美国

Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action

作者 美华 411 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250美钞,你想拥有一枚吗?

钞票面额从未有过,脸又是法律禁印的——川普政府仍在认真推进印一张250美元的川普纸币。这只是冰山一角:百元钞已印上他的签名,金币、护照、国家公园年票换上他的头像,肯尼迪中心、和平研究所、棕榈滩机场被冠以他的名字,连战列舰都叫"川普级"。一张脸正盖满整个国家的公家物件,全打着建国250周年的旗号。

2026年5月29日
U.S.

"反武器化"之名,行武器化之实

司法部对两度胜诉川普的82岁专栏作家E. Jean Carroll启动伪证调查,是川普第二任期报复政敌的最新一例。Comey、Letitia James、Bolton、Powell等接连被查被诉,至今无一定罪。讽刺的是,两周前他刚用撤诉换来的17.76亿纳税人公款设立"反武器化基金",补偿"被武器化伤害"的人。"反武器化",成了武器化的另一块招牌。

2026年5月29日
U.S.

川普撤销对国税局100亿美元诉讼,司法部设立17.76亿美元“基金”——参议员沃伦称其“腐败程度令人发指”

美国司法部5月18日宣布设立一个总额17.76亿美元的“反武器化基金”,与总统川普撤销对国税局100亿美元诉讼相关联。该基金旨在赔偿自称在拜登政府时期遭联邦政府“武器化”对待的人士,但批评者指其实际可能用于补偿2021年1月6日国会大厦袭击案被告及川普政治盟友。前国务卿希拉里·克林顿斥其为“秘密基金”,参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦称其“腐败程度令人发指”。基金由一个五人委员会管理,其中四名成员由司法部长、川普前辩护律师托德·布兰奇任命,且无需国会批准即可从财政部判决基金中支取款项,引发权力分立和公共资金滥用的广泛争议。

2026年5月19日
广告
970x250
广告
320x50