美国

Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action

作者 美华 28 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.

2026年特朗普国情咨文事实核查:虚假、夸大与真实

2026年2月24日,美国总统唐纳德·特朗普发表了其第二任期的首份正式国情咨文。在长达1小时41分钟的创纪录演说中,总统试图为其在2026年中期选举前的执政轨迹定调。我们剥离演说中的动员修辞,利用数据审查其政策成效,系统还原经济、边境、外交等核心领域的事实真相,揭示特朗普如何将真实的政策进展与虚构的宏大叙事交织在一起。

2026年2月25日
U.S.

特朗普在国情咨文中面临多重挑战与反对

2026年2月24日,特朗普将在华盛顿向国会发表他第二任期的首次国情咨文,预计将讨论经济、移民和外交政策等关键议题。与此同时,司法部因未公开与特朗普有关的爱泼斯坦文件而受到批评,民主党内部也出现了对其演讲的抵制。此外,加州州长纽森积极挑战特朗普,为即将到来的中期选举做准备。

2026年2月24日
U.S.

特朗普新关税已于本周实施,FedEx退款诉讼引发广泛关注

美国总统特朗普的新全球关税于近期以10%的较低税率生效,尽管最初承诺的税率更高。与此同时,FedEx对特朗普政府的紧急关税提出诉讼,要求全额退款。此举引发了对美国贸易政策及其影响的广泛讨论。专家表示,当前的关税政策给企业带来了不确定性,而Supreme Court的裁决为公司寻求退税铺平了道路。

2026年2月24日