Healthy discussions

I read this opinion yesterday on the "Return of Affirmative Action?" and found I have a lot of disagreement with it. In fact, I was going 'wtf?' a whole lot. That's not cool. So in responding to it, I will try to be nice, civil, decorous, whatever you want to call it. It's difficult for me to articulate a critique of colorblind racism or ignorance of Southeast Asian Americans well, but I'll try. (As Miguel would say, roastin' muthafuckas!)

First, we need to think about what affirmative action means. Since its inception, the University of California has been an historically white, Protestant, heterosexual male college. So I disagree with the author when she states "Statistically, the percentage of Asian-American UCLA students has always been high, and my peers at UC Berkeley resounded the same sentiment." How could the % of Asian Americans at UCLA have always been high when there is a rich history of exclusion?

The role of affirmative action has been to attempt to balance the scales of admission so that historically underrepresented groups have that much more of a level playing field. I recently got the opportunity to hear Professor Devon Carbado speak on this, and apparently a lot of people believe that affirmative action is this "thumb on the scale" that overwhelming favors students of color over whites. That's assuming the scales are balanced in the first place, which they aren't. (And of course, the term "Asian American" just throws things out of whack, but I'll get to that.)
Even when you put the thumb on the scale, affirmative action does not overcome other factors like refugee or immigrant backgrounds, poverty, lack of social capital, inequalities in K-12 education, underrepresentation in media and politics, and limited-English proficiency.

Second, how does affirmative action affect Asian Americans, specifically Southeast Asian Americans? I honestly don't know. But what I do know is that while APAs have a very high percentage of educational attainment (~25%), Southeast Asians have relatively lower percentages. In her article "Southeast Asian American Youth: Not the 'Model Minority'", Ka-Ying Yang articulates why that is, and why there is such an important need for disaggregation. That is, distinguishing ethnicities so that we can see where communities are at. So we're not all


Maybe then people will see that Southeast Asian Americans' educational attainment percentages are lower than the population as a whole. And that Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian percentages are lower than those of Blacks, Native Americans, and Latinos (see Figure 1). Maybe then, people will think twice when they say things like "There were many days within my four years where I really wished that there were less Asian-American students."

Really? No, really, what the fuck? Lemme tell you something. There were even more days when I wished there were more diverse Asian-American students, not to mention more Pacific Islanders. And I don't want to sound mean, but fuck it, Imma just say it: There were many days within my three years where I really wished there were less SPOILED, apathetic, ELITIST, don't-give-a-shit-about-nobody-but-myself, narcissistic-ass Asian American students. Fuck you and your sense of entitlement.

Third, what does the UC's new policy mean? I believe what the UC is trying to do with this policy is turn communities against each other. Blacks and Latinos against Asian Americans. Whites against Asian Americans. East Asian Americans against Southeast Asian Americans. Classic divide and conquer tactics. And it's working (see article). See how angry I was in the previous paragraph? All for demonstrative purposes. How helpful was it that I said that? Not very. But at the same time, how do Southeast Asians get that shit across to other groups, to East Asians, to Latinos, to Blacks, to whites?

Asian American. How ironic that this once empowering term no longer fits. I'm tired of always having to explain, having to teach, having to represent and say, "hey, what you're saying, it don't make no fucking sense." That's a tool of the master, says Audre Lorde, keeping us busy with explaining while the oppressor keeps on with the oppressing.

In the last paragraph, the author writes:

"Personally, I want to believe that the UC's intent behind this policy is not for the purpose of increasing diversity, but I do believe that that will be the result. Moreover, I do not believe it will be for the betterment of the UC institution altogether - with what I believe are lowered standards for admissions, the overall integrity and academic excellence of the schools will consequently drop as well."

Oh... I get it. Diversity is bad because we're lowering our standards. It's not the fault of the racist and sexist institutions, it's the fault of underrepresented groups for not being white or manly enough. I get it! Thanks, thanks so much for clearing that up.