89%(9)8 out of 9 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 7 pages.
Counterargument was that enrollment should be based on equity and fairness, which meant affirmative action programs. The outcome from all of this a was a shift in the consideration of socio-economic situations. A diversity index system was established, eliminating race as a factor for admissions, and replacing it with factors like socio-economic background, mother’s education level, academic achievement, language spoken at home, and English learner status.Eventually, race was dropped as a primary factor and became a secondary factor. Asian Americans were portrayed as experiencing reverse discrimination. ●SCA 5 (2014) Constitutional Amendment: this was to amend Propositions 209’s ban on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in recruitment and retention programs in the California public universities and colleges. The purpose of the amendment was to restore underrepresentation of minorities in proportion to the high school graduating classes in the state of California. The Asian American community was divided on this issue. White conservatives attempted to argue that affirmative action and its possible return through the passage of SCA 5 would be harmful to Asian Americans. ●AB 1726 (2016) Education & Health Access: Model Minority: Affirmative ActionBill Ong Hing, a father of a Lowell High School student, claimed that-Lowell High School lacked diversity-Daughter’s class lacks contact and knowledge of African Americans and Latinos-The English class had 27 Chinese, 1 Edwin Martinez and 1 Emily Jones-Argues for racial diversity - mutually beneficialMyths About SCA5 (rid of race as a component of admission), Affirmative ActionProponents of SCA5Opponents of SCA5Violates Equal Protection Clause of 14th AmendmentUse of racial information in admissions not violation of 14th AmendmentAsian American applicants will be denied admission because they are Asian AmericanThere is zero evidence that this practice takes place. Over-generalization taken from early study of 7 private institutionsRacial quotas will cap Asian American admissions to the UC system to size of their statewide populationRacial quotas system does not exist in CA. Prior to Prop 209, Asian Americans were 20% of UC systems, double their population (currently 40%)Unqualified, less-qualified Black and Latinos will be admitted over more qualified Asian Americans. Focus: grades and SATSAT and high grades alone is problematic. Limitsadmissions officers to criteria that advantages wealthy, fail to show predictions of aptitudeAffirmative action only helps Blacks and Latinos and hurts all Asian Americans and Pacific IslandersDiverse educational environment fosters higher levels of educational engagement, academic, civic skills for Asian American students.
There are different issues for educational success, and it splits on between whether affirmative action is needed or not.