美国

Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action

作者 美华 317 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.

【快讯】马斯克输了!联邦法院驳回其对OpenAI诉讼:告得太晚了

美国加州奥克兰联邦法院于5月18日驳回了埃隆·马斯克对人工智能公司OpenAI及其首席执行官萨姆·奥特曼和总裁格雷格·布罗克曼提起的诉讼。为期三周的庭审后,由九人组成的陪审团在不到两小时内做出一致裁决,认定马斯克在2024年提起诉讼时,已超过了法定的诉讼时效。马斯克曾是OpenAI的联合创始人,他指控该公司背弃了其作为非营利组织、致力于人工智能造福人类的初衷,并在他不知情的情况下转向了盈利模式。OpenAI及其高管则辩称,公司从未承诺永久保持非营利性质,并认为马斯克提起诉讼是为了争夺控制权并推广其竞争对手xAI。法官伊冯娜·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯接受了陪审团的咨询裁决,正式驳回了马斯克的所有诉讼请求。马斯克对此裁决表示不满,称其为“技术性驳回”,并誓言将继续上诉。

2026年5月18日
U.S.

法国爱泼斯坦案调查新进展:约10名新受害者浮出水面

法国检察官近日披露,自今年2月成立特别工作组调查杰弗里·爱泼斯坦及其网络以来,已有约10名此前未知的受害者站出来。巴黎首席公诉人劳尔·贝库表示,调查人员正梳理爱泼斯坦的电脑、电话记录和地址簿,并将寻求国际协助。此案已牵涉多名法国及国际知名人士,包括前文化部长雅克·朗、已故模特经纪人让-吕克·布吕内尔等。美国司法部此前发布的“爱泼斯坦文件”是触发法国调查的关键因素。

2026年5月18日
U.S.

川普访华团亿万富翁身家合计约8700亿美元,马斯克库克随行、黄仁勋缺席

白宫5月11日公布随川普访华的16位美国企业高管名单,包括特斯拉的马斯克、苹果的库克、波音的奥特伯格等,英伟达CEO黄仁勋未在列。川普将于周二启程前往北京,与习近平举行其第二任期首次峰会,议题涉及贸易、人工智能和伊朗局势。波音有望获中国大额飞机订单,嘉吉参与农业采购讨论。白宫内部在交易策略上存在分歧,此次代表团规模较2017年缩小。

2026年5月12日