AAS 205 - Fall 2000

 

Ancheta - Chapter 7 [cont.]

 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION & Asian Americans

 

Affirmative Action Definition =

-        Equal opportunity measures/policies which allow race and gender to be considered for decisions on hiring, promotions, public contracting and public school enrollment

-        Rooted in the Civil Rights movement [social movements of the 50’s and 60’s] – 1964 civil rts act

-          Addresses & remedies present racism and current inequalities – narrowly tailored w/ goals and timelines

-          Not a quota system

-          Not reverse discrimination

 

EX) Prop 209 – “California Civil Rights Initiative” - 1996

Asian Americans Against Prop 209; Filipinos Against 209; Californians for Justice

[show 209 actions; Bakke hist. Etc.]

 

Q:  Why should Asian Americans generally be part of almost all Aff. Action programs?

 

pp. 158 –  3 goals =

-        Remedying present effects of past discrimination

-        Preventing ongoing and future discrim.

-         Encouraging diversity

[this could be challenged see Footnote: pp. 193]

 

Example of Law and the courts on Aff. Action

[Hopwood vs. Univ. of Texas [5th Cir. 1996] – diversity is not a compelling govt’l interest in higher education; explicitly rejected justice powell’s reasoning in Bakke]

 

NONRECOGNITION is less of a problem for API’s in race-conscious Affirmative Action cases.

Special recognition & rejection are the problems for API’s [‘api’s don’t need help; should be intentially excluded from AffActn pgms]

 

Neoconservatives arguments?

 

Employment Discrimination & the Corporate Sector:

 

‘Glass Ceiling’

Why?  How does the ceiling operate?

 

General Employment Discrimination Towards Asian Americans:

Wage disparities – examples?

Education

Impact of Asian accents?

Impact of Asian ‘cultural’ traits?

 

Public sector employment examples

 

SFPD – ex. Fred Lau

LAFD – 1980/95

SFFD – 1988 – ‘consent decree’ – race and gender conscious policy

          Blatant racism & legal challenges to the SFFD

          Bob Demmons – chief – recently ‘forced to resign

 

SFUSD – contracting

                   API’s = 20% available pool

                   API contracts = 1% of contracts ; 5% total dollars spent by SFUSD

                   MBE/WBE pgm helps prevent discrimination

 

 

Dilemma  - Aff. Action –

When population parity has been reached [ex. UC Berkeley]

some Aff. Action pgms have excluded Asian Americans – Why can this be a problem for our communities?

-         Use hypos to flush out – race; ethnicity; gender; income?

-         When can pan-asian consideration be useful?

-         When can ethnic specific consideration be most helpful?

-          When are class-based [income-based] considerations the most helpful?

 

Racialization & Aff. Action: [pp 160]

 

 

                Model minority racialization ->

-> WEDGE POLITICS  ->

-> Intergroup conflicts

 

                               

Asians used as wedge by opponents of Aff. Action

                            

Explain?  How is this divisive?

 

How do African Americans or Latinos react towards Asian Americans?

 

How has the right wing [political spectrum] tried to link -

o      IMMIGRATION [API’s racialized as foreign outsiders] &

 

o      AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

 

Give the arguments.  Why are they so insidious?

 

Myths:  Aff Action should only benefit blacks; immigrants don’t suffer from discrimination; halting immigration or dismantling aff. Action will provide African Americans with better opportunities…

               

 

                                                SOLUTIONS?

 

                                                Ancheta – pp. 161

Combine remediation for African Americans with pgms that address anti-immigrant discrimination.

 

INTERGROUP CONFLICT

 

Racialization of API’s as the Model minority

 

History of the stereotype – where did it come from?  What periods of US history?  What function does the stereotype serve?

          Impact?

 

                Ideology of the Model Minority Myth –  ‘MERITOCRACY’

1.    subordinates other People of Color [message:  Asians = positive characteristics which other groups should copy; sharpening of negative stereotypes of others as lazy, dumb, etc.];

2.    false sense of security among API’s/US society

3.        ‘Meritocracy’ assumptions – standardized testing focus

 

LOWELL HS Admissions Ceilings:

 

Lowell Admissions Policy – [1983 consent decree]

Ho vs. SFUSD [1996 change in SFUSD policy – 2 track system w/ diversity index; 1999 court victory threw out use of race or ethnicity in admission criteria]

 

Ancheta’s criticism of the Ho plaintiffs?

 

Difference btwn Lowell and a University Admission Policy?

            SFUSD consent decree to end desegregation

            Who should bear the burden of a race conscious remedial system?

 

Lowell – Chinese students’ – negative action [with the Ethnic CAP Chinese applicants had to score significantly higher than whites to be admitted to Lowell]

 

                        How to spread the burdens among all non-beneficiaries of Aff. Action?

 

                                Context: UC Campuses – Asian pluralities or majorities like Irvine

                        TOO many Asians backlash

                                    EX) Ivy League and Elite campuses – 1980’s

                                                Discrimination subtle –

                                                Nationwide investigations – Stanford, Princeton, UCLA, CAL

                                    BACKLASH – argument to use ‘class’ instead of race in admissions

                                    For API’s – heterogeneity – so, class should be a consideration.

                               

ANCHETA:   What are the dangers of substituting class for race in affirmative action pgms?

                   What solutions does he suggest? [pp. 165]

 

INTERGROUP CONFLICT

 

Rodney King/Reginald Denny

Vincent Chin

Latasha Harlins/Soon Ja Doo

 

EX) NYC & LA – why?

 

                Economic explanations – de-industrialization process

Instit. Racism in labor market – limited opportunities for Asian entrepreneurs – geographically [low income urban areas] and choice of industries [liquor stores, etc.]

Limits of human relations infrastructure –

                Black Korean Alliance

                Human Relations Commission

                Politicians lack of leadership

 

Public Housing  Conflicts [pp. 167]

 

Policy changes by SFHA [response to ‘pattern of racial segregation’ reports – 92 race conscious integration policy]

Stirred the racial conflict – Asians heavily victimized

Many barriers to seeking/getting help

Perception of preferential treatment of Asians in public housing

 

Issues:

-         Safety of families [complexity of anti-Asian violence]

-         How to organize tenants across racial lines [common interests]

-          Institutional reforms [‘multicultural empowerment’]

 

SOLUTIONS:

 

BEYOND ZERO SUM approaches

[limited pie – so when one group gets something, others lose]

 

POLICY CHANGES:

 

-         Review fundamental goals

-         Look creatively beyond narrow zero sum solutions

-         Multiracial empowerment; seeking the common ground

-          How can resources be expanded, better structured and more fairly allocated

 

Housing

Immigrant Rights

Language Equality

Educational opportunities

Voting Rights

 

-end-