AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR ASIAN AMERICANS
Joann J. Ku
Introduction
As
i
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nsha
vebe
c
o
mes
y
no
ny
mo
uswi
t
ht
hep
hr
a
s
e“
mode
lmi
no
r
i
t
y
.
”Of
t
e
n
used interchangeably with the Asian American race, model minority has been defined as a model
g
r
ou
pwhos
eu
ni
que“
c
ul
t
u
r
a
lv
a
l
ue
sofdi
l
i
g
e
nc
e
,f
a
mi
l
y
,s
ol
i
da
r
i
t
y
,r
e
s
pe
c
tf
ore
duc
a
t
i
on
,a
n
d
1
self-s
uf
f
i
c
i
e
nc
yh
a
vepr
ope
l
l
e
di
tt
onot
a
b
l
es
uc
c
e
s
s
”a
mi
ds
tr
a
c
i
s
ma
ndpe
r
s
e
c
ut
i
on.
However,
this racial construct has been called a myth and an inaccurate concept that often hurts Asian
Americans more than it helps. 2 Nowhere has this debate been demonstrated more clearly than in
the controversy over affirmative action programs in higher education institutions.
Due to the overrepresentation of Asian Americans in colleges and universities, they are
3
of
t
e
nnol
o
nge
rr
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
e
da
s“
mi
nor
i
t
i
e
s
”dur
i
ngt
hea
d
mi
s
s
i
o
nspr
oc
e
s
s
.
In 2000, Asian and
Pacific Islander Americans constituted 5.9 percent of college and university students, in
comparison to only 4 percent of the United States population.4 This overrepresentation has
excluded Asian Americans from affirmative action programs that were implemented to remedy
past discriminations.
Within the Asian American community, affirmative action is a very divisive subject with
Asian American advocates and groups on both sides of the issue.5 Opponents of affirmative
action argue for the dismantling of such programs because it favors underqualified minorities
1
Claire Jean Kim, Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans, 27 POL. & SOC’
Y1
05,11
8(
19
99)(
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r“
Ki
m”
)
.
FRANK H. WU, YELLOW: RACE IN AMERICA BEYOND BLACK AND WHITE 20 (Basic Books 2003) (2002) (hereinafter
“
WU”
)
.
3
Vincente M. Diaz, To‘
P’orNott
o‘
P’
?:Marking the Territory Between Pacific Islander and Asian American
Studies, 7 J. ASIAN AM. STUD. 183 (2004).
4
Racial Statistics Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2000), available at
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/api.html.
5
Norimitsu Onishi, Affirmative Action: Choosing Sides, N.Y. TIMES, March 31, 1996, at 4A26.
2
over students with higher marks and credentials.6 Yet, affirmative action advocates contend that
such programs are necessary due to long injustices Asian Americans have had to face and
currently face in the form of racism and discrimination.7
This Article discusses where Asian Americans fall within the affirmative action debate.
While Asian Americans have long been overlooked over the affirmative action issue, they play a
pivotal role in this controversy, having much to gain and to lose. Only within the past decade
have Asian Americans as a group come into the spotlight voicing their perspectives on this issue
and this exposure is expected to only increase. Section I of this Article analyzes Asian
Americans within the higher education setting and just why Asian Americans are so key to the
affirmative action debate. Section II gives a brief overview of affirmative action litigation,
describing significant cases. Section III discusses the negative effects of the model minority
myth and how racism against Asian Americans can subtly creep into educational institutions.
Finally, I conclude with common goals we could pursue in resolving this controversy.
I. Asian Americans in Higher Learning Institutions
Asian Americans as a whole do seek higher education in greater numbers than other
racial or ethnic groups.8 Starting in the 1970s and 1980s, Asian American enrollment rates in
colleges and universities began to rapidly increase. In 1976, there were approximately 198,000
Asian American students in higher education institutions, and by 1988, that number rose to
approximately 500,000, doubling in percentage.9 These numbers were reflected in all
universities, but most alarmingly within elite private and public institutions.10 Within that same
6
Gale Holland & Maria Goodavage, California's Asian Students Face Quandary, USA TODAY, Aug. 23, 1995, at 1A.
William C. Kidder, Negative Action Versus Affirmative Action: Asian Pacific Americans Are Still Caught in the
Crossfire, 11 MICH. J. RACE & L. 605, 608-09 (2006).
8
WU, supra note 2, at 51.
9
Eugenia Escueta & Eileen O'Brien, Asian Americans and Higher Education: Trends and Issues, 2 Research Briefs
1, 1 (1991).
10
Id.
7
twelve-year span, the proportion of Asian American freshmen grew from 3.6 percent to 12.8
percent at Harvard, 5.7 percent to 14.7 percent at Stanford, and 5.3 percent to 20.6 percent at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.11 Between 1979 and 1989, Asian Americans increased
their numbers of PhD recipients by 46 percent.12
In 1993, Asian Americans composed of 5.3 percent of the college student body but
represented less than 3 percent of the general United States population. By 1997, 12 percent of
the doctorates conferred by U.S. universities were given to Asian Americans, with more than 25
percent of the doctorates in the engineering field.13 Some scholars have stated that these
numbers are so high because Asian Americans were being paid far less than whites at the same
educational level, so they sought out higher education to attempt to level the playing field.14
According to the 2008 United States Census, 49 percent of Americans of Asian and
Pacific Islander descent, aged twenty-f
i
vea
n
dol
de
r
,
hol
daba
c
he
l
or
’
sde
g
r
e
eo
rh
a
veahi
g
h
e
r
level of education. Asian Americans have the highest proportion of college graduates of any
race or ethnic group in the country. 86 percent of Asian Americans, age twenty-five and older
have high school diplomas. 20 percent of Asians Americans, age twenty-five and older hold an
adva
nc
e
dde
g
r
e
e(
e
.
g
.
,
ma
s
t
e
r
’
sd
e
gr
e
e
,
PhD,
M.
D.orJ
.
D.
)
,i
nc
o
mpa
r
i
s
ont
o10p
e
r
c
e
ntf
ora
l
l
Americans age twenty-five and older.15
II. Affirmative Action Litigation
A. Brief History of Affirmative Action
11
SUCHENG CHAN & L. LING-CHI WANG, RACISM AND THE MODEL MINORITY: ASIAN-AMERICANS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION IN THE RACIAL CRISIS IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION 53 (Phllip G. Altbach & Kofi Lomotey
eds.,
State University of New York Press 1991) (1991).
12
WU, supra note 2, at 51.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
U.S. Census 2006-2008, http://2010.census.gov/2010census/. Also available at http://www.asian-nation.org/14statistics.shtml.
Affirmative action programs were first instituted in the United States as a means to
a
me
l
i
or
a
t
et
heg
ove
r
nme
n
t
’
spa
s
tdi
s
c
r
i
mi
na
t
or
ya
c
t
s
.Wi
t
hi
nt
h
ehi
g
he
re
du
c
a
t
i
onc
on
t
e
xt
,
courts have justified implementation of such programs to remedy the present effects of past
discrimination and a means to diversity student bodies in higher education settings.16
Af
f
i
r
ma
t
i
vea
c
t
i
onwa
sawa
yt
o“
c
o
mpe
n
s
a
t
et
ho
s
ewhoha
ds
u
f
f
e
r
e
ddi
s
c
r
i
mi
na
t
i
on,
17
ma
k
i
n
gt
h
e
mwhol
ea
g
a
i
n
,t
he
r
e
bye
na
b
l
i
ngt
he
mt
oc
o
mpe
t
ee
qu
a
l
l
yi
ns
oc
i
e
t
y
.
”
Under the
Fo
ur
t
e
e
nt
hAme
n
dme
n
t
’
sEqua
lPr
otection Clause, the Supreme Court considers race to be a
18
“
s
us
pe
c
tc
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
on
,
”s
u
bj
e
c
tt
os
t
r
i
c
ts
c
r
u
t
i
nyi
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
on
.
Race classifications must
therefore further a compelling governmental interest and also be narrowly tailored to achieve that
interest. University affirmation action programs dependent on race classifications must meet
both requirements.19
1. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
The U.S. Supreme Court first addressed the question of affirmative action in higher
education in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.20 Bakke, a white male, applied
and was rejected to the Medical School at the University of California Davis in 1973 and 1974.21
Het
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
rs
ue
da
l
l
e
g
i
ngt
ha
tt
heMe
di
c
a
lSc
hool
’
s“
s
pe
c
i
a
la
dmi
s
s
i
on
sp
r
o
gr
a
m,
”whi
c
h
reserved sixteen spots out of 100 for minority applicants, violated the Equal Protection Clause.22
The Superior Court of California struck down the program and the California Supreme Court
found that while the special admissions program furthered a compelling state interest, it was not
16
Victoria Choy, Note, Perpetuating the Exclusion of Asian Americans from the Affirmative Action Debate: An
Oversight of the Diversity Rationale in Grutter v. Bollinger, 38 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 545, 549 (2005).
17
Nancy Chung Allred, Asian Americans and Affirmative Action: From Yellow Peril to Model Minority and Back
Again, 14 ASIAN AM. L.J. 57, 61 (2007).
18
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
19
Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 305 (1978).
20
Id.
21
Id. at 276.
22
Id. at 277-78.
23
t
hel
e
a
s
ti
n
t
r
us
i
v
eme
a
nsoff
ur
t
he
r
i
ngt
ho
s
eg
oa
l
s
,a
nda
f
f
i
r
me
dt
h
el
o
we
rc
our
t
’
sd
e
c
i
s
i
on.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Justice Powell delivered the Court opinion, stating that the university
’
spr
og
r
a
mwa
s
discriminatory and unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because it set a racial
quota.24 The special program gave seats to minority applicants that white students could not
compete for and thus white students were precluded from consideration solely because of their
race.25 Justice Powell however stated that it is permissible to consider race in the admissions
pr
o
c
e
s
si
fi
ti
sj
u
s
ton
ef
a
c
t
oro
utofs
e
ve
r
a
li
nt
hed
e
c
i
s
i
onbe
c
a
us
ei
ti
si
nt
hes
t
a
t
e
’
sbe
s
ti
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
to promote diversity in schools.26
2. Hopwood v. Texas
Bakke was however inconclusive in many ways because it was a plurality opinion,
leaving lower courts somewhat hesitant to apply the decision. In 1996, the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit struck down the application of race in university admissions in the Texas state
school system.27 Hopwood, a white female, was denied admission to the University of Texas
Law School and thereafter sued based on unconstitutional racial discrimination. Hopwood
claimed that she had higher standardized test scores and grades than some of the admitted
minority students.28
The University had hoped to increase its minority student population and filtered
minority student applicants into separate admissions piles where an admissions subcommittee
23
Id. at 279.
Id. at 289-90.
25
David R. Colburn, et al., Admissions and Public Higher Education in California, Texas, and Florida: The PostAffirmative Action Era, 4 Interactions, UCLA J. EDUC. & INFO. STUD. 1, 1 (2008).
26
See, e.g., Asian Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund & One United Mich., Asian Pacific Americans in Michigan and
the Anti-Af
f
i
r
ma
t
i
v
eAc
t
i
onBa
l
l
otPr
o
pos
a
l“
Pr
opos
a
l2”
:ATool
k
i
tf
orGr
a
s
s
r
oot
sLe
a
de
r
s(
Se
pt
.2
006
)
,available
at http://www.aaldef.org/docs/Michigan_Proposal2_APAtoolkit_FINAL.pdf.
27
Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, 968 (5th Cir. 1996).
28
Id. at 937.
24
wou
l
dl
oo
ka
te
a
c
hi
ndi
vi
du
a
lc
a
ndi
da
t
e
’
sf
i
l
e
.Wh
i
t
ea
ndn
on-preferred minority applicants
were not given this same treatment and were held to a higher standard than their minority
counterparts. 29
Applying strict scrutiny, the Fifth Circuit struck down the affirmative action program,
stating that the program failed to identify a compelling governmental interest to justify the use of
racial classifications.30 After Hopwood, the Texas state school system banned the use of race in
31
higher educa
t
i
ona
dmi
s
s
i
onpr
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,a
nds
ho
r
t
l
ya
f
t
e
re
na
c
t
e
dt
h
e“
TopTe
nPe
r
c
e
n
t
”pl
a
n
.
3. Grutter v. Bollinger
The Court resolved the circuit split in Grutter v. Bollinger, where it upheld a program at
the University of Michigan that used race as a factor for admissions.32 Since the program
considered several other factors including race it passed the strict scrutiny test by the Court.33
Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was rejected from the University of Michigan law
school and sued, challenging the race-conscious admissions program, which considered race as a
34
“
pl
u
s
”r
a
t
h
e
rt
ha
na
s
s
i
g
ni
ngs
p
e
c
i
f
i
cp
e
r
c
e
nt
a
g
e
sf
o
re
a
c
hr
a
c
i
a
lg
r
oup
.
J
us
t
i
c
eO’
Co
nno
r
,wr
i
t
i
ngf
ort
heCou
r
t
,
s
t
a
t
e
dt
ha
tt
heun
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
’
sg
oa
lofh
a
vi
nga
diversified student body could serve as a compelling governmental interest under strict scrutiny
analysis.35 J
u
s
t
i
c
eO’
Con
nory
i
e
l
de
dt
ot
heun
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
’
s“
e
duc
a
t
i
on
a
la
ut
onomy
”i
nc
onc
l
u
di
ng
t
ha
t“
a
t
t
a
i
n
i
n
gadi
ve
r
s
es
t
ude
ntb
odyi
sa
tt
heh
e
a
r
to
ft
heLa
wSc
h
ool
’
spr
ope
ri
ns
t
i
t
ut
i
o
nal
29
Id. at 937-38.
Id. at 939-41.
31
Ac
tofSe
pt
e
mbe
r1,1
997
,c
h
.155
,
199
7Te
x
.Ge
n
.Se
s
s
.La
w.Se
r
v
.(
Ac
ts
t
a
t
e
st
h
a
t“
Ea
c
hg
e
n
e
r
a
la
c
a
de
mi
c
teaching institution shall admit an applicant for admission to the institution as an undergraduate student if the
applicant graduated in one of the two school years preceding the academic year for which the applicant is applying
for admission from a public or private high school in this state accredited by a generally recognized accrediting
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
onwi
t
hag
r
a
depoi
n
ta
v
e
r
a
g
ei
nt
h
et
op10p
e
r
c
e
n
toft
h
es
t
u
de
n
t
'
sh
i
ghs
c
h
oolg
r
a
du
a
t
i
ngc
l
a
s
s
.
”
)
32
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 395 (2003).
33
Id. at 337.
34
Id.
35
Id. at 325.
30
mi
s
s
i
on,
a
ndt
ha
t‘
g
oo
df
a
i
t
h
’ont
h
ep
a
r
tofaun
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
yi
s‘
pr
e
s
ume
d’a
bs
e
n
t‘
as
howi
ngt
ot
he
36
c
on
t
r
a
r
y
.
’
The opinion however found quota systems to be unconstitutional because it set aside
seats that are only open to applicants of certain races, sacrificing seats that could otherwise be
g
i
ve
nt
oo
t
h
e
rr
a
c
e
s
.But
,a
f
f
i
r
ma
t
i
v
ea
c
t
i
o
npr
og
r
a
mst
h
a
tc
o
ns
i
de
r
e
dr
a
c
ea
sa“
p
l
us
”f
a
c
t
or
went beyond that of a quota system by encouraging diversity and not advantaging one student
over another because of race.37 The Court thus allowed state universities to use race as a factor
in university admissions as long as the affirmative action programs considered other factors.
Asian Americans were divided on the final outcome of Grutter. The Asian American
Legal Foundation in California supported the white plaintiffs, contending that Asian Americans
and whites were hurt by the admissions policy. On the other hand, other Asian American legal
organizations such as the Asian Law Caucus and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center both
filed amicus briefs supporting the Michigan admission policies.38
B. The Jian Li Case
In October 2006, Jian Li, then a freshman at Yale University, filed a federal civil rights
complaint against Princeton University, alleging Princeton imposed higher standards for Asians
than for other minority groups.39 Li was rejected even with impressive credentials: a perfect
SAT score, a near-perfect SAT II score, overseas community service work, and high rankings on
his high school math and physics teams.40 Lic
l
a
i
me
dt
ha
tPr
i
nc
e
t
o
n’
sa
f
f
i
r
ma
t
i
vea
c
t
i
onp
ol
i
c
i
e
s
36
Id. at 329.
Id. at 315.
38
Harvey Gee, From Bakke to Grutter and Beyond: Asian Americans and Diversity in America, 9 TEX. J. ON C.L. &
C.R. 127, 152. (2004).
39
Karen W. Arenson, At Princeton, A Parody Raises Questions of Bias, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 23, 2007, at B1.
40
Christopher Shea, Victim of Success?: Are Asian American Students Discriminated Against in College
Admissions?, BOSTON GLOBE, Nov. 26, 2006, at 3C.
37
penalized Asian American students because of their overrepresentation at many elite universities
and yet gave preferential treatment to other minority groups.41
I
nr
e
s
po
ns
et
oLi
’
sc
ompl
a
i
nt
, the Daily Princetonian, the student-run daily newspaper at
42
Pr
i
nc
e
t
on,
pub
l
i
s
he
da
ni
s
s
uepa
r
ody
i
ngLi
’
sc
a
s
e
.
The issue poked fun at various Chinese
stereotypes –pa
r
ody
i
ngt
he
i
re
xc
e
l
l
e
n
tma
t
hs
ki
l
l
s
,“
gr
e
a
s
yf
ood
s
,
”a
n
dl
a
c
kofgr
a
mma
t
i
c
a
l
skills. Th
ec
ol
umnbe
g
a
nwi
t
h
,“
HiPr
i
nc
e
t
o
n!Re
me
mb
e
rme
?I so good at math and science
… It
hes
upe
rs
ma
r
tAs
i
a
n.Pr
i
n
c
e
t
ont
hes
up
e
rd
umbc
o
l
l
e
g
e
,no
ta
c
c
e
ptme… Myda
df
r
o
m
Kun
gPa
opr
o
vi
nc
e
.Iuni
t
e
d5
00y
e
a
r
so
fRi
c
eWa
r
s… Il
oveYa
l
e
.Lot
sofbul
l
dog
s here for
43
met
oe
a
t
.
”
Th
ePr
i
nc
e
t
on
i
a
n’
se
di
t
or
i
a
ls
t
a
f
fi
s
s
ue
daf
or
ma
la
pol
ogybuton
l
ya
f
t
e
rs
t
ude
n
t
s
and faculty condemned the issue.44
TheOf
f
i
c
eo
fCi
vi
lRi
g
ht
sc
on
ve
r
t
e
dLi
’
sc
a
s
ei
nt
oac
omp
l
i
a
n
c
er
e
vi
e
wt
ol
o
oka
t
Pr
i
nc
e
t
on’
sa
dmi
s
s
i
on
sp
ol
i
c
i
e
s for Asian-American students. The investigation, which is
ongoing, focuses on the admission process for the current class or applicants who were admitted
for the 2006-2007 school year.45
C. Current Status
Li
’
sc
a
s
ei
sawi
nd
owi
n
t
ot
h
ed
e
pt
hoft
hec
ontroversy regarding affirmative action in
United States universities. More than ten years ago, California voted to eliminate all affirmative
action programs in its higher education institutions.46 Texas, Florida, Washington followed suit,
41
Timothy Egan, Little Asia on the Hill, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 7, 2007, at 4A, available at http://
www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07asian.html?pagewanted=1&_
r
=1&e
i
=5087&e
m&e
n
=d4dbe
47a
90
e
b
63c
0&e
x
=11684
91
60
0(
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r“
Eg
a
n
”
)
.
42
Lian Ji, Princeton University is Racist Against Me, I Mean, Non-Whites, DAILY PRINCETONIAN, Jan. 17, 2007,
available at http:// www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/01/17/opinion/17109.shtml.
43
Id.
44
Chanakya Sethi et al., Editors' Note, DAILY PRINCETONIAN, Jan. 17, 2007, available at http://
www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/01/19/news/17133.shtml.
45
Id., also available at http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2010/01/13/pages/9134/index.xml.
46
Egan, supra note 41, at 4a.
and in 2006, Michigan voted to end race-ba
s
e
d“
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
”a
tt
h
eUn
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
yofMi
c
hi
g
a
na
n
d
other state entities.47
In 2007, in two separate decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the use of race in
public school enrollment in Seattle and Kentucky, invalidating programs by declaring that raceconscious policies were discriminatory and unconstitutional.48 Public support is declining as
well. In a 2003 poll, 54 percent of Americans favored affirmative action in education, but by
2006, only 36 percent were in support of such programs.49
III. Model Minority Myth and White Flight
A. Model Minority Myth
While some Asian American and white students call for the abolishment of affirmative
a
c
t
i
onpr
og
r
a
ms
,
t
h
e
ydono
ta
l
wa
y
sh
a
vee
a
c
hot
he
r
’
sbe
s
ti
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
si
nmi
nd.I
nt
he1970s and
1980s, the admissions programs of several elite universities were questioned when increasing
Asian American application rates did not coincide with increasing admissions rates. 50 In 1980, a
memo from a prestigious U.S. university was leaked to thep
r
e
s
s
,s
t
a
t
i
ng
,“
Th
ec
a
mpu
swi
l
l
e
nd
e
a
vo
rt
oc
u
r
bt
h
ede
c
l
i
neofCa
uc
a
s
i
a
ns
t
ude
nt
s….
Ar
i
s
i
ngc
o
nc
e
r
nwi
l
lc
o
mef
r
o
m As
i
a
n
51
s
t
ude
nt
s
.
”
I
na
not
he
re
xa
mpl
e
,
Uni
ve
r
s
i
t
yo
fCa
l
i
f
or
ni
aBe
r
ke
l
e
y
’
sf
or
me
rCha
n
c
e
l
l
o
r
a
po
l
og
i
z
e
df
o
r“
d
i
s
a
dva
nt
a
g
i
ngAs
i
a
ns
”i
nthe admissions process.52
Some critics have stated that the model minority myth can also be used as a way for
white students to oppose affirmative action under the guise of acting as an advocate for Asian
47
Adrian Liu, Af
f
i
r
ma
t
i
v
eAc
t
i
o
n&Ne
gat
i
v
eAc
t
i
on:HowJ
i
a
nLi
’
sCas
eCa
nBe
ne
f
i
tAs
i
anAme
r
i
c
a
n
s
, 13 MICH. J.
391, 394 (2008) (hereina
f
t
e
r“
Li
u
”
)
.
Linda Greenhouse, Court Reviews Race as Factor in School Plans, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 5, 2006, at A1.
49
Liu, supra note 47, at 395.
50
Xiaofeng Stephanie Da, Education and Labor Relations: Asian Americans and Blacks as Pawns in the
Furtherance of White Hegemony, 13 MICH. J. RACE & L. 309,
328(
200
7)(
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r“
Da
”
)
.
51
Id.
52
Kim, supra note 1, at 132 n.22.
RACE & L.
48
American rights while merely benefiting themselves.53 Critics have stated that the model
minority status can be used as rationale that other minority groups should not require additional
help from affirmative action programs.54 Thus, when other minority groups reap the benefits
from affirmative action progr
a
ms
,a
f
f
i
r
ma
t
i
v
ea
c
t
i
o
ni
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
e
da
sat
y
peof“
r
e
ve
r
s
e
55
di
s
c
r
i
mi
na
t
i
on”a
g
a
i
ns
tAs
i
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
n
s
.
One outspoken critic was quoted as saying,
“
Be
c
a
u
s
eWh
i
t
e
sa
r
ea
bl
et
oc
ha
mp
i
ont
heg
r
ou
pwhos
ei
nt
e
r
e
s
t
sa
l
i
g
nwi
t
ht
he
i
rown,
i
nt
he
realm of educationWhi
t
e
sa
r
ea
bl
et
o‘
[
t
a
k
e
]a
wa
yf
r
o
mAs
i
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nst
og
i
v
et
oWhi
t
e
s
,
’bu
t
i
fc
h
a
l
l
e
ng
e
d
,t
oma
ket
hec
l
a
i
mt
ha
tt
h
e
ya
r
e‘
t
a
k
i
nga
wa
yf
r
omAs
i
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nst
og
i
vet
o
56
ot
he
rmi
no
r
i
t
yg
r
ou
ps
.
’
”
B. White Flight
Racial discrimination against Asian Americans in the educational setting is becoming
more prevalent in pre-university settings as well, particularly in California. In a 2005 Wall
St
r
e
e
tJ
ou
r
n
a
la
r
t
i
c
l
ee
nt
i
t
l
e
d“
TheNe
wWhi
t
eFl
i
g
ht
,
”t
hea
u
t
h
orwr
o
t
eo
fho
wwh
i
t
epa
r
e
nt
si
n
the Silicon Valley were taking their children out of two local public high schools due to concern
57
oft
hes
c
ho
ol
sb
e
i
ng“
t
ooAs
i
a
n
.
”
Monta Vista and Lynbrook High Schools are two of the top
high schools in California, with stellar academic reputations and exceptional college placement
rates.58 When asked why parents chose to opt out of these two schools, parents would respond
53
Da, supra note 50, at 327-28.
Id. at 328.
55
Id. at 329.
56
WU, supra note 2, at 278.
57
Goodwin Liu, The Causation Fallacy: Bakke and the Basic Arithmetic of Selective Admissions, 100 MICH. L. REV.
1045, 1046 (2002).
58
Id.
54
that the schools were too competitive or the schools focused too much on math and science and
not enough on liberal arts and extracurricular activities.59
The article mentioned that this might not be the only reason why white parents were
opting out.60 The article further stated that top schools in nearby school districts, such as Palo
Alto, which has a comparable ranking and reputation, were not facing this mass exodus by white
students.61 Therefore, a possible explanation was that white parents might be uncomfortable
with their children competing in an academic environment with Asian-American students,
especially in the areas of math and science.62 This is becoming more evident in higher
institutions as well. One article referred to a Stanford University professor who asked a [W]hite
student about a poor exam answer in an engineering course, only for the student to respond with,
“
Wha
tdoy
o
ut
h
i
n
kIa
m,Chi
ne
s
e
?
”I
na
n
ot
he
re
xa
mpl
e
,t
hef
or
me
rs
t
ude
ntb
odyp
r
e
s
i
de
ntof
Be
r
ke
l
e
ywa
squ
ot
e
da
ss
a
y
i
ngt
h
a
t
,“
So
mes
t
ude
nt
ss
a
yt
ha
ti
ft
he
ys
e
et
o
oma
nyAs
i
a
n
si
na
c
l
a
s
s
,t
h
e
ya
r
enotg
oi
ngt
ot
a
kei
tb
e
c
a
u
s
et
h
ec
ur
vewi
l
lbet
ooh
i
g
h.
”I
nt
hes
a
mea
r
t
i
c
l
e
,a Yale
s
t
ude
nts
t
a
t
e
d
,“
I
fy
oua
r
ewe
a
ki
nma
t
hors
c
i
e
nc
ea
ndf
i
ndy
o
ur
s
e
l
fa
s
s
i
g
ne
dt
oac
l
a
s
swi
t
ha
63
ma
j
or
i
t
yofAs
i
a
nk
i
d
s
,t
heon
l
yt
h
i
ngt
od
oi
st
ot
r
a
ns
f
e
rt
oad
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
ts
e
c
t
i
on
.
”
Situations like the ones in Monta Vista and Lynbrook High Schools are being
commonplace, particularly in California. Critics state that Asian Americans are being
stigmatized and resented because of their high academic achievements. In addition, Asian
Americans are being singled out for their hard work and successes in a negative way.
IV. Conclusion
59
Gabriel J. Chin et al., Beyond Self-Interest: Asian Pacific Americans Towards a Community of Justice, A Policy
Analysis of Affirmative Action, 4 ASIAN PAC. AM. L.J. 129, 134-36 (1996) (discussing discrimination against Asian
Americans).
60
Id.
61
Id.
62
Joel Rubin, Diversity Program at Beverly Hills High Enrolls Mostly Asians, L.A. TIMES, Apr. 2, 2007, at B1
(describing a high school program aimed at increasing the enrollment of Asian Americans).
63
Da, supra note 50, at 326.
Affirmative action is a remedy for past and current discrimination of minority racial
groups and is a controversy not likely to be resolved within a short period of time or by a set of
broad laws. From the Asian American perspective, it is evident that there are ardent advocates
on both sides of the debate who believe that they have the best interests of Asian Americans in
mind. While opinions and perspectives may waiver for and against affirmative action programs
on bot
hs
i
de
s
,t
her
o
oto
ft
hepr
o
bl
e
mwi
l
lr
e
ma
i
n:s
o
c
i
e
t
y
’
so
f
t
e
nt
i
me
sf
a
l
s
ea
n
dne
g
a
t
i
ve
perceptions of Asian Americans. Thus, a key step in addressing the affirmative action
c
on
t
r
o
ve
r
s
ywou
l
dbet
oc
ha
ng
es
oc
i
e
t
y
’
spe
r
c
e
pt
i
o
nofAs
i
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nsa
ndt
he
na
ddress the
realities of racism and discrimination within the educational context.
But we as a society can strive to reach common goals in our pursuit to a resolution. At
the core of the affirmative action issue is the social problem of racism, which has led to
destructive thinking and stereotyping of minority groups. In an ideal society, race would no
longer be the cause of social, economic or political division, inequality, and hatred.
The American society must also recognize that amidst all the advances Asian Americans
have made in higher education and the labor force, Asian Americans still face discrimination on
a daily basis –through direct and indirect means. Asian Americans have long been kept in the
shadows in the affirmative action debate, and it is pivotal to understand that Asian Americans
can play a vital role in the controversy.
As
i
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nsa
r
ei
na“
uni
quepos
i
t
i
oni
nt
h
a
tt
he
ypos
s
e
s
sa‘
s
i
mul
t
a
ne
i
t
y
’i
nt
h
a
t
they can take the role of victim and a perpetrator of racial discrimination in the higher education
64
c
on
t
e
xt
.
”
Therefore, Asian Americans and other racial groups must step forward in this debate
and voice their opinions instead of pointing fingers at each other and having a victim mentality.
64
Eric Yamamoto, Rethinking Alliances: Agency, Responsibility and Interracial Justice, 3 UCLA ASIAN PAC. AM. L.J.
33, 35 (1995).
Particularly, Asian Americans should call upon liberals and conservatives to take a serious look
at discrimination against their race, to reject model minority stereotypes, and most importantly,
to give them a chance to participate in national debates concerning affirmative action and race.
In sum, Asian Americans are a vital part of the affirmative action debate. Therefore, a key step
forward would be for Asian American groups to combine forces with others that are genuinely
committed to social justice and together work toward a program that would break down the
barriers that limit minority groups in the educational setting.