Thank you for such a balanced post. What you say is perfectly true at this moment, but may not necessarily be true in a few years from now.
Just as things might change in a few years, there’s always a chance they’ll stay the same, after all you’re talking about siding with conservatives who don’t like change.
And more importantly, if we are focusing on the topic of higher education/ medical profession alone, (which is why we are all here), the conservative ideology is more aligned and supportive of Asian Americans. ( compared to the liberals who are focused on eliminating standardized testing, support overt discrimination in the name of equity, preach inclusion and diversity while excluding select minorities, minimizing struggles and trials of some minorities etc… what I would like to refer to as ”the Asian-American penalty”!)
Yes, I agree with you that there are many more broader issues at play when people choose their representatives in elections, however, it is clear which party is on the right side of education for Asian Americans!
Things you have said seem inconsiderate. You seem to only (or mostly) care about how well Asians do when you should be caring about the country as a whole.
AA is a good thing because it helps the underrepresented progress. Asians are overrepresented and are doing well. Not all Asians are doing well, but there are way more Asians doing well than are Hispanics and blacks. It is a very good thing for the country (everyone, including Asians) when Hispanics and blacks begin to progress at the rate Asians/whites are. Hispanic/black progression benefits Asians and everyone else. That’s the bigger picture that for some reason you and other AA opposers here aren’t able to get despite many attempts to get you to understand.
You keep making it seem like Asians are being targeted (you might not be meaning to make it sound that way, but believe me that’s what it sounds like). Nobody is targeting Asians.
AA simply makes space. If a few Asians didn’t get into a city school because they let Hispanics and blacks in, I doubt you’d complain. Most AA opposers oppose AA because of their obsession over a handful of schools (top unis) that are already overrepresented by Asians and whites.
All people who are pro AA have said is that AA is trying to make things more equitable. One Asian doesn’t get into Harvard/others and you’re ready to swing a whole racial group to the Republicans. It obviously isn’t only one Asian not getting in, but it might as well be when you look at how many Asians are getting in as opposed to blacks and Hispanics.
An AA opposer here said that Asians came up from their struggles in the US, as well as Jews, so blacks can do it too. Basically, they’re saying that suffering is suffering; one person’s suffering is equal to someone else’s. No. That is not true. You can’t compare the suffering of blacks to anyone in the US and if you think that, everyone should be thankful for essays and interviews.
Blacks were once enslaved.
Asians came to the US to work, voluntarily. Blacks came against their will. They didn’t even know why or where those ships were taking them. For years, whites in the US have been taught to look down upon blacks. When something like that is taught for years, it becomes a part of culture. Imagine living in a country where it is literally the culture of the majority to look down upon your people. Asians never had such a problem. Yeah sure, Asians deal with childish remarks and racism, but it doesn’t compare to what blacks faced and still deal with today… not even close. (I know that many whites today are not racist and are very aware of these things, I’m speaking in historical terms, but then again this cultural racism I’m referring to does still exist today.)
A big reason as to why Asians progressed in the US is because many who came were already educated and had money. So again, nobody can say, “well Asians did it so blacks can too.” The progression of the Asian population was greatly assisted by those who came with money.
Three of the justices who voted against AA were appointed by Donald Trump who went to extremist organizations (the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation) for advice on who to choose. In my opinion and in the opinion of many (and factual in many cases) Trump appointed three very partisan justices, and because of that, AA is gone.
SC justices should be appointed because a president feels that they’ll be impartial on all issues, not so that they can do whatever said president wants them to do, but that’s literally what Trump did which makes those three justices illegitimate thereby making whatever they vote against or for illegitimate. The quote below is from the article:
Oppose the Confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States - The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
“In a 2016 presidential debate, he (Trump) said that his Supreme Court appointees would vote to overturn
Roe v. Wade. He said: ‘If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that is really what will happen. That will happen automatically in my opinion. Because I am putting pro-life justices on the Court.’”
He put them there so that they can vote what he told them to vote. What’s the point of having a SC if that’s the case? If it weren’t for those 3 justices, I believe there’s a good chance AA would still exist as well as the other things they got rid of.
