Diaz is a second-year political science student. He currently
serves as the campus external communications coordinator for
Concerned Asian Pacific Islander Students for Action.
By Christopher Diaz
I’m writing in response to Matt Kennedy’s
submission, “Economic
advantages more significant than race“ (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Nov. 20). As an Asian Pacific American, I felt compelled
to point out his ignorant reference to “Asian kids” as
some kind of model minority capable of surmounting all racial
barriers and successfully “earning our way.”
Kennedy fails to understand the diversity within the Asian
Pacific American community and the disparity of success amongst all
us “Asian kids,” improperly implying that all Asians
have seemingly succeeded in overcoming historical racism.
First, above all, Asians have not completely moved up in society
despite the assumption by many. Although the numbers of certain
Asians may be up in admissions to prestigious universities, can
Kennedy explain why there still exists an income gap between these
Asians and whites in similar high-ranking positions once out of
college? If we supposedly represent the success story of a
historically discriminated ethnic group, then why does this
inequality still exist?
Apparently, ethnic background still influences whether or not an
Asian individual’s worth will be considered equal to that of
a white individual.
Furthermore, Kennedy refers to Asians as if they are some
successful homogenous group; however, “Asian kids” are
not all the same and not similarly situated. Not only does this
assumption illustrate Kennedy’s inability to comprehend the
inherent diversity of the Asian Pacific Community, but it also goes
to show the overall trend of society to neglect the needs of
underrepresented ethnicities within the Asian Pacific Community
itself.
The Asian Pacific Community is internally composed of many
ethnicities ranging from Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean,
Pilipino, East Indian/Pakistani and Pacific Islander, just to name
a few. The emphasis placed by our society on the success of
specific Asian ethnic groups sometimes obscures the entire Asian
American story, marginalizing the voices and concerns of
underrepresented Asian groups not equally successful as their
counterparts.
Using Asian Americans as their primary example, many
anti-affirmative action proponents assert that race-sensitive
admissions are not necessary to achieve diversity at UCLA.
Accordingly, the playing field doesn’t need to be leveled
because Asian Americans are a prime example of success in the face
of adversity.
But, as stated, not all Asians have been as successful in
overcoming certain barriers, and their presence at UCLA diminishes
as each year passes. Anti-affirmative action supporters who use
Asians as some kind of success story should refrain from doing so
because ultimately, the repeal of UC Regents’ SP-1 and 2, as
well as the implementation of a race-sensitive admissions process,
would benefit the underrepresented segments of the Asian Pacific
Community.
Although Matt Kennedy neglected the fact that not all Asians are
equally successful, he did point out something important: action
must be taken regarding the disparate playing field of our society.
Requesting that the UC Regents repeal SP-1 and 2 and implement
race-sensitive admissions to help ensure that underrepresented
minorities have access to our university is one way of doing
so.
After all, Asians ““ regardless of what individuals choose
to believe ““ are people of color, and they too will benefit
from a policy that attempts to further equalize the playing field
for historically discriminated minorities.