美国

Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action

作者 美华 215 阅读 0 评论
10月1日、美国【洛杉矶时报】的Opinion L.A.栏目登出硅谷华人协会(SVCA)理事Henry Yang的如下文章,这是今年华人反SCA-5运动以来美国主流媒体首次刊登华人及华人团体的反对SCA-5的文章。特将此好文分享给大家,希望美国华人进一步团结起来,拿自己手中的选票保护自己的利益。

10月1日、美国【洛杉矶时报】的Opinion L.A.栏目登出硅谷华人协会(SVCA)理事Henry Yang的如下文章,这是今年华人反SCA-5运动以来美国主流媒体首次刊登华人及华人团体的反对SCA-5的文章。特将此好文分享给大家,希望美国华人进一步团结起来,拿自己手中的选票保护自己的利益。

---------------------------------------------------------------------

By YUNLEI YANG (Henry Yang)
OCTOBER 1, 2014, 10:08 AM

A recent Field Poll claimed that most registered voters and Asian Americans in California support affirmative action. Based on the poll data, Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of public policy and political science at UC Riverside, indicated that the intense opposition to State Constitutional Amendment 5 (or SCA-5) earlier this year, an attempt to restore affirmative action in California’s public universities, “was primarily concentrated among a small group of Asian American activists, with the more numerous silent majority still supportive of affirmative action.”

As an official with the Silicon Valley Chinese Assn., which was a major force behind SCA-5′s defeat, I find the poll question misleading and Ramakrishnan’s reasoning deeply flawed.

The original text of the poll question, written by a group Ramakrishnan directs, was, “Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better jobs and education?” Who would not answer “yes” to such a noble goal? But, as noted in the
New York Times, responses to affirmative action polls differ widely based on question wording. In amore relevant poll conducted by Gallup, 67% of respondents rejected the consideration of race in college admissions.

One major flaw of Ramakrishnan’s question is that it mixed several topics. The anti-SCA-5 movement exclusively focused on racial preference and discrimination in college admissions, which SCA-5 would have reintroduced. In contrast, the Field Poll included employment, where the situation is vastly different from college admission and where Asian Americans often face discrimination and are underrepresented, especially in management and executive levels. In addition, the poll mentioned gender, which was not an issue in the anti-SCA-5 movement.

Another big question is whether Asian Americans are, for polling purposes, regarded as “minorities.” It is an indisputable fact that Asian Americans are hurt most by race-based affirmative action in college admissions, and yet the question implies that Asians are beneficiaries by using the words “other minorities.” This possibly confused poll respondents and affected the results.

Last, but not least, it’s highly questionable that affirmative action helps blacks and other minorities, which the poll takes as given. There is a famous book written by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and journalist Stuart Taylor, and the title says it all: “Mismatch: How Affirmative
Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.”

Given all this, a more accurate poll question would be: “Do you favor or oppose race-based affirmative action programs with the intention to help blacks and some other minorities (excluding Asians) to get better education, at the expenses of whites and particularly Asians, who
have been historically discriminated against? (Please note that according to some studies, these affirmative action programs may actually hurt students they are intended to help.)”

I would be very interested to know the result.

My grass-roots organization gained firsthand knowledge of Asian Americans’ stance on this issue when we united with other organizations to defeat SCA-5 in March. Within a few weeks, our online petition at change.org collected more than 100,000 signatures, most of which came from Californians of all ethnicities but particularly from Asian Americans. Thousands of phone calls and letters flooded state lawmakers’ offices. We launched an online donation call for a then little-known anti-SCA-5 state Senate candidate named Peter Kuo, and in four days donations from Asian Americans across the country totaled more than $60,000.

To be clear, my group supports affirmative action in college admission that benefits socioeconomically disadvantaged students of all races. This practice has been implemented in California’s universities since the passage of Proposition 209. And it actually works: With Proposition 209 in effect since 1996, African Americans and Latinos now account for a greater share of the University of California system’s overall admissions than when affirmative action was being practiced. In fact, Latinos’ numbers now exceed whites’ in UC freshman enrollment.

Race-based affirmative action is a complex and emotional issue. It requires a calm, objective and honest discussion. Biased or misleading polls and reports only serve to needlessly drive wedges between different racial and ethnic communities.

Yunlei Yang is a committee member of the Silicon Valley Chinese Assn.

-------------------------------------------------

【美国华人】 (ChineseAmerican.org) 是一个立场中立、传播美国华人正能量的互联网新媒体。其宗旨是:美国华人团结一心、关心政治、共同进步。


关注我们,请点击本文顶部蓝色【美国华人】微信名。或在微信“查找公众号”,搜索“美国华人”,或微信号:ChineseAmericans,再加关注。


浏览文中链接详细内容,请点击底部“阅读原文”。

评论

加入讨论

请登录后发表评论

还没有评论

登录成为第一个评论的人。

Related Posts

U.S.

川普政府大规模明尼苏达移民行动后ICE探员首次被起诉:执勤时拔枪指人,被控二级袭击罪

明尼阿波利斯检察官周四宣布,美国移民和海关执法局(ICE)探员格雷戈里·唐内尔·摩根(Gregory Donnell Morgan, Jr)因2月5日在明尼苏达州高速公路上执勤时,涉嫌将枪指向一辆汽车内的两名驾乘人员,被控两项二级袭击罪。这是美国总统川普政府在明尼苏达州为期10周的“Metro Surge行动”移民镇压中,首次有联邦特工因此类行为被刑事起诉。检方表示,摩根的行为超出了联邦探员的职权范围,并强调在明尼苏达州,联邦探员违法行为不受绝对豁免。目前已对摩根发出全国逮捕令,他面临最高七年监禁的刑罚。

2026年4月17日
U.S.

谁把五角大楼的祈祷会,变成了《低俗小说》彩排现场?

五角大楼最近上演了一出“大戏”:一位国防部官员在祈祷会上深情朗诵,结果被眼尖的网友发现,这“圣经金句”怎么听着那么耳熟?原来,他引用的不是《圣经》,而是昆汀·塔伦蒂诺经典电影《低俗小说》里的台词!从庄严肃穆的祈祷到电影桥段“神还原”,这波操作简直让吃瓜群众笑到头掉。这究竟是无心之失,还是高级讽刺?反正,网友们已经搬好小板凳,准备看后续了。

2026年4月16日
U.S.

美国防长就伊朗战争召开记者会 川普总统称以黎谈判在即 强调冲突“接近结束”

美国国防部长彼得·赫格塞斯和参谋长联席会议主席丹·凯恩将军于周四就伊朗战争举行了新闻发布会。此次会议正值美国总统川普于2月下旬启动“史诗之怒行动”之后,以及众议院民主党人提出针对赫格塞斯部长弹劾条款之际。川普总统周三晚间在社交媒体上表示,以色列和黎巴嫩领导人定于周四进行对话,并称这场冲突“非常接近结束”。与此同时,美国已对伊朗港口实施封锁,以确保霍尔木兹海峡的畅通,但伊朗与美国和以色列在海上交通问题上持续施压,且伊朗核项目仍存在重大分歧,使局势复杂化。

2026年4月16日