don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Affirmative action is back in the news. The University of Michigan (as proxy for many schools) discriminates by race in order to give some students special consideration. The purpose of the discrimination is to ensure that classes have a "critical mass" of minority students. This has brought the University's policies to the US Supreme Court. In arguments last week, the University's lawyers insisted the school's undergraduate and law schools should be able to consider race as one of several criteria for student admissions. Currently, undergraduate African-American, Latino or Native American applicants receive an automatic 20-point bonus on the school's 150-point "selection index." One big problem is that most law and other schools receive federal aid -- and federal law forbids racial discrimination by institutions that receive federal money.

The solution, it seems to me, is for the University of Michigan and other schools that want to discriminate, for what it views as laudable social goals at odds with the Constitution, to do so at its own expense, that is, not to take federal funds.

I agree with the Libertarian position as expressed by Geoffrey Neale, the Libertarian Party national chair: "If the University of Michigan insists on keeping its race-based policy, it should forgo federal money. Most Americans find racial discrimination repugnant -- and that's exactly why they shouldn't have to subsidize it." Just so.

The University of Michigan could use voluntary contributions, rather than tax money, to fund colleges that employ racial favoritism. A great problem with all state-sponsored quota systems intended to help minorities is the unfortunate fact that they promote racial divisiveness. This hurts everyone, particularly minorities, and does the nation no favors, either.

How do you feel about affirmative action programs? As currently structured, my sense is that such programs are not just discriminatory, divisive and probably unconstitutional. I find the term "affirmative action" an affront to the English language. It does not "affirm" so much as it denies, namely, equal opportunity, which is what the Civil Rights Movement was supposed to be about. However, I DO favor a version of affirmative action that would encourage people to choose healthy lifestyles -- and not have the kind of negative, divisive problems seen in the University of Michigan's discriminatory policy.

The nature of my idea is to drop all bias in affirmative action related to race, gender, ethnic group, country of origin or any other basis for victimhood, and substitute a preference system related solely to lifestyle patterns! That's right, I propose we treat everybody equally except a special class of people who are historic victims of a special kind of past discrimination and disadvantage, a group who have not enjoyed a level playing field. The people I have in mind deserve preferences, a quota system, a boost, a leg up, a handicap and a head start -- even with federal funds.

I refer to smokers, sedentary people and others who have terrible lifestyle habits. The opposite of wellness I call "worseness." I favor an affirmative action program for those with worseness lifestyles, in order to support them in getting started with a self-management alternative way of life.

It's in OUR best interest to give these folks special treatment. Think about it -- their lifestyles cost taxpayers a fortune in avoidable medical costs. Also, business and industry pay extra charges through lost productivity. A recent study revealed that one percent of the population incurs thirty percent of all medical care expense! Furthermore, those with worseness lifestyles suffer diminished lives owing to unnecessary illness and pain, lost opportunities for vigor and life satisfaction and, of course, they die prematurely. Isn't it high time we gave these people a break? After all, to quote an apologist for an English king, it takes character to withstand the rigors of indolence.

What kind of special treatment do I advocate? Preferential hiring? Quotas to insure their representation in health clubs commensurate with their presence in the general population? Head starts at triathlons and road races so they have an equal chance of winning against the lean, healthy and fit types who dominate these endurance sports? Well, yes, that's the idea. What's wrong with favoring those who have been historically disadvantaged?

I say let's have all kinds of affirmative action programs for the unfit, the sedentary, the helpless, the hopeless, the abusers of drugs/tobacco/alcohol and others who otherwise practice innumerable forms of worseness.

What do you think? I think you should think about this option while trying to look on the bright side of life, which is not easy sometimes.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MEANING DOMAIN under the skill area of humor. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell