Posts Tagged affirmative action
There will be no referendum in California this year, after all, as a conservative group of Chinese Americans have scared off legislative support for a move to put race back in public admissions and hiring—at least for now.
Senate Constitution Act 5, or SCA5, was sent back by Democratic leaders to the senate, and a new call was issued to start up a bi-cameral commission to discuss how to solve the state’s diversity issue in college admissions and public hiring.
Starting up a commission to look into a problem is always safer than actually working to solve the problem. Normally it’s a bogus thing. But there needs to be a way to get people out of the polarized debate that usually occurs when the topic of race comes up.
>See my piece: http://diverseeducation.com/article/61218/ <
Last week, an organized group of conservative Chinese Americans gloated that their intimidation tactics had killed SCA5.
Apparently, the heavy handed tactics of targeting Asian American elected and politicians, as well as calling outspoken advocates racists and engaging in nasty name-calling debates, was enough to make some key Asian American politicians withdraw support for the measure as it exists.
Plain and simple, they caved. Not just the Asian Americans, all of the Dems.
Maybe a commission can help build a consensus that can revive the revival effort, and bring a referendum before California voters.
But it still won’t happen before 2016.
By then, it should be clear just how far back a generation of Prop.209 has set back this great state’s diversity efforts. And voters should be ready to act. Or not.
CHECK OUT THE NEW HOME FOR THE AMOK COLUMN: www.aaldef.org/blog
LIKE and FOLLOW us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/emilguillermo.media
Posted by Amok in Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) blog, politics, race on June 24th, 2013
By a 7-1 ruling, The Supreme Court of the United States has sent the Fisher case that challenged affirmative action back to the lower court.
How do you get the rabid anti-AA types to rule with the rabid pro-AA types? You rule on a procedural matter on the law, and then throw the case out. In this case, the strict scrutiny requirement in the current law wasn’t followed to the court’s satisfaction. Instead, it saw the lower courts as being too deferential to the University of Texas and not challenging its use of race.
There were other better reasons to throw it out, but this one will do.
This is a victory of sorts. Affirmative action is not dead, and Fisher? Well, she can decide to take the matter up again. But there’s another case next year, and she might want to cut her losses.
More to come.
Scuttlebut had it (you know ole Scutty, don’t you), that the Supreme Court’s decision on that affirmative action case heard last October would be made public as the Court opened up for business this week.
That was the word from the Supreme Court blog over the weekend.
Of course, no one knows for sure. The SCOTUS blog is no oracle.
As of 10 a.m, EST, the Fisher case did not come up. But more opinions are expected on Wednesday.
So for those going to the AALDEF dinner tonight, you have at least one more night for speculative conversation.
But if an opinion appears this week, I’m sticking to my guns.
I wrote about the Fisher case on the AALDEF blog back in October, and based on that hearing, I think the UT affirmative action program will survive.
Read what I had to say here:
Or at least, I hope UT’s plan will survive.
Without it, Fisher gets her revenge, but society loses a valuable tool to foster equal opportunity.
No schlemiels here, but are Asian Americans the New Jews in battle over affirmative action? Also: One way to thwart the system
The question is raised once again in the cyclical affirmative action fight in college admissions. Those against affirmative action are saying Jews and Asian Americans have both been victimized by race-concisous admissions.
That may be true. But is that a reason to get rid of affirmative action?
One commenter on my sfgate.com blog says that 86 percent of blacks and Latinos who get into exclusive schools are from wealthy backgrounds. I don’t know if that fact is true or not, but what difference does that make? That’s always been a comeback by affirmative action foes. Poor kids are cool, but don’t give affirmative action to the Cosby kids.
I’d say that the well-to-do blacks and Latinos may even be so-called “legacy” admits, i.e., their parents went to the school. I actually am all for that for minorities. Most of the time, the parents were admitted through a more race-concious process. I don’t have a problem with creating a ”legacy of affirmative action” where the off-spring of grads get admitted. It does show, after all, how an institution can change by generation.
What I don’t like is that if you get rid of race-conscious programs, the non-Cosby kids, the ones most deserving of a leg up, may lose that opportunity of a lifetime.
That’s why affirmative action is worth preserving.
There’s one another issue brought up by the the “New Jews” argument. If one makes the case that by experience Asian Americans are like the Jews in terms of discrimination faced in college admissions, can you then say that one’s common experience is valid in defining ethnicity? Considering how self-identification has been a standard in the Census(it’s merely ”you are what you say you are,” you don’t have to show me any DNA) it’s not illogical for Asian Americans to check the box on any form and say they are black, or Latino, or white.
That may be a better way for you anti-Affirmative Action folks to thwart the system.
I remember reading Dean Henry Rosovsky’s book on Harvard where he said that Filipinos’ experiences were more closely aligned to blacks.
Maybe that’s why when I was at Harvard I felt more comfortable in my Afro American Studies courses than I did in my Romantic Poets class.
But it may also be why I remain adamant about the need for affirmative action. Asian Americans are far from a homogenous group. Disparities within the group will have a much harder time being addressed if race-concisous admissions are eliminated.