美国

Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action

作者 美华 557 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.

美国参议员林赛·格雷厄姆因突发疾病去世 终年71岁

美国参议员林赛·格雷厄姆于7月11日晚间因“短暂突发疾病”去世,终年71岁。格雷厄姆是来自南卡罗来纳州的资深共和党议员,也是美国总统川普的关键盟友。他去世前不久刚从乌克兰访问归来,并曾与乌克兰总统泽连斯基会面。格雷厄姆的死因尚未公布,但他的去世给共和党在参议院的多数地位增添了不确定性,尤其是在另一位共和党参议员米奇·麦康奈尔因健康问题缺席的情况下。美国总统川普、乌克兰总统泽连斯基等多位国际政要对其去世表示哀悼,称他为“真正的美国爱国者”和“自由的捍卫者”。南卡罗来纳州将需要举行选举以填补其参议员席位。

2026年7月12日
U.S.

一位"不领工资"总统的927页账单

川普2025年度财务披露长达927页,亲手拆穿了华川粉"清廉老人不领薪、为美国操劳"的神话。这一年他申报收入约22亿美元,被反复传颂"捐出"的四十万年薪仅占万分之一点八。关税暂停前一天单日扫货327笔,全年约21000笔交易多踩在政策公布节点;对美光、英伟达"喊单+持仓"两不误;迷因币$TRUMP从74美元崩到一块六,他锁定14亿币圈利润,散户接盘。迟报只需缴笔罚款了事。四年间身家从23亿升至60亿——这不叫牺牲,叫升级。

2026年7月3日
U.S.

【快讯】最高法院推翻川普出生公民权行政令,确认第14修正案保障在美出生者公民权

美国最高法院于6月30日以6比3的裁决,推翻了美国总统川普旨在重新定义出生公民权的行政命令。该命令试图剥夺在美国出生的无证移民或持临时合法身份者子女的公民身份,挑战者曾指出此举每年可能影响数十万儿童。首席大法官约翰·G·罗伯茨撰写多数意见,援引第14修正案和1898年的“美利坚合众国诉黄金德”判例,强调在美国出生并“受其管辖”的人均享有公民权。此次裁决被视为对川普政府移民政策努力的重大打击,并加剧了最高法院与行政部门之间的紧张关系。尽管部分保守派大法官持异议,认为国会仍有权修改公民身份规则,但法院最终维护了长期以来的出生公民权原则。

2026年6月30日
广告
970x250
广告
320x50