Affirmative action at California colleges: A debate based on fear# CivilSociety - 华人政治
p*y
1 楼
Affirmative action at California colleges: A debate based on fear
Asian Americans worry they will lose seats at UC campuses if affirmative
action is reinstated.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0307-ramakrishn
By Karthick Ramakrishnan
March 7, 2014
Advertisement
Is the debate on affirmative action versus race-blind policies mainly about
principle, or mostly about preserving narrow group interests? We are
beginning to find out in California. A bill passed by the state Senate and
pending in the Assembly would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot
that would overturn portions of Proposition 209 to exempt public college and
university admissions from the ban on racial, ethnic and gender preferences.
There are principled reasons to support as well as to oppose affirmative
action in higher education. Supporters tend to invoke the importance of
having diverse perspectives and backgrounds in educational settings, for
advantaged and disadvantaged groups alike. Opponents argue for equal
treatment in how rules are applied across racial groups. Both arguments, in
different ways, speak to core American values.
However, in addition to principled debates, we are also seeing reactions
that are more clearly motivated by group fears about potentially losing
admission seats, in particular at the University of California.
PHOTOS: Is Gov. Jerry Brown saving California or ruining it? The 9 big
issues
Interestingly, many of these fears are emanating not from conservative white
voters but from a few vocal Asian American organizations. National advocacy
groups such as the 80-20 Political Action Committee, editorial writers in
Chinese-language newspapers and activists from Chinese-language schools have
begun to bombard Assembly members, urging them to vote against restoring
affirmative action. They worry that Asian American students, who saw a
sizable increase in UC enrollment following 209's ban on affirmative action
in 1996, will see a big drop in enrollment if affirmative action is restored.
At the same time, most Asian American civil rights and community service
organizations maintain that affirmative action is an important way to ensure
equity and diversity in higher education, including among disadvantaged
Pacific Islanders and Asian groups such as Cambodians and Laotians.
Furthermore, most Asian American voters also favor affirmative action
programs. In 1996, they opposed the ban on affirmative action by 61% to 39%,
and data from the 2012 National Asian American Survey indicate continued
strong support for affirmative action.
However, we might find a different set of racial dynamics in California
today with the proposed state constitutional amendment to restore
affirmative action.
PHOTOS: 5 Senate women to watch in 2014
First, using neutral survey language to ask voters about their hypothetical
support for affirmative action is far different from gauging voter opinion
after an intense issue campaign. If Asian-language newspapers and Chinese-
language schools inject themselves more fully into the debate and stoke
fears of losing admission seats, we may indeed see a significant shift in
Asian American opinion. And these opinions will matter more now because the
Asian American share of the California electorate has doubled since 1996 to
10%, potentially constituting the margin of victory or defeat.
Just as important, the focus on narrow group interests might also change the
opinions of white voters in California in surprising ways.
When whites voted overwhelmingly against affirmative action in 1996, the UC
admission rates for whites and Asian Americans were roughly equal, at 83%
and 84%, respectively. Today, under the ban on affirmative action, the
admission rate for whites is 65%, compared with 73% for Asian Americans.
PHOTOS: Seven foods, genetically engineered
These gaps may become relevant to the attitudes of white voters confronted
with a new choice on affirmative action. Experimental studies of white voter
opinion show that support for merit-based university admissions drops
significantly when respondents are provided information about the high
success rate of Asian Americans.
If the primary consideration in voters' minds is the potential loss or gain
for their own racial group, we may indeed see a reversal in voting patterns
of whites and Asian Americans on affirmative action. This is particularly
true if group fears are based on the kinds of erroneous or exaggerated
claims we are already seeing.
For example, some ethnic media stories claim that affirmative action would
cap Asian American admissions to their share of the resident population. Not
only has this kind of quota been ruled unconstitutional since 1978; such
fears also ignore the fact that the Asian American share of UC students was
about three times their state population share in 1995, when affirmative
action was last in place.
Instead of deciding based on misinformation or fear, and worrying about
narrow group interests, we can have a more principled conversation about
whether a racially diverse college-educated population is important for a
stable and equitable California. Proponents of affirmative action will also
need to make a much stronger case for why existing programs to ensure
diversity are insufficient, including one that admits the top 9% of students
from most high schools in the state.
Such principled arguments hold the promise not only to elevate the debate
among California voters but also to ensure its constitutionality in the eyes
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Karthick Ramakrishnan is an associate professor of political science at UC
Riverside and has published four books on immigration, race and politics.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Asian Americans worry they will lose seats at UC campuses if affirmative
action is reinstated.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0307-ramakrishn
By Karthick Ramakrishnan
March 7, 2014
Advertisement
Is the debate on affirmative action versus race-blind policies mainly about
principle, or mostly about preserving narrow group interests? We are
beginning to find out in California. A bill passed by the state Senate and
pending in the Assembly would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot
that would overturn portions of Proposition 209 to exempt public college and
university admissions from the ban on racial, ethnic and gender preferences.
There are principled reasons to support as well as to oppose affirmative
action in higher education. Supporters tend to invoke the importance of
having diverse perspectives and backgrounds in educational settings, for
advantaged and disadvantaged groups alike. Opponents argue for equal
treatment in how rules are applied across racial groups. Both arguments, in
different ways, speak to core American values.
However, in addition to principled debates, we are also seeing reactions
that are more clearly motivated by group fears about potentially losing
admission seats, in particular at the University of California.
PHOTOS: Is Gov. Jerry Brown saving California or ruining it? The 9 big
issues
Interestingly, many of these fears are emanating not from conservative white
voters but from a few vocal Asian American organizations. National advocacy
groups such as the 80-20 Political Action Committee, editorial writers in
Chinese-language newspapers and activists from Chinese-language schools have
begun to bombard Assembly members, urging them to vote against restoring
affirmative action. They worry that Asian American students, who saw a
sizable increase in UC enrollment following 209's ban on affirmative action
in 1996, will see a big drop in enrollment if affirmative action is restored.
At the same time, most Asian American civil rights and community service
organizations maintain that affirmative action is an important way to ensure
equity and diversity in higher education, including among disadvantaged
Pacific Islanders and Asian groups such as Cambodians and Laotians.
Furthermore, most Asian American voters also favor affirmative action
programs. In 1996, they opposed the ban on affirmative action by 61% to 39%,
and data from the 2012 National Asian American Survey indicate continued
strong support for affirmative action.
However, we might find a different set of racial dynamics in California
today with the proposed state constitutional amendment to restore
affirmative action.
PHOTOS: 5 Senate women to watch in 2014
First, using neutral survey language to ask voters about their hypothetical
support for affirmative action is far different from gauging voter opinion
after an intense issue campaign. If Asian-language newspapers and Chinese-
language schools inject themselves more fully into the debate and stoke
fears of losing admission seats, we may indeed see a significant shift in
Asian American opinion. And these opinions will matter more now because the
Asian American share of the California electorate has doubled since 1996 to
10%, potentially constituting the margin of victory or defeat.
Just as important, the focus on narrow group interests might also change the
opinions of white voters in California in surprising ways.
When whites voted overwhelmingly against affirmative action in 1996, the UC
admission rates for whites and Asian Americans were roughly equal, at 83%
and 84%, respectively. Today, under the ban on affirmative action, the
admission rate for whites is 65%, compared with 73% for Asian Americans.
PHOTOS: Seven foods, genetically engineered
These gaps may become relevant to the attitudes of white voters confronted
with a new choice on affirmative action. Experimental studies of white voter
opinion show that support for merit-based university admissions drops
significantly when respondents are provided information about the high
success rate of Asian Americans.
If the primary consideration in voters' minds is the potential loss or gain
for their own racial group, we may indeed see a reversal in voting patterns
of whites and Asian Americans on affirmative action. This is particularly
true if group fears are based on the kinds of erroneous or exaggerated
claims we are already seeing.
For example, some ethnic media stories claim that affirmative action would
cap Asian American admissions to their share of the resident population. Not
only has this kind of quota been ruled unconstitutional since 1978; such
fears also ignore the fact that the Asian American share of UC students was
about three times their state population share in 1995, when affirmative
action was last in place.
Instead of deciding based on misinformation or fear, and worrying about
narrow group interests, we can have a more principled conversation about
whether a racially diverse college-educated population is important for a
stable and equitable California. Proponents of affirmative action will also
need to make a much stronger case for why existing programs to ensure
diversity are insufficient, including one that admits the top 9% of students
from most high schools in the state.
Such principled arguments hold the promise not only to elevate the debate
among California voters but also to ensure its constitutionality in the eyes
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Karthick Ramakrishnan is an associate professor of political science at UC
Riverside and has published four books on immigration, race and politics.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times