No abstract

No abstract

This article uses philosophical analysis to clarify the arguments and claims about racial discrimination brought forward in the recent legal challenges to affirmative action in higher education admissions. Affirmative action opponents argue that elite institutions of higher education are using negative action against Asian American applicants so that they can admit other students of color instead, using race-conscious affirmative action. We examine the surrounding controversy, positing that the portrayal of Asian Americans as a model minority in this debate foments a politics of resentment that divides racial groups. Our analysis centers on how key concepts such as racial discrimination and diversity may be central to this politics of resentment. Given persistent threats to access and equity in higher education, it is important to gain conceptual clarity about the racial politics of anti-affirmative action efforts. Keywords: affirmative action, Asian Americans, college access, model minority myth, politics of education, race need to be based on philosophical ideas related to college access and educational opportunity and holistic reviews of applicants' qualifications, and not solely or even primarily on quantitative measures of academic merit or percentages of students (Guinier, 2015;Gutmann, 1999;Moses, 2002). We thus make two primary normative claims regarding the complex relationship between Asian Americans and affirmative action: 1) selective colleges should not discriminate against Asian American applicants or limit their numbers, nor should colleges treat them as if they are all the same; and, 2) Asian American students who feel wronged should not blame raceconscious affirmative action for the negative action that selective institutions of higher education may be perpetrating against them.A Note on Theory Critical race theory (CRT) frames how we understand the complexities of affirmative action, Asian American applicants, and discrimination. Like Teranishi et al., we find CRT to be a valuable framework to use in examining how Asian Americans are positioned in educational institutions (Teranishi et al., 2009). Deriving from critical legal studies, critical race theory helps analyze how power is distributed; in particular it focuses on the interactions between race, racism, and social institutions (Donahoo, 2008). At the same time, we draw on history and philosophy to understand anti-affirmative action strategies past and present. We leverage three tenets from critical race theory to frame our perspectives: the permanence of racism, majoritarian narratives, and counternarratives (Donahoo, 2008;Lynn, Jennings, & Hughes, 2013; Taylor, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 1995). Relying on critical race theory, first we recognize that racism is an ordinary and permanent phenomenon deeply embedded within American legal landscapes and cultural practices (Taylor, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 1995). Racism

The Asian American Movement was a social movement for racial justice, most active during the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, which brought together people of various Asian ancestries in the United States who protested against racism and U.S. neo-imperialism, demanded changes in institutions such as colleges and universities, organized workers, and sought to provide social services such as housing, food, and healthcare to poor people. As one of its signal achievements, the Movement created the category “Asian American,” (coined by historian and activist Yuji Ichioka), which encompasses the multiple Asian ethnic groups who have migrated to the United States. Its founding principle of coalitional politics emphasizes solidarity among Asians of all ethnicities, multiracial solidarity among Asian Americans as well as with African, Latino, and Native Americans in the United States, and transnational solidarity with peoples around the globe impacted by U.S. militarism. The movement participated in solidarity work with other Third World peoples in the United States, including the Third World Liberation Front strikes at San Francisco State College and University of California, Berkeley. The Movement fought for housing rights for poor people in the urban cores of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle, and Philadelphia; it created arts collectives, published newspapers and magazines, and protested vigorously against the Vietnam War. It also extended to Honolulu, where activists sought to preserve land rights in rural Hawai’i. It contributed to the larger radical movement for power and justice that critiqued capitalism and neo-imperialism, which flourished during the 1960s and 1970s.

No abstract