fantasy fail.

My team's logo.

My fantasy football team (PMS Barbie) looks like a garbage can.

The names are good, but the performance is not. Historically, I have had a knack for picking under-performing teams in general, and an ever greater knack (at this point, I'll call it a skill) at benching players who then do extremely well. These aren't new. This year, these factors have been compounded by the fact that my starters love getting knocked out of game in the first quarter. Jeremy Maclin and Aaron Hernandez in Week 2. Laurant Robinson in Week 3. (Though, truth be told, I didn't mean to start the last one in the first place.) As one can imagine, those big fat zeros have killed my team.

Last week, my woes were compounded by a poor decision that I made by going with my heart instead of going with my gut. Context: I have been an Eagles fan since birth, but they are looking rather garbage-y this season. Michael Vick is a turnover machine, the O-Line is in shambles, and the defensive secondary is missing Assante Samuel, like, really bad. (Hey Andy, Cut Nnamdi. Thanks.) My backup defense is the Cardinals, and they have been killing it this year. My starting defense, the Steelers, not so much. So last week, the Eagles played the Cardinals. Everything in my gut said "Play the Cardinals!" But my heart - and my dad and every male Eagles fan on my Twitter feed - said "Don't go against your team!" After my dad laid the biggest guilt trip on me ever, I went with my heart... and lost big. Like, huge. Like, Cardinals +22, Steelers -1 huge. (For my non-fantasy football player readers, defenses are never supposed to get 22 points. Ever.)

Even though I still would have lost with those 22 points (I lost by 24), I regret not starting the Cardinals the same way that I regret every time I don't follow my gut. My gut is never wrong! It is how I can look at one apartment for five minutes and rent it and still be satisfied over a year later. It is how I know what subway to take home, and whether or not I should wear rain boots on a cloudy morning. I'm so mad that I let my (irrational) attachment to the Eagles cloud my judgement about whom to start. I'm so mad I didn't pull a 'it's not personal, it's business' and do what I know is right. It'll never happen again... especially not next week when my Eagles play the Giants - totally starting Victor Cruz. Can't wait to see his salsa dance...

(The second thing I learned from this debacle is that guys are unable to make business decisions when sports are involved. They're like emotional babies. Good to know.)

{pic post - nelson mandela}

Loved it so I shared it. Feel free to do the same.

earning a seat v. losing a seat: thoughts on race-conscious college admissions

In October, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to rule on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the latest case to challenge the use of race as a factor in college admissions. Despite the fact that the court ruled in favor of it in 2003 (Grutter v. Bollinger), it is being heard again. And, since the court is more conservative than it was nine years ago, there is a good chance that it will be struck down. And, if affirmative action is ruled unconstitutional in the case of higher education, it goes without question that it will be ruled unconstitutional in the host of other places where it is applied. It'll have the same social domino effect that Title IX or Brown v. Board of Education had.

Obviously, I think this is bad.

Some background: In order to ensure diversity at the University of Texas Austin (the flagship school in the UT system), they enacted a policy where the top 10% of students at any high school in the state would be accepted. This fills up roughly 80% of the incoming freshmen class. The other 20% of applicants are evaluated holistically, meaning their grades, life circumstances, SES, race, etc. are considered in the admissions decision. Abigail Fisher (the plaintiff), whose evaluation was part of this process in 2008, was denied admission. She believes that it was based on race (she is White), and is now suing the university for discrimination. [See here, here, and here for more detail that isn't legalese.] 

Now, I'm not writing to make the case for diversity in higher education and beyond. Those arguments are out there and awesome and obvious. No, I want think through the question of ownership in college admissions. How can someone (in this case, Fisher) so believe that they are entitled to a seat at a prestigious university that they sue the school... then take it all the way to the SCOTUS? Or, as the kids say: Where they do that at?? 

Well, duh, America. In a country built on (and by) perpetuating the myths of the inferiority of people of color, it isn't a surprise that a White person may feel that their rejection from the school of their choice has to do with the university's use of race as a factor for admission. (All of the plaintiffs in such cases - Fisher, Grutter, and Bakke - have been White.) I mean, people of color can't possibly be qualified to get in or anything. We can't possibly have worked hard, aced tests, and did every extra-curricular activity possible to gain admission to the school that you expected to get into. Nope. It's only because we are of color... Yeah, miss me with that. 

The idea that one can 'lose their seat' to another individual at an institution that neither of them attends is ridiculous to me. It implies that the individual believes that the application to college is just a formality, that the seat is their seat by virtue of who they are in comparison to others. The only people who think that are people who don't understand what it is like to have to earn a chance. Their sense of entitlement is strong enough to sue (sue!) for something that was never in their ownership. To sue (sue!) an institution on the claim that the person who was admitted instead of them was somehow under-qualified when they do not even know that person! 

[omg.wtf.gtfoh.take a seat.]

Having researched race and privilege in college and beyond, I understand on an academic level where this mindset comes from. Having lived race and privilege in higher education, I understand how it feels to be doubted. I got the looks at Columbia from people who felt that I took their friends' 'spots' in the class. I still get asked my SAT and GRE scores from people who can't believe that I could possibly have earned my way into Columbia, UPenn, or NYU. I get it. I'm not supposed to be academically successful because of what I look like or where I come from. I'm not supposed to be competitive. I'm not supposed to have a shot. And if I don't think that's fair, well guess what? Life's not fair.

(Ever notice how the people who tend to say 'life's not fair are the ones to whom life has been rather fair? Interesting.)

I really hope the SCOTUS doesn't overlook precedence and strike down the previous rulings about the consideration of race in college admissions. We as a society aren't at a place where race isn't a determining factor in life outcomes. Poor, so-called "failing" schools tend to be over-populated with brown children for structural reasons that are out of their control. To not take such external, nonacademic factors into consideration in admisions is to blame a kid for being born. Education has been proven to be the best vehicle to breaking the cycle of poverty for families and communities. Until the K-12 system is equitable enough to make merit-based decisions, higher education has be the leveling factor. Hopefully the SCOTUS will see that.

... Or they could just make it illegal to have such egregious educational inequalities at the K-12 level so that this becomes a moot point. But we know that will never happen.