The Baltimore Sun | Sunday, July 23, 2023 15
COMMENTARY
Affirmative action needed then, now
By Jonathan David Farley
When I was a graduate student at the University of
Oxford, I met an English mathematician who told me that
he had once visited Harvard, my alma mater. While there,
he came across the files of two members of the hockey
team, who, he said, had received scores of 400 on the SAT
for high school students — the lowest scores possible. (Of
course these students were white, since Black people don’t
play hockey.) I would not have believed it if he had not told
me that this was something he had seen with his own eyes.
His story opened mine.
The opponents of affirmative action know of such
stories, but the only stories that bother them are the ones
involving unqualified Black people. So it is a mistake to
counter them by refuting their logic, since even they don’t
believe what they’re saying. Like the hydra, as soon as we
demolish one argument, they’ll invent another.
For example, if the opponents of affirmative action
really were so concerned with “discrimination,” then why
do affirmative action debates always center around race,
when white women are the primary beneficiaries of the
policy? Why do we never hear conservatives complain-
ing about university admissions policies that promote
geographic diversity? (I even once saw a scholarship for
descendants of Confederate soldiers. Presumably, many
southerners would have no problem with that.)
The most damning proof that conservatives are funda-
mentally dishonest regarding affirmative action is the
policy of legacies: You have a better chance of getting
into many universities if your parents went there. One of
my brothers had a white roommate at the University of
Virginia — founded by enslaver Thomas Jefferson, lest we
forget the original motivation behind affirmative action —
who used to laugh about how low his SAT scores were.
“You know what?” my brother’s roommate used to say.
“They had to let me in, because my father went here, my
grandfather went here, and my great-grandfather went
here.”
Legacies affect more people than affirmative action poli-
cies for African Americans do. But lawsuits challenging
them don’t generate fiery debates.
In fact, although we have all heard stories of “unqual-
ified” Black people getting jobs over “qualified” white
people (which is why the Black unemployment rate is
twice that of white people), I’ll wager that none of us
have heard a complaint about “unqualified” white people
getting jobs over “qualified” white people. But if you do the
math, you’ll see that, since Black people are only 14% of the
population, we can’t be taking away all the jobs.
Before someone files a lawsuit against a university for
“reverse racism,” shouldn’t they check first to see if a white
person with lower test scores has gotten in ahead of them?
By immediately suing over race-based affirmative action
policies, are they conceding that they are the least quali-
fied white person to have applied to a school?
Hogan should drop
dangerous third-party
presidential campaign
By Charles Babington
Former Gov. Larry Hogan and a nonpartisan group he
co-chairs, No Labels, deserve credit. They’ve worked hard
to promote politically moderate ideas in a time of growing
polarization and anger. Hogan, in particular, accomplished
quite a feat: Winning consecutive gubernatorial elections
as a Republican in a deeply blue state. And he was among
the few prominent Republicans to sharply criticize Donald
Trump’s efforts to subvert American democracy and over-
turn a presidential election.
So it’s dismaying to see Hogan and No Labels risk the
good work they’ve done with a reckless push for a third-
party presidential ticket that’s likely to help Trump in
2024. They argue otherwise, but such a candidacy likely
would siphon more votes from President Joe Biden than
from Trump. Given how narrowly Trump won in 2016,
and lost in 2020, that could be enough to tip next year’s
election to him.
For several years I worked off-and-on as a contract
writer for No Labels, and I liked the people there. They
advocated commonsense, collaborative solutions to sticky
problems. I drafted op-eds explaining why, in our divided
and non-parliamentary government, Congress can accom-
plish nothing without two-party cooperation.
Like Hogan, the organization had admirable ideals for
effective government and national healing. Some people
mocked No Labels as naïve. But I readily embraced its
main message: Our checks-and-balances government,
built on compromise, cannot function in a tribalistic soci-
ety.
But now No Labels has veered wildly offtrack, and
Hogan is going along. They innocently say they just want
to give voters an option besides Biden vs. Trump, painting
the two men as equally unacceptable.
They’re not. You may not like Biden, but he restored
government normality and reasserted the importance of
democratic pillars. Trump tried to overturn the 2020 elec-
tion, summoning a violent mob to the Capitol. He called
for negating regulations, “even those found in the Consti-
tution.”
Champions of good government — like Hogan and No
Labels — should work overtime to block a would-be auto-
crat like Trump. Instead they are risking their reputations,
and much of the good they’ve done, on an ill-conceived
escapade.
Hogan remains No Labels’ co-chairman, but other lead-
ers have left in protest. They include co-founder William
Galston, a Brookings scholar who writes: “If a No Labels
ticket receives even a tiny share of the vote in key states,
Mr. Trump could end up back in the Oval Office.”
No Labels says it will back off “if our rigorously gathered
data and polling suggests an independent unity ticket can’t
win.” History shows that, indeed, third-party presidential
candidates cannot win. They can’t even come close. The
last third-party contender to win an electoral vote was
I’ll listen to an opponent of affirmative action when he
tells me that he also opposes the kind of police discrimi-
nation that killed Amadou Diallo, a Black immigrant from
Guinea whom officers mistook for a suspect.
I’ll listen to someone who opposes spending the govern-
ment’s money to assist Black people when he tells me that
he opposed spending government money to discredit,
destabilize and destroy “subversive” organizations like
Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (to the tune of $100 million).
I’ll listen to conservatives who say Black people should
“lift themselves up by their own bootstraps” when they
condemn the bombing and demolition of the Black busi-
ness district — by white people — in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
I graduated summa cum laude with the second-highest
grade-point average in Harvard University’s Class of 1991.
As The Boston Globe reported at the time, the man given
the award for having the highest average was technically a
member of the class of 1990 and white. Was that affirma-
tive action?
The problem with affirmative action is not the concept.
It’s the implementation.
Black people do not need standards lowered. I won
Oxford University’s highest awards for graduate students
in mathematics, the Senior Mathematical Prize and John-
son University Prize. I solved two mathematics problems
that a former chairman of Oxford University’s Mathemat-
ics Department posed in 1976 that had remained unsolved
for 46 years. And still I say that I owe my career to affirma-
tive action: I am a professor at a historically Black college.
Despite having gotten tenure at Vanderbilt University
in Nashville, ranked No. 13 in the country by US News
and World Report, I had to flee Tennessee after getting
love letters like “I hope you are killed in the most violent,
bloody way possible by another worthless jigaboo ni**er!!!
WHITE POWER!!! HEIL HITLER!!!” when I criticized a
statue of a Confederate general.
My credentials were and are meaningless to the racists
who attacked me. I estimate that I am out about $1 million
in lost salary, lost benefits, lost opportunities and lost time.
Harvard University Professor S. Allen Counter told Jet
Magazine in 2004, “Jonathan Farley is one of the world’s
most impressive young mathematicians ... Harvard is
proud to honor his achievements and acknowledge his
fine example.” Danica McKellar, who has over 400,000
Facebook followers and was a star of the hit TV show “The
Wonder Years,” called me “the incomparable, brilliant
Jonathan Farley” in her New York Times bestselling book,
“Hot X: Algebra Exposed.” Seed Magazine called me one
of “15 people who have shaped the global conversation
about science in 2005.”
I still needed — and need — affirmative action.
Jonathan David Farley (latticetheory.net) obtained his
doctorate in mathematics from the University of Oxford and
graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University.
Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, shown in Las Vegas in
November, co-chairs the No Labels organization.
JOHN LOCHER/AP
George Wallace — 55 years ago. Several others have tried,
barely making a dent.
But third-party candidates can surely be spoilers in close
presidential elections. Ralph Nader’s 97,000 Florida votes
in 2000 were fatal to Al Gore. He lost the state by 537 votes,
handing the presidency to George W. Bush.
Polls consistently show Trump’s supporters to be
die-hards who will never abandon him. Biden’s support is
softer. Voters who abhor Trump but feel lukewarm toward
Biden might consider an alternative — say, perhaps, Sen.
Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat and No Labels
leader often floated as its potential nominee.
Another possibility: Hogan, who repeatedly declines to
rule out accepting the third-party nomination himself. As
a Republican, No Labels says, he’d be as likely to siphon
votes from Trump as from Biden. But that’s disingenuous.
To the extent Hogan is known outside Maryland, it’s as a
GOP never-Trumper. Only anti-Trump voters would be
tempted to vote for Hogan — and Biden may need every
one of them.
Americans may not want a Biden-Trump rematch. But
barring a major health incident or astonishing turnabout
in GOP voters’ sentiments, it’s what they’ll get. The No
Labels claim that a third-party ticket can miraculously
overturn history and win the presidency is fantasy. Next
year’s election will offer a binary choice. Anything that
hurts Biden, even a little, will help Trump.
The notion of an unleashed Trump as president —
vowing to jail political rivals and shred the Constitu-
tion — is antithetical to Hogan’s and No Labels’ ideals for
collaborative, effective government.
Hogan’s national profile isn’t huge, but it’s big enough
to let him keep speaking out for political consensus, for
reason over rage. The same goes for No Labels.
Both of them should return to the core values they’ve
championed for years. Crafting bipartisan solutions is
hard, incremental work. It’s also honorable and worth-
while.
Mr. Hogan, please steer No Labels away from this
dangerous and hopeless mission, and get back to doing
good work for good government.
Charles Babington (clbabington@gmail.com) is a Hyattsville
writer who covered politics, Congress and the White House for
The Washington Post and Associated Press.
Legal marijuana
use can still
disqualify you
from federal jobs
By Tiahna Pantovich
While medical marijuana use has been legal in
Maryland since 2013 and recreational possession
became legal July 1, federal laws classify marijuana
(both medical and recreational) as an illegal Sched-
ule I drug.
Because of this, qualified individuals who seek
employment in the federal government, and who
reside and work in jurisdictions where marijuana
use is legal, are prohibited from obtaining certain
positions — even if their cannabis use is medically
prescribed for physical or mental health conditions.
I am proud of my four years of service in the
United States Army, but it left me with PTSD after
serving through a traumatic time at my duty stations.
I had a lonely transition from the service to civil-
ian life, and like many veterans I frequently had rage
and suicidal ideation. Eventually, I found my foot-
ing in academia and veteran advocacy surrounded
by other motivated and intelligent veterans from
around the globe willing to talk about and address
mental health. This journey would not have been
possible without the support of phenomenal mental
health professionals, faithful viblings (veteran
siblings), supportive civilians and a very important
prescription: medical cannabis.
PTSD and other mental health symptoms left
me miserable for a period of time after my military
separation. Seeking help from my Texas Veterans
Affairs (VA) providers, I was prescribed six differ-
ent psychotropic medications, the combination of
which worsened my symptoms.
I had a breakthrough while studying psychology
in Michigan, however: I obtained a medical cannabis
license from a doctor. Cannabis and therapy did for
me what all those pills could not.
My rage disappeared; I felt calmer and more
balanced. I was able to safely wean down from
six medications to one, in addition to the medical
cannabis. Continuing with this therapeutic regimen,
I have been able to earn four college degrees, work
on Capitol Hill with the House Committee on Veter-
ans Affairs and provide therapy for clients coping
with their own anxiety and trauma.
The purpose of this is not for intoxication; it is
used for alleviation of symptoms of a medical condi-
tion. Medical cannabis prescriptions can reduce
symptoms of trauma, anxiety, insomnia and trau-
matic flashbacks. For some, it is a safer and more
effective alternative than psychotropic medications.
According to a recent study of veterans that
compared those who used medical and recreational
cannabis, the medical cannabis users had lower odds
of other drug use, alcohol or drug-related problems,
or alcohol or drug-use disorders. In states where
medical cannabis delivery is legal and available,
homebound veterans suffering from chronic pain
have new life-affirming options to improve quality of
life — including in employment.
Like many other veterans, I wanted to continue
serving my country with a career in federal service.
I was fortunate to be awarded a fellowship with
a federal agency that is located in Maryland and
began the paperwork process. On the screening
form I completed, I responded honestly to a ques-
tion about marijuana use because medical mari-
juana is legal in the state of Maryland, where I
reside and the agency is located.
That honesty came with a heavy cost: I was told
that I could not work at a federal agency because
“substance users” are deemed a high risk to the
country. I was flagged for one year, preventing me
from applying anywhere with the background
check. My use of that prescription has now stopped
me from federally serving my country further.
I was devastated by the thought that I, who served
my country honorably, could now be considered a
risk to the country because cannabis is legal where
I live, but illegal at the same time, despite the fact
that many veterans and civilians alike have medical
cannabis prescriptions.
It is legal in three dozen states, three territo-
ries and the District of Columbia — where the seat
of the federal government is located. I have had a
legal medical cannabis prescription since 2018 and
purchase only at state-regulated dispensaries in
the communities where I have lived. My VA health
care providers (including my psychologist, psychia-
trist and primary care provider) are all aware of my
cannabis prescription. The state of Maryland, where
I live, allows delivery of medical cannabis.
Nothing I do is hidden; nothing is illegal. Yet
legally taking a medication that allows me to be my
best self cost me the opportunity to take up a differ-
ent position with the U.S. government.
The regulations pertaining to cannabis do not
align with the current reality of medical cannabis
use, and these gray areas open the path for stigmati-
zation, discrimination and ostracization. Congress
must remove cannabis from the Prohibited
Restricted Substances list, but in the meantime an
immediate exemption should be issued for medical
cannabis cardholders.
I am the exact type of person — driven, intelligent,
honest and dedicated — the federal government
needs in its workforce. As a Black woman veteran, I
am also the exact type of person the federal govern-
ment wants in its workforce. If the federal govern-
ment wants to build a capable, more inclusive and
diverse workforce, it must change this policy.
Tiahna Pantovich (tiahna@vetsxhbcu.org) is a social
worker and founder of VETSxHBCU, which supports
military-connected communities on the nation’s
Historically Black College and University campuses.