“AIB2B Says NO to ACA-5”
AIB2B is taking a strong stand against ACA-5, working with groups all across the country such as sister lodge, Chinese American Citizens Alliance New York, The Lincoln Club of Orange County, and many other groups to push back on this assembly constitutional amendment.
Do you believe that one’s skin color should contribute to whether or not they will make it into a certain college? Do you agree that colleges should maintain a quota of what races/ethnic groups get to attend?
An anonymous, Asian high school student shares thoughts regarding the Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA-5) which aims to amend Proposition 209. Proposition 209 mandates the ability of the state, prohibiting colleges from considering race as a factor in hiring or admissions.
An anonymous Asian high school student:
Right now, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA-5) is passing through Californian Congress. It will amend the Constitution so that Proposition 209, or the Californian Civil Rights Initiative, is removed. Proposition 209 mandates that the state must not consider race as a factor in hiring or admissions. “State” includes any function or subdivision of the California state government, including the UC system. As a student, I am most concerned with college applications. Thus, to me, Proposition 209 means that when applying to UCs, my race will not be considered.
Those opposed to Proposition 209 argue that helping disadvantaged groups makes sense in a historical context, is socially responsible, and helps society as a whole. Those in support of Proposition 209 argue that Affirmative Action is essentially reverse discrimination, and not a suitable response to the historical context of modern race issues. Personally, I lie in the second camp. And, as a forewarning, I am Asian. I have a vested interest in the preservation of Proposition 209, but I do hope that you will entertain my arguments.
From an individual standpoint, I would be rather angry if I was denied entry into college because of my skin color. The very fact that race played a role in my admissions discomforts me. I feel the same feeling when I mark a checkbox stating that I am Asian on the SAT. I have been relegated to a stereotype. My person has been flattened into a word, an overarching group that does not sufficiently describe who I am. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I am worried that by ticking that box and not “no response,” I had just shot myself in the foot. Would the stereotype of the slim eyed, conniving, bookworm Asian come to haunt me? I don’t know. But in a world where I have to check that box on my college applications, I remain uncomfortable, worried that whoever sees my application may recall, perhaps subconsciously, that stereotype. That check box may be intended for the elevation of society, but in that moment, it serves as a reminder that I am described by my race, that society is still concerned enough about the color of my skin that it would like me to file politely into the room for yellow people, if I would please.
But, many say that awareness of race is crucial for addressing the issues that many races are currently dealing with. And, while that makes sense, I would also like to raise the self-contradictions of that idea. If the goal is to remove the distinctions between race so that racism is no more, why is it that the chief method employed is to draw sharp, bureaucratic lines between races? By trying to set an equal playing field, Affirmative Action has solidified the idea of race, made it apparent in our minds. When Brown v. Board was argued, Thurgood Marshall chose Topeka, Kansas because the schools there were much more equal than Southern schools. He wanted to argue not the impossibility of “separate but equal,” but instead the inherent unequalness that belies separateness. As Chief Justice Warren put it, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The form of racial separation is different today, but I think that it merits comparison. The relegation of ones’ identity to their skin color was demonstrated by the famous doll test, and remains a prominent issue if colleges choose to consider race in their admissions.
Some may say that the forms of racial separation are more subtle today, and thus justify the social benefits of Affirmative Action. Yes, quotas and point systems are unconstitutional. But, an admissions process that considered race could be thought as multiple different admissions processes, each concerned with their own race. Then, after selecting those admitted through different standards and filters, those accepted would be pooled together. A slight change in interpretation makes the system seem glaringly dependent on race. No matter how small the differences between filters are, the public imagination will play up their role in admissions. The filters can be benign, but the harm on high schoolers will be the same. Anxieties will play up one’s consciousness of their own race. Many will think, “did I fail to enter because I was Asian?” Others will think “did they only get in because they are Hispanic/black?” Even if the recipients got in through hard work and persevered through their uniquely difficult environment, they too will be reduced to nothing but a stereotype, nothing but their race. Do we want this mentality to be permitted into our college admissions system?
I make no comment about the statistics of Proposition 209 because, truth is, I don’t understand them well. But, as a student, I hope that my unique perspective will contribute to the discussion. In my mind, the introduction of race into the dialogue is dangerous in and of itself. It perpetuates stereotypes, both among the population and in students themselves. In turn these perpetuated stereotypes could prove to be corrosive to the self confidence and spirit of students. Proposition 209 makes the Californian government and the UC system race blind, and I think that’s just how it should be. I urge you to consider these reasons when thinking about ACA-5. Thank you for your time.
