A “Chain Reaction” of Issues:

1. A “Chain Reaction” of Issues: From Asian-American Admissions to Affirmative Action

2. Affirmative Action • “Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—affirmative action generates intense controversy.

3. 1972-1980: 1st Spike in the Debate • Controversy about gender and racial preferences • About the factory, the firehouse, and the corporate suite as about the university campus

4. Resurgence of the Debate in 1990’s • Led up to the Supreme Court's decision in the summer of 2003 upholding certain kinds of affirmative action • The burning issue at the turn of the twentieth-first century is about college admissions.

5. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, • The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.

6. Justice Powell • Justice Powell found the special admissions program unconstitutional

7. Professor Ling-Chi Wang

8. Professor Wang of Asian American Studies at UC Berkeley • In 1984, he was surprised and discover that the number of newly enrolled Asian Americans had declined precipitously by 21% - • From 1303 in 1983 to 1031 a year later • Parallel patterns at other universities • Stanford University reported unaccountable lower admission rates for Asians than for whites

9. Wang organized the Asian American Task Force on University Admissions • 1985 report charged the drop in Asian-American enrollment was due to a series of policy changes that discriminated against Asian-American applicants.

10. UC President David Gardner • In an interview with the San Diego Union pointed out that Asian-American students were overrepresented in the university: Asians made up only 6% of the state’s population, but comprised more than 20% of UC’s undergraduate enrollment. • Efforts to redress earlier ethnic imbalances for Blacks and Hispanics were jeopardized by the new Asian American presence.

11. Asian-Americans and Affirmative Action • During the 1980’s, the University of California increased black and Latino enrollment by giving special consideration to “underrepresented minorities.” • This affirmative action was generating complaints that blacks were unfairly taking away admission slots from white students. • Now Asian-American students were also depicted as victims of “reverse discrimination”

12. Chain Reaction • What began as a protest against discrimination in Asian-American admissions had turned into a “chain reaction” against affirmative action.

13. President Ronald Reagan • 1988 signing ceremony for Asian Pacific American Heritage Week, President Reagan stated, “I know there is a growing concern that some universities may be discriminating against citizens of Asian and Pacific heritage, accepting a lower percentage of these applicants than get admitted from other groups, despite their academic qualifications. Well, to deny any individual access to higher education when it has been won on the basis of merit is a repudiation of everything America stands for.”

14. Battle between meritocracy and Affirmation Action

15. SP-1 and SP-2 • In July 1995, the University of California Board of Regents adopted two resolutions, called SP-1 and SP-2, that changed the university’s admissions, hiring and contracting practices. SP-1 eliminated consideration of race and gender in the admission of students to the university. SP-2 eliminated race and gender as considerations in UC’s hiring and contracting practices, except where such action would result in the university’s loss of federal or state funds. The first full entering freshman class admitted under SP-1 enrolled at UC in fall 1998.

16. Governor Pete Wilson of California • January 1996: Wilson upheld his support for the July 1995 decision by the University of California Regents to eliminate race as a consideration for admissions, hiring, and contracting. • “Racial preferences are by definition racial discrimination. They were wrong 30 years ago when they discriminated against African Americans. And they’re wrong today, when they discriminate against Asian or Caucasian Americans”

17. The Political Right • The Right evokes Asian Americans to demonstrate that another nonwhite, racialized minority is being hurt by affirmative action policies.

18. January 1996: Protest of SP-1 & SP-2 • Student advocates for affirmative action protested inside UC Board of Regents meeting. • Applied white face paint and pasted stickers reading “Reclaim Our Education” over their mouths • White faces represented increasing whiteness of the University of California and lack of diversity that would result • Mouth stickers underscore the students lack of voice in UC policy

19. The Political Left • Asian Americans are simply left out of the affirmative action debate • Asian American have not been the beneficiaries of racial preference • Asians are a tiny minority and expendable in the “big picture” of race relations • Asian Americans benefit from the end of affirmative action and are likely to oppose racial preferences.

20. The Political Left (con’t) • “Shared Interests” – The assumption that Asian Americans share a similar social location as, for example, African Americans in the affirmative action debate.”

21. Asian Americans and Racism • We think of racism as hostility directed aginst those of a different skin color believed to be “inferior” in terms of class and status, in intellectual ability, or in cultural orientation. (Structural forms of discrimination) • Asian Americans are often the objects of resentment by other groups who perceive that they do “too well” that they secure wealth and other material resources and social advantages unfairly.

22. Proposition 209 • 1996 – a proposed Constitutional amendment prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting “preferential treatment” to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in employment and education. • Intended effect: The abolition of affirmtive action

23. Perception of the “Angry Yellow Male” • The 1% of the electorate composed of Asian Americans that were perceived to be against affirmative action.

24. Proposition 209 • The proposition passed – 54% to 46% • 63% of whites favored it • 74% of blacks and 76% of Latinos rejected it • 61% of Asian-Americans voted against it

25. Asian Americans on Proposition 209 • Asian Americans believed that affirmative action was responsible for more minority-owned businesses and more jobs in police and fire dep’t, gov’t offices, mass media, law firms management and the university social science and humanities dep’ts.