e:\doc\web\99\01\lingchi.txt thanks for the response, I've forwarded it on to my newslist. I talked with Ron Takaki, he still thinks the issue of quotas against Filipinos is simply a matter of putting them back on preferences (which is now out of the question). I still have not been able to get any data on Asians, but I assume that with prefernces gone, Filipinos should have returned to representation equal to their population. What do you think of my theory that preferences worked to make filipinos under-represented simply because the adminiistration realized and found out that they could get away with it at minimal cost when they realized that Asians would not fight it in the name of preserving affirmative action? Date sent: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:38:24 -0800 To: jonathan.tilove@newhouse.com From: Ling-chi Wang Subject: Issues of Asian American Overrepresentation Copies to: arthurhu@halcyon.com > Dear Mr. Tilove: > > Arthur Hu forwarded your inquiry into the issue of "overrepresentation" to > me, presumably because he knows I have been interested in this issue since > 1983 when that notion first surfaced in connection with the accerlerated > increase in Asian American enrollments among the top research universities > and small elite liberal arts colleges across the nation. > > I will be glad to share my view on the subject with you. I also think you > should interview people like Prof. Dana Takagi in Sociology at UC Santa > Cruz and Prof. Jerome Karabel of Sociology at UC Berkeley. Prof. Troy > Duster now at NYU. All of them have studied the subject matter extensively. > > The notion of overrepresentation is not new. It has a long history and a > history closely related to the issue of racism in America. The Ivy League > first discovered it immediately after World War I when they experienced the > so-called "Jewish Invasion" and the need to develop a new strategy to > counteract the phenomenon. Before that, the "overrepresentation" of WASP > males in these same institutions should have been an issue, but was never > raised for obvious reasons. > > The key issue is obviously racism and sexism, but it also involves power > and privilege. The people who raise the question of overrepresentation are > the people with power: they are the one that determine who should have > access to the elite universities, by what means or criteria of merit, and > when a racial group would be identified as overrepresented. The people > with power of course also happen to enjoy the privilege of having exclusive > and uninhibited access to the top colleges and universities in the country, > afterall they are the ones who define the criteria of merit and they also > define them to privilege themselves. Not suprisingly, when their > privileged status is challenged by a newcomer group, they immediately raise > the question of "overrepresentation" and seek counter-strategy to curb > overrepresentation. Immediately after World War I, this question emerged: > Why should the Jews be allowed to take up "our" slots in "our" > institutions? So they looked for and discovered the instrument of "Jewish > quota" and used it quite effectively for four decades to limit the damage. > They finally got rid of the Jewish quota in mid-1950s. > > Similarly, Asian Americans, like women and other minorities, were largely > kept out of these same institutions until the advent of the Civil Rights > Movement in 1960s. However, Asian Americans, hampered largely by the lack > of knowledge and limited financial resource, did not gain significant > access until mid 1970s when the high-achieving, motivated children of the > largely well-educated middle-class immigrants (the post 1965 immigrants) > reached college age and began storming the top colleges across the country. > Their enrollment skyrocketed. By early 1980s, the alarm went off and panic > ensued among these and other institutions, including UC Berkeley and UCLA. > The issue was again framed as the so-called "overrepresentation" of Asian > Americans. In the civil rights environment, the white leadership in control > of these institutions responded covertly by introducing new measures > designed to curb only the influx of Asian Americans. Asian Americans were > treated like a bunch of "foreigners," having no business in capturing a > lion's share of a scarce resource reserved for the privileged whites. The > white gate-keepers perceived themselves acting in the interest of the > powerful and privileged to protect these institutions. However, Asian > American community fought back vigorously while at the same time defended > these institutions' right to use affirmative action programs to admit > underrepresentated minorities under the Bakke decision of 1978. This > strugle is documented extensively by Prof. Takagi in her book on RETREAT > FROM RACE (Rutgers Univ Press and I myself have published articles on it). > Several institutions, in fact, were caught discriminating against Asian > American applicants in favor, not of underrepresented minorities, but > whites, including my own institution and our sister institution, Stanford, > along with several Ivies. The OCR investigation into Harvard's practice, > likewise, confirmed the unequal treatment of Asian American applicants. > > That's when the whole debate on admissions began to shift to affirmative > action, although the debate by then was no longer confined to the power > elite protecting the institutions. How do we accommodate growing demand > for access to high qualifty college education? Certainly, expanding > opportunity, especially in the public sector, like UC, is one approach. > Indeed, by late 1980s, UC proposed three new campuses. Unfortunately, > recession effectively shelved proposal under Gov. Pete Wilson. The debate > then pitted the white middle-class against the underrepresented minorities > who had been admitted under the affirmative action program fashioned by the > elite. The new question emerged was: Why should the "less qualified" > blacks take up "our slots"? - the same question raised against the Jews > after WW I. Their solution was predictable: Let's bring in meritocracy > and get rid of the "undeserving and unqualified" minorities. Hence, Prop. > 209. > > Since the passage of Prop. 209, I have been predicting a renewed backlash > against Asian Americans, similar to the one in 1980s. Prop. 209, which I > opposed, you should know, will bring in more and more Asian Americans, if > the traditional merit criteria are not changed. In fact, two years ago, I > predicted that within three to four years after the passage of 209, Asian > American enrollment in all 8 undergraduate programs within the 9-campus UC > system will have more than 50% Asian Americans and the same people behind > Prop. 209 will now say, "That's not what we had intended! We got rid of > affirmative action to bring in our own type, not the Orientals." This will > bring about a split between the conservative Asian Americans and white > middle-class behind the push for Prop. 209. Tthey (the same people with > power and privilege) will demand a change in admission policy, just like > their ancestors did at the end of WWI and what they did in early 1980s. > > Arthur does not think the whites will demand affirmative action. I agree. > But, they can introduce new criteria without calling them affirmative > action to accomplish the same objective of maintaining their privilege, as > they did repeatedly in the past. To demand affirmative action for whites > would be too blatant. However, they can change the traditional criteria of > merit in order to favor white applicants without calling it affirmative > action. (For example, before 1960s, when only white males were accepted > into the Ivies, the Ivies had only one admission policy, that was, > affirmative action for white males. Of course they did not call it by that > name). Likewise, when the Ivy League decided to impose the Jewish quota, > they did not called the Jewish quota policy an affirmative action for white > Gentiles either. Instead, they called it geographic diversity. By the > same token, the top colleges, including the Public Ivies, began to add new > non-academic criteria, like extracurricular activities, leadership > qualities, and unique personality traits and talents, to the traditional > meritocratic criteria, largely based on tests scores and GPAs, to curb > rising Asian American enrollments. They did not call these new > non-academic criteria affirmative action for whites either. Call it by any > name, if the outcome is the targeting of one racial group, it is > affirmative action! > > What I am saying is that racism historically operated quite successfully > for a long time without being exposed. Once it was exposed, it manged > invariably to transform itself and reappeared under a new guise. The > people with power and privilege will always try to maintain their > privileges by whatever means necessary. Affirmative action was a cheap and > token concession granted to African Americans under tremendous political > pressure. It was initially known as a harmless "set-aside." (See Bowen > and Bok's book THERE IS A RIVER, a very vigorous defense of affirmative > action and its success. However, careful reading of the book should lead > one to conclude the invalidity and hypocrisy of traditional meritocracy, > used by Harvard and Princeton and others. If affirmative action is so > successful, it means the meritocracy maintained by these institutions has > not merit whatsoever. Yet, the two authors, representing the pinnacle of > power, privilege, and prestige, simply could not bring themselves to that > conclusion. I thought the book was the strongest indictment on meritocracy > as practised by the white elite institutions since 1636 when Harvard was > founded). As long as affirmative action remained a token and no challenge > was made against traditional meritocracy, the establishment was quite > willing to pursue and condone tokenism. However, when competition became > severe since 1980s, tokenism quickly became racial quota and reverse > discrimination and therefore, it had to be removed. This was accomplished > effectively by Prop. 209 in 1990s. > > However, with the rising Asian American enrollment in the post-209 > environment, the powerful and the privileged will have to, once again, > allege "overrepresentation" and find new and ingenious ways to redefining > merit. We are already witnessing early signs of that. For example, the > rising demand not to admit students whose SAT-Verbal scores are low or > students who need remedial English is an example of the backlash that has > already underway. Since the underrepresented minorities are already > excluded by Prop. 209 and rendered non-competitive, such new demand is > aimed exclusively at Asian American applicants, the majority of whom are of > immigrant background. California, Texas, and NY are the three states most > likely to witness this new demand. It will not be called affirmative > action for whites. Instead, the new proposal will be introduced as a > measure designed to raise the reading standards and save valuable dollars > from going into wasteful remedial English classes. > > I think the job of higher education in a multiracial democracy is to > provide whatever educational needs students of all races bring with them. > If they happen to be immigrant with limited English, they should be > provided the most effective program to help them acquire English language > proficiency. They should not be penalized for a deficiency that can be > overcome easily. Besides, denying them access amounts to rejecting many > talented people the U.S. needs. Just look at the disproportional presence > of Asian American scientists and engineers, most of whom are of immigrant > backgound, now providing the backbone of America's domination in science > and technology. Had we denied these people the opportunity to gain access > to high quality education on account of their alleged English-language > deficiency, they would not be making their contributions today. (Earlier, > from 1933 to early 1950s, we brought in thousands of Jewish scientists from > Europe, many of them spoke broken English. Nonetheless, they excelled and > became leading scholars in virtually all fields of academic endeavors). > > Let me return to the issue of overrepresentation. It really depends on who > is doing the talking and who has the power to define the criteria of merit. > Unfortunately, racism continues to influence the way we define what > constitutes a problem and how we put a spin on it. > > The above is an outline of how I look at the issue of overrepresentation. > I will be glad to answer whatever question you have regarding the above. I > am very concerned about what will come next once the so-called problem of > overrepresentation is articulated. Even though I have strongly supported > affirmative action in the past 30 years (in fact, I founded Chinese for > Affirmative Action in S.F. in 1969), I do not consider it a sacred cow. > Many things went wrong with that policy. But that does not mean we > abrupted end the second Reconstruction without alternative progrmas to > address issues of racial and economic inequality in our multiracial > democracy. We are now at the point when the sole tool of correcting past > racial injustice is no long available and no new tool has emerged. We are > in a vacuum now. In the mean time, major and rapid shifts in the > enrollment patterns are taking place, among which is the rapid rise of > Asian American enrollment. What token achievements made by affirmative > action in the past 30 years will be undone in 3 to 4 years and the major > universities and colleges are now on the fast-track toward re-segregation. > In the mean time, I am fearful the next wave of anti-Asian sentiment is > already looming. If that should become the next major backlash, I wonder > who in America will come to the defense of the Asian American minority. > The national focus on Asian Americans in the controversy around the > campaign finance reform in the past two years is a good indication on how a > public policy or issue can be easily racialized and transformed into a > national hysteria. (You may want to read my article in the current > AMERASIA JOURNAL on this subject). I have no intention of taking the issue > of overrepresentation lightly and no one interested in bring substantive, > not surface, democracy to the U.S. should either. Racism remains one of > the strongest social impulses and diseases, if not the curse, of American > democracy. > > I am sorry for this lengthy e-mail. The issue, as you can see, is very > dear to me. > > Sincerely, > > L. Ling-chi Wang > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > L. Ling-chi Wang, Chair Tel. 510-642-7439 (Direct) > Department of Ethnic Studies 510-643-0796 (Message) > 506 Barrows Hall 510-642-6555 (Message) > University of California > Berkeley, CA 94720-2570 U.S.A. Fax: 510-642-6456 > > E-Mail: lcwang@uclink4.berkeley.edu > > APAHE Conf. Info: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/`ethnics/apahe/main.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ú > >