This November, California voters will cast their votes on the California Civil Rights Initiative, a referendum which would abolish all public sector affirmative action programs in the state. Angelo Ancheta argues that not only is the referendum ill-conceived and badly timed, but Asian Americans, long cited as affirmative action's first victims, have a lot to lose if CCRI is passed.
California's politics are often compared to the state's seismic activity: Like earthquakes, key elections rock the state every few years, sending out waves that resonate throughout the country. Two years ago, the issue was immigration, and Proposition 187 was the fault line that divided communities by race and ethnicity. This year, the issue is affirmative action, and Proposition 209, the so-called "California Civil Rights Initiative" or CCRI, is splitting the state. And Asian Americans are at the epicenter of the controversy.
Racial politics in California are complex and volatile. In a state where economic growth is uncertain and unemployment exceeds the national average, appeals to intolerance provide a quick fix for more difficult political and social problems. Most of the rhetoric in support of the CCRI is neither subtle nor sophisticated. Supporters argue that we have attained a colorblind society, and that affirmative action means race- and gender-based quotas for the unqualified. White men are victims, and "reverse discrimination" is the major civil rights issue for society to confront. Merit should be the sole measure of success. The solution: Eliminate affirmative action.
Reality betrays the rhetoric. Outside of court orders in which there have been specific findings of past discrimination, quotas are illegal. By definition, affirmative action is designed to help only those who are fully qualified for positions. Reverse discrimination claims are a tiny percentage of the discrimination claims filed in the courts and with government agencies. And "merit" can mean many things, not simply test scores. Depending on how you define merit, you can include or exclude just about anybody you want to.
The real impact of the CCRI on women and minorities would be widespread and devastating. According to the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's Office, the CCRI would eliminate programs that promote the hiring of women and minorities for state and local government jobs. It would eliminate programs used to promote the awarding of public contracts to business firms owned by women and minorities; some or all voluntary desegregation programs operated by school districts; as well as counseling, tutoring, and financial aid programs used by K-12 school districts, community colleges, the California State University, and the University of California to admit and assist students from underrepresented groups.
Asian Americans have been thrown into the center of the debate in complicated and often inconsistent ways. Some argue that Asian Americans are, like other groups composed largely of recent immigrants, unintended beneficiaries of affirmative action; only African Americans have a moral claim to redress for past discrimination. Because Asian immigrants can benefit from affirmative action, the system is fundamentally flawed and should be abolished. (Of course, the arguments rest on the false assumptions that affirmative action is designed only to redress past discrimination, and, for that matter, that Asian Americans have not suffered either historical or ongoing discrimination.)
Other opponents of affirmative action suggest that Asian Americans form the racial minority group that would benefit most from the passage of the CCRI. Asian Americans are the "model minority" -- the achievers who gain success on the basis of merit, without need for affirmative action. In fact, CCRI supporters not only argue that Asian Americans don't need affirmative action, but that they are hurt by it, particularly in college admissions where affirmative action for other groups prevents qualified Asian American students from gaining entry.
These arguments can be alluring, and many Asian Americans are buying into them. But the arguments are wrong. We've come a long way in the last 30 years, but Asian Americans still encounter discrimination and are still denied access to positions within society's institutions, particularly in spheres of decision-making power and influence. The playing field isn't close to being level. And Asian Americans, like other communities of color and women, need affirmative action to fight the discrimination that continues to plague our society.
Underrepresentation, lack of access, and overt discrimination against Asian Americans persist in all the areas where affirmative action would be dismantled by the CCRI. In public contracting, Asian American businesses confront systemic barriers in competing for government contracts. For example, during the 1980s, Asian American construction firms in San Francisco received less than 1 percent of the city's contracts, and only about 5 percent of the total dollars awarded for the San Francisco Unified School District's contracts, even though Asian American firms made up 20 percent of the available pool. An independent review found that the school district staff employed inconsistent bidding and contract procedures and withheld information from minority contractors. No significant outreach was conducted, and actual contracts were substantially smaller for minority and women contractors. After an affirmative action plan was instituted, Asian American participation increased threefold from 1989 to 1993.
In public employment, Asian Americans are underrepresented in entry-level and upper-level positions in several fields. Although they are over 10 percent of the population in the city of Los Angeles, Asian Americans are only 4.6 percent of the Los Angeles Police Department. In Los Angeles County, where Asian Americans are also over 10 percent of the population, they are only 2.5 percent of the County Sheriff's Office. According to 1993 figures, only 36 of the 1,402 state trial court judge positions were held by Asian Americans. Statewide, Asian Americans comprise only 4.3 percent of full-time teachers at K-12 public schools, even though 11.2 percent of the students are Asian American. According to the bipartisan Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Asian Americans as a group are well educated, but do not receive the higher incomes or promotions that would be expected for their levels of education.
In public education, many Asian American children face language and cultural barriers that inhibit educational achievement at the K-12 level. Many attend inner-city schools where per-pupil expenditures are significantly less than in the suburbs. Even in higher education, where Asian Americans as a whole are well-represented in California's state colleges and universities, underrepresentation persists among groups such as Filipinos, Southeast Asians, and Pacific Islanders.
Meanwhile, the harm that affirmative action imposes on Asian American students is illusory. Under California's Master Plan, all seniors who graduate in the top 12.5 percent of their high school class can attend the University of California; but because applications far exceed places, no one is guaranteed a spot at popular campuses like Berkeley and UCLA. And even if Asian Americans form large percentages of the college student bodies, that doesn't mean that programs for African Americans and Latinos should be eliminated. Their presence enriches the diversity of the state's campuses, and low admissions and retention are still serious problems that will only be made worse by an enactment of the CCRI.
We still have very far to go, but affirmative action has made an immense difference in helping Asian Americans move along the way. Twenty years ago, you could count the number of Asian American officers in the San Francisco Police Department on one hand. Because of affirmative action, there are now close to 300 Asian American officers on the force. In fact, Fred Lau, a highly qualified and respected officer, was elected to be San Francisco's first Asian American police chief earlier this year. Because of affirmative action, the representation of Asian American firefighters on the San Francisco Fire Department grew almost fivefold in 10 years, increasing from 34 in 1985 to 161 in 1995.
Over 13 years ago, affirmative action provided opportunities for myself and other Asian Americans who wanted to join the legal profession. The diversity admissions program at the UCLA School of Law helped get me in the door, but it didn't get me through three years of law school. Affirmative action didn't help me to achieve good grades, make the law review, graduate, or pass the bar examination. But affirmative action gave me that first chance, and I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for such an institution.
Affirmative action is not perfect. But it still opens doors that would otherwise be closed to Asian Americans and other people of color, and society as a whole is better off because of it. At a time when race relations in California and the nation have never been more fragile, we need a civil rights strategy that is inclusive and resolute in its commitment to justice and equal opportunity. Affirmative action is an integral part of that strategy, and defeating the CCRI is the first step in ensuring its success.
Ancheta, Angelo. "Backward Thinking." A. Magazine 30 Nov 1996 79. 03 Nov 2007
“Backward Thinking” is an article that addresses the policy of affirmative action in California. Asian Americans are underrepresented in certain job fields and affirmative action has helped in the past to even this out and increase the number of Asian Americans in these jobs so the ratio is closer to that of the real population. However, some people feel that affirmative action is not supposed to help Asian Americans and so the programs should be stopped.
Brodkin mentions affirmative action in “How Jews Became White Folks” in a somewhat similar way. Affirmative action is primarily seen as something to help those of color, often African-American, to have the same opportunities as whites and to even the playing field from past wrong-doings. Both of these articles, however, speak of a form of affirmative action that helps a different group. In Brodkin’s article, she writes of the GI Bill that was, in law, meant to help all former soldiers equally. However, there were certain stipulations that happened when it came to actually granting people the benefits that caused it to turn into a Bill that helped only non-blacks. This included Jews who in the past had not been given the same benefits as whites. This helped Jews to be able to have a better standing in American society because they were able to go to school and get good jobs. They became white. In “Backward Thinking,” affirmative action plans have in the past helped Asian Americans find places in certain jobs that they normally may not have. Asian-Americans are usually considered the model minority and not in need of any help for past wrong-doings so some people believe that it is unfair that they are receiving these special treatments from affirmative action that is not meant to help them. Asian-Americans were the accidental recipients of California’s affirmative action plan and the Jews were the ignored recipients of the G.I. Bill. Both forms of affirmative action did not help the group that is typically thought to receive affirmative action benefits. Asians are now considered the model minority and Jews are considered to be white.
I thought it was interesting to find another article that speaks of affirmative action helping another group besides African-Americans. I think that affirmative action is typically thought of as something to help black people and here are two examples of it helping other minority groups. I also found it interesting from the Ethnic News Watch article that some people feel that Asian-Americans are not worthy of receiving help from affirmative action. I think it is easily forgotten that in the past, America has treated them very poorly as well as African-Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment