speak before a sparse audience of 19.

Sparks first flew when three white anti-affirmative action panelists allied against the sole pro-affirmative action panelist, a black man, to argue free market-style competition as an alternative to affirmative action.

"It's three against one," said audience member Dennis Welsh, a sociology senior.

The anti-affirmative action panelists argued that allowing merit-based competition with no government interference is a better way of equalizing imbalances.

Their argument assumes companies will be scrupulous and hire minorities, said law student Charles Starks, the sole pro-affirmative action panelist. He said that has not been the case now or for centuries - discrimination is still alive.

"I live in the real world and in the real world if I were to walk into some high school they would say 'hey, is that the new track coach?'" he said. "They wouldn't believe I'm a third-year law student."

Welsh's ire peaked along with much of the audience's when anti-affirmative action panelist and British-born graduate student Barry Macleod-Cullinine launched into an argument against quota systems for immigrants, and the other two anti-affirmative action panelists dwelled over a philosophical discussion on the virtue of a free market system.

Welsh said Macleod-Cullinine's argument was off topic.

"They are idiots and they're wasting our time - we're here to talk about affirmative action not immigration or free markets," Welsh said.

Starks argued that affirmative action is reparation for a history of abuse, fueling another bout of shouted arguments.

"Why should I pay the price?" said Kirsten Tynan, a panelist and non-degree-seeking graduate student.

Affirmative action is government-sanctioned discrimination, she said.

"It's morally wrong," said second-year law student Erwin Kratz.

Starks argued affirmative action is morally right, wresting back for minorities a chance to realize dreams they were long blocked from reaching.

And if that means a minority student with a slightly lower scores is given priority in gaining entrance to schools or jobs, then so be it - merit should not be the sole criteria, he said.

"How do you judge, simply on merit, when there's not a level playing field at the beginning?" Starks said. "Affirmative action puts us on a level playing field."

Minority students need that leveling, he said, citing the precipitous drop in the number of Hispanic, black and American Indian students at University of California-Berkeley after affirmative action was eliminated in the admissions process.

The debate followed a meeting Tuesday where Libertarian students met with members of the Black Law Students' Association and the Minority Student Law Association to explain why their clubs were included on fliers advertising the debate, though members did not know about the event until the day they were posted.

"We were invited without our knowledge," said Danette Holmes, president of the Black Law Students Association. "I believe it was done inappropriately."

Alexander, also an Arizona Daily Wildcat columnist, said the Libertarian students, who are opposed to affirmative action because of their stance that government regulation should be as limited as possible, invited the groups to share viewpoints.

Both Holmes and Dustin Jones, president of the Minority Law Students' Association, agreed there were no hard feelings.

The Minority Law Students' Association, however, refused to send an official panelist because of the short notice, Jones said.

"We thought we'd be walking into an ambush," he said.