Vang is a third-year Asian American studies and English student.
 Illustration by JASON CHEN/Daily Bruin Senior Staff
By Anouh Vang
When discussing affirmative action, opponents have used Asian
Americans to deceive the society at large. The effect of this
deception has been manifested in the UC Regents’ adoption of
SP-1 and SP-2. This may partly stem from the belief that
affirmative action in higher education discriminates against Asian
Americans. Affirmative action is thus a flawed program since it
does not define underrepresented Asian Americans as minorities.
What opponents of affirmative action fail to acknowledge is the
immigration pattern of various ethnicities under the Asian American
category. This is significant because these patterns have dictated
the economic status, poverty levels and diversity of the Asian
American community.
Neoconservatives and opponents of affirmative action fail to
consider who makes up the Asian American community. They throw
around the term Asian Americans to disqualify affirmative action.
What is interesting is the UC system, however, does not lump all
Asians into that general term. The universal UC undergraduate
application offers a number of ethnic identity boxes to mark. In
the context of the affirmative action debate there needs to be an
acknowledgement of the diversity within the Asian American
category.
As noted, the pattern of immigration for Asians to America has a
substantial influence on their economic status and poverty levels.
There are three official waves of Asian immigration.
The first wave came over as imported labor in the 19th and early
20th centuries. They consisted almost entirely of Chinese, Japanese
and Pilipino male laborers. In 1924, the U.S. government excluded
all Asian immigration, halting any Asian American population
growth.
The second wave didn’t come until 1965, with an entirely
new generation. The Immigration Reform Act was a front for what is
considered the “brain drain.” This term reflects the
United States’ preference for the educated and the
professional. This “brain drain” governed who was
allowed to immigrate based on their ability to contribute to the
expansion of the country’s nuclear arms capacity during the
Cold War.
The third wave came in 1975, after Nixon’s call for the
“Vietnamization” of the Vietnam War. These new arrivals
are more appropriately termed refugees and not immigrants. They
came over because of the United States’ failed investment in
all of Southeast Asia. Nearly all of them were uneducated, in the
western sense, and were very simple people, living off the
“fat o’ the land.”
Gender make-up and racist policies stagnated the first wave of
Asian immigrants. The second wave, because they immigrated under a
preference policy, comprised of mostly middle class and educated
immigrants. The third wave consisted of refugees coming over with
basically nothing. Because of these patterns, we have this
dichotomy within the Asian Pacific American community,
characterized by the disparity in poverty levels and access to
higher education. Neoconservatives are the pioneers of the
“Asian American” stereotype because they perpetuate the
“model minority” myth and suppress the imperative of
this dichotomy.
An example is the poverty level of new Southeast Asian arrivals.
According to the data from the 1990 census, Laotians, Hmongs,
Cambodians and Vietnamese have poverty rates of 67.2 percent, 65.5
percent, 46.9 percent and 33.5 percent respectively, compared to a
national average rate of 9.6 percent.
Such numbers contradict the popular belief that Asian Americans
are a successful minority due to the number of Southeast Asian
refugees and Pacific Islanders living in California. From here on,
I will use the term Asian/Pacific Americans because opponents also
lump Pacific Islander Americans into the
“all-encompassing” category of Asian American.
As a Hmong American, who grew up picking cherry tomatoes in the
central valley (a magnet for post-1975 Southeast Asian refugees), I
can testify first hand to the massive disparity between economic
status and poverty levels within the Asian/Pacific American
community.
Opponents of affirmative action grossly generalize the diverse
Asian/Pacific American community in order to substantiate their
otherwise empty arguments. In doing so, they further propagate the
model minority myth. Concerning higher education, the detrimental
effects of this myth are manifested in SP-1. The generalization of
the Asian/Pacific Americans community in the context of affirmative
action results in disadvantages for underrepresented Asian/Pacific
Americans and underrepresented minorities in general.
The worst part is that our UC regents continue to proliferate
this myth. This is one reason for the disparity within the
Asian/Pacific American communities. This is why Asian/Pacific
Americans must continue to struggle with other minority groups to
pressure the UC regents into repealing SP- 1 and SP-2.
Asian/Pacific Americans need affirmative action programs in
terms of access to higher education and beyond into the workforce.
A “glass ceiling” prevents upward mobility in the
workforce, specifically, for Asian/Pacific Americans. Access to
higher education and the “glass ceiling” have in common
the existence of systemic and institutionalized racism.
Statistical evidence help confirm the “glass
ceiling” theory. Asian American college graduates earn 11
percent less than their white counterparts. In terms of glass
ceilings established by the government, the San Francisco
contracting case is a prime example. In the 1980s, Asian/Pacific
Americans constituted 20 percent of the available construction
firms but received less than one percent of the city’s total
construction contracts. With the implementation of affirmative
action programs, that number increased substantially (National
Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, www.napalc.org).
At UCLA, we’ve confronted institutionalized racism against
Asian/Pacific Americans. The Don Nakanishi case is a key example
because it revealed institutionalized racism in access to higher
education and employment. He was one of the leaders who exposed
illegal admission quotas against Asian/Pacific Americans at UCLA.
This became one of the reasons why he was denied tenure. It took
three years of student and community activism alongside legal
battles to overcome this blatant case of institutional
discrimination.
The call for students to help repeal SP-1 and SP-2 lies in the
class lines that are created by institutionalized racism. We all
have to face the world outside of Westwood sometime. The disparity
within the Asian/Pacific American community in terms of poverty
levels has already been noted. African Americans make up 12 percent
of the national population but a third live in poverty. Chicano/a
Americans continue to earn less than their white counterparts. The
1990 census reveals that 56 percent of Native American households
earn under $15,000 per year.
Asian/Pacific Americans play a crucial role in the affirmative
action debate. They are a diverse group differing in socioeconomic
status, necessitating a breakdown of their ethnicities. Even after
college, Asian/Pacific Americans are discriminated in the
workforce.
Outside of the university, as noted earlier, we are just Asian
American. Out in the workplace, we are oppressed by
institutionalized racism for being Asian American. By repealing
SP-1, 2 we are gaining in the struggle to eliminate
institutionalized racism and discrimination.