I-200 Poses Dilemma for Asians

Monday, September 07, 1998 - Seattle Times

by Tom Brune
Seattle Times staff reporter

For Asian Americans, race-based affirmative-action policies pose a dilemma.

The policies have limited Asian-American enrollment in some of the country's most prestigious public universities - because Asian Americans already are over-represented among students.

The policies, however, also have meant hope for advancement in the workplace for many Asian Americans, who say a glass ceiling prevents them from getting ahead.

Both sides were aired yesterday in a two-hour debate of Initiative 200 before 200 people at the National Association of Asian American Professionals conference in Seattle.

I-200 is the Nov. 3 ballot measure that would ban preferences based on race, ethnicity and gender in state and local government employment, contracting and education, ending affirmative action as now practiced.

The Asian-American vote, though small here, is symbolic. Of the minority groups targeted for help by affirmative action, Asian Americans have posted the most successes and seem to have the most ambivalence about the policies.

In California, for example, 39 percent of Asian Americans voted for Proposition 209, the model for I-200. That was the largest vote for Proposition 209 among minority groups.

Yet the majority of Asian Americans opposed Proposition 209, and most of the debate audience yesterday was on the side arguing against I-200.

The debate covered many of the familiar arguments for and against the initiative. Key to the discussion were interpretations of what has happened in California since Proposition 209 passed.

John Carlson, I-200 chairman, said removal of race-based policies in California actually had worked in favor of Asian Americans: Their percentage in the University of California system, he said, rose.

"What is wrong with a system that relies on merit and allows more Asian Americans to get in?" he asked.

Ronald Takaki, an ethnic-studies professor at the University of California at Berkeley, replied that black and Latino enrollment had dropped by half at Berkeley.

Many Asian-American students know their brothers and sisters may be helped by Proposition 209, he said, but he added: "They care about what is good for society," and they believe some African Americans and Latinos need a boost.

Takaki is pushing a new proposition in California that would legalize the use of race as well as socio-economic status in government policies, and he urged Washington voters to copy him.

Seattle Times editorial columnist Michelle Malkin, arguing for I-200, stressed that not all Asian Americans took the same view of Proposition 209 or I-200. She said assistance should be based on socio-economic disadvantage, not race or gender.

Karen Narasaki, however, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, said affirmative action had helped her, and added that it is still needed because "this is not a gender-blind or color-blind society."

But it was Arthur Hu, a software developer, who provoked the biggest reaction at times.

At one point, he said, "The playing field is not equal, and it never will be equal." It was time to "get rid" of the notion of equality in ability. Hu also said "diversity should not be the priority" in government decisions.

Return to the I-200 page.
Return to the Affirmative Action and Diversity Page

Carl Gutiérrez-Jones
Department of English
University of California, Santa Barbara
e-mail: carlgj@humanitas.ucsb.edu