I've noticed a really interesting pattern in discussions about experience, and can't help but see parallels to discussions about affirmative action and college admissions.
As we all know affirmative action policies have benefited white women the most in our society. This is a great advance, but one that continues to leave others behind.
In admissions debates, I often hear people say that so many students of color (read: Black, Latino, Pacific Islanders, and low income Southeast Asian Americans) just don't have the "merit" or they haven't got the level of "achievement" (read: experience) to get into 4-year colleges and universities. As someone who has fought for years for affirmative action policies and assist in teaching a course on college access and pathways at UCLA, I always ask students and others to consider and define, "What is merit?" Is merit or in this case experience so easily defined by years, standardized scores, or awards? Our current president could never even hold a candle to the merits and experiences of our Democratic candidates. Yet people still voted for him... TWICE!
Personally I don’t think Hillary could ever experience many of the things that Barack has as a Black man, growing up in a single-mom home, growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. I often argue that "experience," "achievement," and "merit" should be defined in ways that challenge white supremacist, classist, sexist, traditional frameworks of who is deserving. As more and more colleges and universities are challenged to strengthen their academic core by promoting diversity in enrollment, curriculum, and practices, many like the University of California are broadening their definition of “merit” by including Persistence and Perseverance in how they decide who deserves to be considered. Education researchers know that one of the best predictors of success in school and in life is one’s ability to overcome life’s adversities.
When I read college applications, I once compared a student from Beverly Hills High School with a 4.3 GPA, 10 extra-curriculars, no job, and participation in expensive summer enrichment programs; to a student from the Central Valley with a 3.8 GPA, attending a high school with hardly any AP courses, working 30 hours a week to save for college, no extra-curriculars, and has bounced around to 5 homes as a foster child in 4 years after being abused by her alcoholic father... and she was still successful despite all the odds. It's hard to say who is more deserving. Who has more "experience"? Who is more prepared with the appropriate set of experiences to go forward and lead?
I am by no means saying that Barack is the foster child here, and Hillary is from Beverly Hills. I am, however, trying to challenge people to think about what they consider valid experience as they go to the polls. Perhaps the question of who has the most experience is one that is set up on false premises and values that always bias and privilege some over others.
Ultimately, both Barack and Hillary have "experience" and both sets of experiences are different and should be considered equally valid. The question for each of us as voters is: Which set of experiences is more important to you as you approach your voting booths?
