美国

Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action

作者 美华 100 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.

弗吉尼亚大学发生枪击事件,FBI调查为恐怖袭击,枪手曾支持ISIS

弗吉尼亚州诺福克的Old Dominion University(ODU)于周四发生一起枪击事件,造成一人死亡,两人受伤。枪手被确认为Mohamed Jalloh,一名曾因支持伊斯兰国(ISIS)而认罪的前陆军国民警卫队成员。FBI已将此事件定性为“恐怖行为”进行调查。枪手在开枪前高喊“Allahu Akbar”,最终在大学ROTC教室被勇敢的学生制服并击毙。遇难者为ROTC教官Brandon Shah少校。

2026年3月13日
U.S.

密歇根州犹太教堂遭卡车冲撞袭击,嫌疑人死亡FBI介入调查

周四下午,密歇根州西布卢姆菲尔德的Temple Israel犹太教堂发生一起卡车冲撞袭击事件。袭击者驾驶卡车冲入教堂,撞倒一名安保人员后,在车内被发现死亡。FBI已接管调查,并定性为“针对犹太社区的蓄意暴力行为”。事件发生时,教堂内的140名儿童和教职员工均安全。该事件引发了州长和前总统的谴责,并导致各地犹太社区加强安保。

2026年3月13日
U.S.

国际能源署与美国联合释放4亿桶石油储备,但仍未能改变油价不断攀升

国际能源署(IEA)周三宣布将释放4亿桶石油储备,创下历史最大规模。美国能源部长克里斯·赖特同日表示,美国将从战略石油储备中释放1.72亿桶石油。此次联合行动旨在通过增加全球石油供应,应对因美伊战争导致霍尔木兹海峡关闭而引发的供应冲击,并降低飙升的油价。石油释放计划将于下周开始,预计持续120天。此前,全球油价因担忧海峡长期堵塞而一度飙升至近120美元/桶。

2026年3月12日