DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 414 371 UD 032 030

AUTHOR Lew, Gena A., Ed.TITLE Common Ground. Perspectives on Affirmative Action...and Its

Impact on Asian Pacific Americans.INSTITUTION Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics (LEAP) Asian Pacific

American Policy Inst.SPONS AGENCY Ford Foundation, New York, NY.; Carnegie Corp. of New York,

NY.; James G. Irvine Foundation, San Francisco, CA.; ARCOFoundation, Los Angeles, CA.

PUB DATE 1996-00-00NOTE 41p.AVAILABLE FROM Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute, 327 East

Second Street, Suite 226, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4210, $3;fax: 213-485-0050; e-mail: leap90012@aol.com

PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020) -- Reports - Evaluative(142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Affirmative Action; *Asian Americans; Attitudes; *Diversity

(Student); Elementary Secondary Education; *EqualOpportunities (Jobs); Higher Education; Legislation;Minority Groups; *Pacific Americans; Political Influences;*Racial Discrimination

IDENTIFIERS *Contract Employment; Contractors

ABSTRACTThis collection of policy papers is intended to educate and

inform business and community leaders, policymakers, the Asian Pacificcommunity, and the general public about the complex issues and far-reachingimplications of the affirmative action debate on Asian Pacific Americans aswell as all Americans. Essays are grouped into sections on discrimination andthe need for affirmative action legislation, promoting diversity in highereducation, eliminating barriers in employment and contracting, and the impactof anti-affirmative action measures. The following essays are included: (1)

"Separate but Equal: Discrimination and the Need for Affirmative ActionLegislation" (Karen K. Narasaki, with additional essays under the same titleby Rockwell Jaowen Chin and Brian Cheu, Juanita Tamayo Lott, Dale Minami, andRon Wakabayashi); (2) "The Asian American Factor: Victim or ShortsightedBeneficiary of Race-Conscious Remedies?" (Henry Der); (3) "AffirmingAffirmative Action" (Chang-Lin Tien); (4) "Affirmative Action under Attack"(David R. Barclay); (5) "The Persistence of Inequality" (Paul M. Igasaki);(6) "Rebuild LA" (Linda Wong); (7) "Public Contracting Opportunities forMinority & Woman Entrepreneurs" (Edwin M. Lee and essays under the same titleby Stewart Kwoh, Kathryn K. Imahara, and Elsie V. Hui, William H. Marumoto,and Benjamin Seto); (8) "Impact of Anti-Affirmative Action Measures" (AntoniaHernandez); (9) "Affirmative Action Choices" (Frank H. Wu); (10) "We Won't GoBack" (Lillian Galedo, with another essay under the same title by Kent Wong);(11) "The Face of Affirmative Action" (Warren T. Furutani) and a closingessay under that title by Jackie Young, Governor of Hawaii. (SLD)

3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

41CE AT1ONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

LEAPTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

APAPIASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANPUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE

A LEAP Organization

Perspectives onAffirmative Action

...and its impact on

Asian Pacific Americans

"separate but equal?"Discrimination & the Need forAffirmative Action Legislation

"racial preferences?"Promoting Diversity in Education

"a level playing field?"Eliminating Barriers in

Employment & Contracting

"moving toward a colorblind society?"Impact of Anti-Affirmative

Action Measures

a publication of the LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute

2 COPY AMIABLE

ace. It determines much ofwho you are and how you areperceived by others. Race isa constant undercurrent in

all of our daily interactions. Whetherthe American public acknowledges it ornot, our volatile state of race relationsis constantly simmering under the"beautiful mosaic" facade of the mostdiverse society in the world.

The tenuous issue of race is the primaryfactor underscoring the current debateover affirmative action. Although thedebate has been narrowly framedaround the notions of eliminating"preferential treatment," achieving a"colorblind society," and returning toa "level playing field," the struggle overaffirmative action is merely a symptomof this nation's larger debate over racerelations in a shifting social and eco-nomic climate.

The debate goes far beyOnd affirmativeaction and' will continue as long as'there is anxiety over the,changing sta-tus quo driven by persistent institution-alized racism.

Asian Pacific AmericanS must be in-volved in tlilarger debate, as well asin the affikmad-Ve'actionissue nowliefore us. We have a large stake in the;final outcome: Too often we have Will-ingly swallowed the model minoritymyth and further, distanced ourselvesfrom other 'historically -discriminatedminority groups. We do not always rec-ognize that the gains of African Ameri-cans in the Civil rights movement werecrucial in paving the way for the rpidstrides that Asian Pacific Americans;saswell as other minority .groups, havebeen fortunate. to make in recent years.

Our diverse communities are in \theunique and' curious position of being,both "helped" and- "hindered" by affirmative action. Many'perhaps wouldpoint to Asians as living proof of the"-American Dream. But to think thatAsian Pacific Americans have succeededin this country and will be untouched -,by anti-affirmative action measures isextremely misguided.,

While some Asian Pacific Americangroups are well-represented at IvyLeague universities, others who are lessfortunate struggle to overcome themodel minority stigma and are enabled

by affirmative efforts to attend local col-leges at minimal expense.

In the workplace, the widespread per-ception of Asian Pacific Americans aseasily assimilated, hardworking over-achievers who lack management skillsoften translates into the very real per-sistence of a double-edged sword: weare considered neither an under-repre-sented minority group, nor are we con-sidered worthy of leadership positions.Caught in this no-man's land, AsianPacific Americans are trapped by theglass ceiling with little recognition orsupport from whites or other minori-ties.

And after decades of exclusion in pub-lic contracting, Asian Pacific Americansare slowly beginning to gain entry andto establish business relationships, pri-marily due to affirmative programs thateliminate discriminatory barriers.

All Athericans should remember andlearn from this society's extensive his-tor)/ Of overt discrimination, much ofwhich is shockingly recent. Further, weshould'all acknowledge the persistenceof discrimination today, whethercloaked in anti-immigrant hysteria, theglass ceiling, or unfounded claims of

,reverse discrimination.

And finally, we must realize the corn-pelling need for the continuation ofaffirmative programs to guard againstpersistent discrimination. Affirmative

--actiony though not the final solutionto ending racism, is a valuable tool toensure that discrimination does notoccur and to protect equal opportunityfor all qualified individuals.

The LEAP Asian Pacific American Pub-lic PO-licy Institute has become increas-ingly concerned with the intensity ofattacks on our ethnic communities. Weare disturbed that as Asian PacificAmericans, we are often misrepre-,sented, resulting in a broad public per-ception of Asian Pacific Americans as"the model" for other minorities toemulate.

Furtherywe are especially alarmed at thegrowing frequency and popularity ofmeasures to recklessly eradicate affirma-tive action programs, such as the recentvote by the UC Board of Regents andGovernor Pete Wilson's attack on his

own state's hiring and contracting pro-grams.

Because our mission is to achieve fullparticipation and equality for AsianPacific Americans, LEAP has adopted aformal position to strongly support thecontinuation of affirmative action pro-grams and for the continued participa-tion of Asian Pacific Americans in theseprograms. To further our goal of edu-cating others on issues central to theAsian Pacific American community,LEAP is publishing and disseminatingthis diverse sampling of essays writtenby members of our community whofind it necessary to speak out in sup-port of affirmative action.

We hope that this collection of policyposition papers will educate and informbusiness and community leaders,policymakers, our Asian Pacific Ameri-can constituents, and the general pub-lic alike. This publication's intent is tointroduce readers to the complex issuesand the far-reaching implications of theaffirmative action debate on Asian Pa-cific Americans, as well as all Ameri-cans.

Even after more than 30 years of legis-lated non-discrimination, racism stub-bornly persists. We are far from acolorblind society; the playing field ishardly level. We are now standing onthe brink of a powerfully diverse andjust society. We hope that the follow-ing essays will help readers recognizethat, in the words of Justice Harry A.Blackmun, "In order to get beyond rac-ism, we must first take account of race,"and to reaffirm the conviction that af-firmative action is a valuable and nec-essary step to achieving true diversity.

Our country is destined to be the mostdiverse society in the world. We musttake every effort to ensure that our in-stitutions embrace this diversity so thatwe can best meet the challenges of ourfuture.

J.D. Hokoyama Gena A. LewPresident Editor

common ground 2

Timeline 4

Essays 5

"separate but equal?"Discrimination & the Need for Affirmative Action Legislation

Karen K. Narasaki 5National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium

Rockwell J. Chin & Brian Cheu 8National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

Juanita Tamayo Lott 9Tamayo Lott Associates

Dale Minami 11Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans

Ron Wakabayashi 12Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission

"racial preferences?"Promoting Diversity in Higher Education

Henry Der 13Chinese for Affirmative Action

Chang-Lin Tien 19University of California, Berkeley

"a level playing field?"Eliminating Barriers in Employment & Contracting

David R. Barclay 21Hughes Electronics Corporation

Paul M. Igasaki 23Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Linda Wong 25Rebuild LA

Edwin M. Lee 27San Francisco Human Rights Commission

Stewart Kwoh, Kathryn K. Imahara, Elsie V. Hui 28Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California

William H. "Mo" Marumoto 30The Interface Group, Ltd./Boyden

Benjamin Seto 31Asian American Journalists Association

"moving toward a colorblind society?"Impact of Anti-Affirmative Action Measures

Antonia Hernandez 32Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

Frank H. Wu 33Howard University School of Law

Lillian Galedo 34Filipinos for Affirmative Action

Kent Wong 36Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance

Warren T. Furutani 37Warren Furutani & Associates

Jackie Young 38Governor's Office of Affirmative Action, Hawaii

Resources 39

Printed as a community service by Rockwell

©1996 Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics. All Rights Reserved.

4Pevspeagiues oon Affliveraniilve Ration 3

S

SE

Affirmative action encom-passes any measure, beyondsimple termination of dis-criminatory practice, which

expands opportunity by permitting theconsideration of race, national origin,sex, or disability, along with other cri-teria, where discrimination has beenproven to exist. Affirmative action aswe know it today is a conglomerationof a process of fragmented court orders,congressional legislation, and presiden-tial mandates.

1941 President Franklin D. Rooseveltrequires defense contractors to pledgenondiscrimination in employment onthe basis of race, creed, color or nationalorigin.

1954 In Brown v. Board of Education,the Supreme Court overrules the "sepa-rate but equal" doctrine and declaresracially segregated public schools un-constitutional, implicitly approving therace-conscious remedy of integration.

1961 President Kennedy creates thePresident's Committee on Equal Em-ployment Opportunity. Federal execu-tive agencies are told to integrate theirworkforce.

1964 Congress passes the Civil RightsAct. Title VII of the law makes it illegalfor public and private sector employ-ers to discriminate against workersbased on race, color, religion, sex, ornational origin.

1965 President Johnson issues an ex-ecutive order requiring federal contrac-tors to "take affirmative action" to en-sure that they do not discriminateagainst workers because of race, creed,color, or national origin. Two yearslater, gender is added to that list.

1969 President Nixon sets goals forhiring minority contractors. His admin-istration later presses colleges to setgoals for increasing their numbers ofminority students and faculty.

1971 In Griggs vs. Duke Power Co., theSupreme Court rules that hiring stan-dards that effectively exclude minori-ties are illegal unless employers showthem to be a job-related business ne-cessity.

1972 Congress passes the Equal Em-ployment Opportunity Act, allowingcivil lawsuits against companies for dis-criminatory employment practices.

1972 Congress passes the Educa-tional Amendments of 1972. Title IXprohibits sex discrimination in feder-ally-funded educational institutions,requiring them to take specific steps toencourage individuals of the previouslyexcluded sex to apply for admission.

1978 In Bakke v. University of Califor-nia, the Supreme Court issues its firstmajor decision on affirmative action,upholding the right to use race as a fac-tor in university admissions, but pro-hibiting quotas.

1979 In United Steelworkers of Americav. Weber, the Supreme Court holds thatvoluntary, private, race-conscious affir-mative action plans are legal, so longas they are temporary and do not pre-clude employment opportunities forwhites.

1980 In Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Su-preme Court upholds Congress' author-ity to mandate limited use of racial andethnic criteria in awarding public con-tracts to eliminate barriers to minorityaccess.

1989 Richmond v. Croson representsthe Supreme Court's first application ofthe "strict scrutiny" standard, rulingthat city and state officials may notsteer contracts towards minorities, ex-cept to make up for a clear history ofdiscrimination and to advance a com-pelling state interest.

1989 In A tonio v. Wards Cove PackingCo., the Supreme Court shifts the bur-den of proof from employers to em-ployees, making it difficult for workersto challenge workplace discrimination.The court also rules that discriminationcannot be proven by solely relying onstatistical evidence.

1990 In Metro Broadcasting v. F.C.C.,the Supreme Court reaffirms the con-stitutionality of race-conscious rem-edies adopted by Congress that achieveimportant governmental objectives. Inthis case, expanding minority partici-pation in broadcasting was found toachieve the objective of enhancingbroadcast diversity.

5

1991 Congress passes the Civil RightsAct of 1991 in response to Wards Coveand similar employment discrimina-tion cases. The Act reinstitutes the le-gitimacy of using statistical disparity,and places the burden of proof back onemployers. The Act, however, containsan ironic provision, exempting theWards Cove corporate defendant fromcoverage.

1995 The Federal Glass Ceiling Com-mission confirms the existence of aglass ceiling that effectively excludesthe advancement of women and mi-norities, and finds that white malescontinue to dominate CorporateAmerica, occupying 95-97% of seniormanagement positions.

June 1, 1995 California GovernorPete Wilson issues an executive orderdismantling most of the state's affirma-tive action efforts in hiring and con-tracting.

June 12, 1995 In Adarand Contrac- 'tors v. Perla, the Supreme Court requiresfederal agencies to adhere to the "strictscrutiny" standard as imposed on stateand local governments in the 1989Croson case.

July 19, 1995 After a four-month re-view of federal affirmative action pro-grams, President Clinton says affirma-tive action has been "good for America"and that the nation should "mend it,not end it."

July 20, 1995 Board of Regents of theUniversity of California votes to stopusing "race, religion, gender, color,ethnicity or national origin" as criteriain its admissions policies and hiringand contracting practices.

August 10, 1995 Governor Pete Wil-son files lawsuit with the Californiastate Court of Appeals, declaring hisown state's affirmative action hiringand contracting plans unconstitu-tional.

ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANPUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE

A aang) Organization

common ground 4

Discriminationand theNeed for

AffirmativeAction

Legislation

Karen K. NarasakiNational Asian Pacific American Legal ConsortiumKaren K. Narasaki is the Executive Director of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consor-tium, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to advance the legal and civil rights of AsianPacific Americans. Ms. Narasaki has served in Washington, D.C. for the past four years as anadvocate for Asian Pacific concerns.

At present, there are approximately 7.3million Asian Pacific Americans whoconstitute about 3 percent of the U.S.population. This number is rapidly in-creasing, making Asian Pacific Ameri-cans the fastest growing minority grouptoday. Yet very little is commonlyknown about Asian Pacific Americanhistory or current circumstances, andmuch of what is known is plagued bymyths and stereotypes.

The Asian Pacific American experienceis replete with instances of institution-alized discrimination, yet some Ameri-cans believe that Asian Pacific Ameri-cans should not be covered by affirma-tive action programs. This belief ignoresnot only the historic legacy of discrimi-nation, but the limits on the progressof Asian Pacific Americans today.

For the reasons set forth below, theNational Asian Pacific American LegalConsortium strongly supports the con-tinuation of affirmative action pro-grams and the participation of AsianPacific Americans in those programs.

A History of DiscriminationAn examination of American historyreveals that Asian Pacific Americanshave been the target of historic institu-tionalized discrimination. This offi-cially sanctioned discrimination led toa history of anti-Asian violence and theinternment of American citizens ofJapanese descent during World War II.

Immigration and NaturalizationIn 1790, a law was passed allowing only"free white persons" to become citizens.Even after the law was changed to in-clude African Americans, similar legis-lation to include Asian Americans wasrejected) The Supreme Court upheldthe laws making Asian immigrants in-eligible for citizenship.' The last of theselaws was not repealed until 1952.3

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882which prohibited the immigration ofChinese laborers, epitomizes thiscountry's racist immigration laws.' In1907, anti-Asian sentiment culminatedin the Gentleman's Agreement limitingJapanese immigration. Asian immigra-

tion was further restricted by the Im-migration Act of 1917 which bannedimmigration from almost all countriesin the Asia-Pacific region and by theImmigration Act of 1924 which bannedimmigration of persons ineligible forcitizenship. In addition, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 placed a quota of50 Filipino immigrants per year.

Employment and BusinessAsian immigrants who managed toenter the U.S. became the victims ofother forms of discrimination. As earlyas the 1850's, states enacted variouslaws which targeted Asians by takingadvantage of the discriminatory natureof naturalization laws. California im-posed a "foreign miner's tax" whichtaxed non-citizen miners.' As intended,virtually all of the $1.5 million collectedunder the "foreign miner's tax" camefrom Chinese miners.

Other laws were less subtle, such as the1862 California tax on Chinese livingin the state and the state law prohibit-ing California corporations and govern-ment entities from hiring any Chineseemployees. The California Alien LandLaw Act of 1913 is another striking ex-ample. This law was primarily directedat Japanese immigrant farmers and pro-hibited persons ineligible for citizen-ship to purchase land. In 1920 it wasamended to bar long term leases andpurchasing through American-bornchildren. In 1923, it was amended againto make contracts to grow and harvestcrops illegal. Twelve other statesadopted similar laws, the last beingUtah, Arkansas and Wyoming in the1940s. Upheld as constitutional, thelast law was not repealed until 1962.6

Similarly, in 1922, the Supreme Courtupheld a law that aliens ineligible forcitizenship cannot form corporations,'and in 1945 California enacted legisla-tion denying commercial fishing li-censes to persons ineligible for citizen-ship.' At the time, Asians were the onlyracial group ineligible for citizenship.

The case Yick Wo v. Hopkins9 is anotherprime example. A San Francisco Laun-

6 Pevsemeives oW Mintraaniue Aaron 5

dry Ordinance which prohibited laun-dries from having a wood constructionwas enforced only against Chineselaundries. The license renewal applica-tions of Mr. Yick Wo, along with over200 other Chinese laundry owners,were all denied despite the fact thatthey had operated at the same sites forover 20 years. In contrast, the licenserenewal applications by non-Chineselaundries were approved, even thosewith wooden buildings. San Franciscoalso enacted special taxes targeted atChinese laundries. From 1873 to 1884,the Board of Supervisors enacted 14regulations targeting Chinese laundries.In a similar vein, San Francisco passedthe Cubic Air Ordinance requiring thatliving spaces have at least 500 cubic feetof space per person and this law wasenforced only in Chinatown.'°

Employment in the Civil Service wasbarred to legal permanent residents forclose to a century until 1976, when the

discrimination claim. This companywho had maintained separate hiringchannels, and segregated eating facili-ties and housing for Asian PacificAmerican and Alaskan Native workers,persuaded Alaskan Senator FrankMurkowski to insert a section into theAct to exclude their case, Atonio v. WardsCove Packing Co., from coverage.

EducationAsian Pacific Americans have been his-torically discriminated against in edu-cation as well. Similar to African Ameri-cans at that time, Asian Pacific Ameri-cans were segregated in the publicschool system. In 1860, Californiabarred Asian Pacific Americans fromattending its public schools entirely.After the California Supreme Courtruled that this was unconstitutional,the State set up a system of "oriental"schools and the California SupremeCourt upheld the constitutionality of"separate but equal" schools for Asian

Voluntary affirmative action programs are far lesscostly and disruptive to both the corporation

and its workers than litigation.

Supreme Court held that the law wasnational origin discrimination inHampton v. Wong Mow Sun.

Starting in 1988, the Coast Guard be-gan enforcing a long abandoned stat-ute restricting aliens from operatingcommercial fishing vessels solelyagainst Vietnamese immigrants." An-other impetus for discriminationagainst Asian Pacific Americans beganwith the passage of the Immigration Re-form and Control Act in 1988, whichfined employers for hiring undocu-mented immigrants. A U.S. GeneralAccounting Office study found that onein five employers began discriminatingagainst Asian Pacific Americans andLatinos upon the passage of that Act'semployer sanctions provisions.'2

Three years later, Congress passed theCivil Rights Act of 1991 in response toa series of Supreme Court decisions thathad eroded protections against employ-ment discrimination. For the first time,a civil rights law contained a specialinterest provision for a corporation thatwas a defendant in a class action race

Pacific American students in 1906. In1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheldMississippi's exclusion of Asian Ameri-can students from white schools."

In the early 1970s, frustrated ChineseAmerican parents brought a class actionsuit against San Francisco UnifiedSchool District, alleging that unequaleducational opportunities resultedfrom the District's failure to establish aprogram to address the limited Englishproficiency of students of Asian ances-try. In Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Courtruled that the District's failure to pro-vide English language instruction vio-lated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the 1980s, Asian Pacific Americanscharged universities such as Harvard,UCLA and U.C. Berkeley with main-taining an admissions cap on AsianPacific Americans who were having toscore higher on admissions tests thanwhites to win admissions. The Depart-ment of Education cleared Harvardwhen an admissions policy favoringalumnae children was found to be per-missible, despite its clearly discrimina-

tory impact on Asian Pacific Americansand other minorities. The law schoolat Berkeley changed its policies as partof a consent decree. Some programs atUCLA were cleared others are stillunder review.

Progress Continues to be Limited byDiscriminationAffirmative action programs haveplayed a critical role in opening upopportunities for women and minori-ties, but full equal opportunity has notyet been achieved. White men are 48%of the college educated workforce," buthold over 90% of the top jobs in thenews media,'5 and are over 90% of of-ficers of American corporations and88% of the directors," 86% of partnersin major law firms," 85% of tenuredcollege professorships," 80% of themanagement level jobs in advertising,marketing and public relations."

Recruitment, outreach, training, andother measures have opened somedoors for Asian Pacific Americans, butbarriers remain as evidenced by someof the following statistics:

Asian Pacific Americans areunderrepresented in constructionunions. Nationwide, Asian PacificAmericans constituted less than 1%of construction unions in 1990, al-though they were 3% of the popula-tion. In New York, where Asian Ameri-cans are almost 4% of the population,they were only 0.3% of the member-ship of construction unions.20

Less than 0.3% of senior executivesin the United States are of Asian de-scent.21 U.S. born Asian Americanmen were between 7 and 11% lesslikely to be in managerial occupationsthan white men with the same edu-cation, work experience, English abil-ity, region, marital status, disabilityand industry work.22

Asian Pacific Americans are still ab-sent from public sector jobs wheretheir presence would greatly enhancethe quality of the public services tothe community. For example, AsianPacific Americans are only 2.5% of theLos Angeles County Sheriff's office,but 10% of the overall population ofLos Angeles County. Only 1.4% ofpublic school teachers in the countryare Asian Pacific American.23

common ground 6

Asian Pacific Americans are only1.83% of newspaper journalists.24

Whites with college degrees make al-most 11% more than Asian PacificAmericans with college degrees andwhite high school graduates make26% more than Asian Pacific Ameri-can high school graduates.25 U.S. bornAsian Pacific American doctoral sci-entists and engineers earn only 92%of that of white doctoral scientists andengineers.26

Moreover, gender discrimination per-sists. While there have been significantadvances for women, 95% of the seniormanagers of the Fortune 1000 indus-trial companies are male despite the factthat women are over half of America'sadult population and close to half ofthe workforce.27 In the Fortune 2000 in-dustrial and service companies, only5% of senior managers are women andvirtually all of these are white women.28

Women remain severely under-repre-sented in most nontraditional occupa-tions, but even where they are presentin significant numbers they still facebarriers. For example, women are 23%of lawyers, but only 11% of partners inlaw firms.29

Even more disturbing, the number ofsex discrimination and sexual harass-ment charges is on the increase.Charges filed with the Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Commission roseover 20% from 1993 to 1994.3°

Affirmative Action for Asian PacificAmericansIn employment, affirmative action pro-grams include recruitment and out-reach efforts like advertising in ethnicmedia and additional search efforts toensure qualified Asian Pacific Ameri-cans are part of the talent pool. It meansthe abolishment of total reliance on the"old boys network." It means review-ing hiring and recruitment policies toadjust or remove requirements that areunnecessary for the given job category

for example, unreasonable heightrestrictions. It means reviewing promo-tion policies to eradicate biases and pro-viding training programs to give allemployees a fair chance at promotions.

In cases where there is a particularly badhistory of discrimination, it means theuse of flexible goals and timetables as

benchmarks by which to measure goodfaith efforts toward eliminating severeunderrepresentation of qualified AsianPacific Americans in specific job catego-ries. For example, in 1988, the San Fran-cisco Fire Dept. agreed to a race-con-

This is particularly a problem for AsianPacific Americans who have historicallybeen underserved by the legal commu-nity and tend to leave a company orinstitution rather than to litigate. Manyare unaware of their rights, face other

I NA151351G12: 11-.471G-. 10. .1163 F..'

Whites with college degrees make almost 11more than Asian Pacific Americans with college degrees

scious hiring and promotion policy toremedy past discrimination againstwomen, Asian Pacific Americans andother minorities.31

In education, affirmative action pro-grams include grants and graduate fel-lowship programs aimed at helpingAsian Pacific Americans move intofields where their participation hasbeen discouraged or where there is anunmet community need. They also in-clude outreach and education programsto increase the participation of AsianPacific Americans in apprenticeshiptraining in the skilled trades.

For Asian Pacific American businessowners, affirmative action programsinclude laws that encourage or requiregovernment agencies and contractorsto do business with qualified minority-owned companies, as well as programsproviding financial, management andtechnical assistance to minority busi-ness owners.

Affirmative Action Remains anImportant ToolOpponents of affirmative action musteither mistakenly believe that discrimi-nation no longer exists or that there arebetter alternatives. The most often sug-gested alternatives are to increase en-forcement of anti-discrimination lawsor focus on economic disadvantagerather than race or gender.

First, increased enforcement of anti-dis-crimination laws does not obviate theneed for affirmative action programs.Significant increases in enforcement isunlikely. Few can afford the cost andtime involved in litigation against cor-porations and institutions with vastlygreater resources. Moreover many pro-fessionals and other workers are afraidto make claims and risk being labeled atroublemaker.

barriers to accessing the legal system orbelieve that litigation will hurt theirindividual reputations.

Moreover, government agencies cannotdo it alone. The EEOC already has100,000 cases in its backlog. In addi-tion, affirmative action is often themost appropriate remedy when a com-pany has been found to have discrimi-natory practices by litigation. Volun-tary affirmative action programs are afar less costly and disruptive to both thecorporation and its workers than liti-gation. Such programs improve oppor-tunities for all women and minoritiesin the corporation, while damageawards or other nonaffirmative actionremedies only help the few who sue.

Second, focusing solely on economicdisadvantage ignores the existence ofplain, old fashioned racism and sexism.Race, national origin and gender dis-crimination occur against minoritiesand women regardless of socio-eco-nomic standing.

Economic disadvantage as a criteria willnot work in most employment settings.It would particularly not be relevant inareas of great concern to Asian PacificAmericans the elimination of glassceiling discrimination or wage dispari-ties where minorities and women arediscriminated against based on theirrace, gender and national origin nottheir income.

Finally, affirmative action addressesmore than just the problem of unequalopportunity for individuals. It also en-sures that government services and so-cietal programs fully serve all commu-nities. For example:

Underserved communities find theirneeds better met when law enforce-ment reflects the diversity of thesecommunities;

8 Perspectives on Affirmative Action 7

o Medical and academic research hasbecome more wide ranging with theaddition of women and minorities inthose areas; and

o Businesses are better able to competein the marketplace because affirma-tive action has brought in workerswith diverse skills, background andknowledge of their customers.

The attack against affirmative action isan extension of the current anxietymany Americans have about the re-structuring of the American economy.Clearly, middle management jobs andgood-paying blue collar jobs are disap-pearing, but not because of affirmativeaction. Americans would be betterserved if their political leaders had thecourage to confront the real challengesrather than trying to shift responsibil-ity by scapegoating women and minori-ties.

1. P. Chew, William and Mary Law Review, AsianAmericans: The "Reticent" Minority and TheirParadoxes, p. 13 (1995).

2. See Ozawa v. U.S, 260 U.S. 178 (1922).; U.S. v.Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 197 (1923); andIn re Ah Yup, 1 F. Cas. 223 (Cir. Ct. D. Cal. 1878).

3. H. Kim, Ed., Dictionary of Asian American His-tory, Asian Americans and American Immigra-tion Law by T. Knoll, pp. 52-3 (1986)

4. Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans inthe 1990s, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,p. 7 (1992).

5. S. Chan, Asian Americans - An InterpretiveHistory, p. 46 (1991).

6. See Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U.S. 225 (1923); Ter-race v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923).

7. Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199 (1922).8. See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S.

410 (1948).9. 118 U.S. 356 (1886).10. Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in

the 1990s, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,P. 7

11. See Vietnamese Fishermen Ass'n of Am. v. Yost,No. C 89-3522WWS, 1989 U.S. Dist. (ND Cal.1989).

12. Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans inthe 1990s, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,at 149 fn. 104.

13. Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans inthe 1990s, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,p. 9. See Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 Y.S. 78 (1927).

14. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993,Table No. 234 at 154.

15. Newsweek April 24, 1989; Newsday, August1, 1994 (quoting American Society of News-paper Editors).

16. M. Lowery, "The War on Equal Opportunity,"Black Enterprise, February 1995.

17. National Law lournal, August 9, 1994.18. Orlando Sentinel, March 11, 1994; Statistical

Abstract of the United States, 1994, Table No.637 at 407-410.

19. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994,Table No. 637 at 407-410.

20. Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans inthe 1990s, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,p. 153 (1992).

21. Korn/Ferry International, Korn/Ferry's Interna-tional Executive Profile; A Decade of Change inCorporate Leadership, (1990), Table 61, p. 23.

22. Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans inthe 1990s, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,p. 133 and n. 18.

23. The Washington Post July 7, 1992.24. American Society of Newspaper Editors 1994

employment survey.25. The Washington Post, "Asian/Pacific Islanders

Trail Whites in Earnings -Comparable Educa-tion Fails to Close the Gap," September 18,1992, (based on U.S. Census data).

26. The State of Asian Pacific America: EconomicDiversity. Issues & Policies, "Scientists and En-gineers," Ong & Blumenberg p. 188, n. 23,

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy In-stitute (1994).U.S. Dept. of Labor, Women's Bureau, "Work-ing Women Count!" at 10 (1994).Federal Glass Ceiling Commission [FGCCI,Good for Business. Making Full use of theNation's Human Capital, iii-iv (1995).Curan and Carson, American Bar Foundation,"The Lawyer Statistical Report" (1994).Data compiled from unpublished EEOCrecords by National Women's Law Center.See U.S. v. City and County of San Francisco, 696F. Supp.1287 (N.D. Cal. 1988).

Rockwell Jaowen Chin & Brian CheuNational Asian Pacific American Bar AssociationRocky Chin is a Supervising Attorney at the New York City Commission on Human Rights and theCo-Chair of the Civil Rights Committee of NAPABA. With over 20 years of experience in AsianAmerican affairs, he lectures in Asian American Studies at Hunter College and serves on numerousboards.

Brian Chen is a Discrimination Representative for the Human Rights Commission of the City andCounty of San Francisco, the Co-Chair of the Civil Rights Committee of NAPABA, and Co-Chairof the Gay Asian Pacific Alliance. Prior to the Commission, Mr. Cheu was Supervising Attorney fora mental health advocacy law project.

The history and experience of AsianPacific peoples in America is one of bla-tant exclusion, incarceration, prejudiceand anti-Asian violence. Two examplesfrom history are particularly illustrative.Under the Chinese Exclusion Act of1882, Chinese were specifically ex-cluded by federal law from emigratingto the United States. This and other fed-eral immigration laws, along with theanti-Chinese movement which galva-nized public opinion with its viciousimages of Chinese as the "yellow peril,"contributed to the continuing percep-tion that Chinese and other Asian Pa-cific peoples are not American but"aliens" and "foreigners." Sixty yearslater, in 1942, persons of Japanese an-cestry in America were rounded up andincarcerated in concentration campswith no evidence to support the mas-sive denial of constitutional rights andcivil liberties.

Congress eliminated the final vestigesof these unfair immigration laws in1965, and since then there has beendramatic growth in the Asian PacificAmerican population. Congress also fi-nally dealt with the issue of Japaneseinternment, when it passed the CivilLiberties Act of 1988 and redressed thewrongs done to persons of Japanese an-cestry in America during World War II.

Today, these examples are not referredto as "affirmative action," primarilybecause the term has been narrowed inscope to define certain specific types ofprograms to desegregate the workplaceand facilitate the entry of Americans

into jobs where they have historicallybeen excluded. But for Asian PacificAmericans, it is important that we ac-knowledge that both the 1965 Immi-gration and Naturalization Act and the1988 Civil Liberties Act could not havecome about without broad supportfrom the civil rights movement, thewillingness of Congress and the Presi-dent to right wrongs, the vigorous sup-port of African and Latino leaders, andthe support from our own communi-ties.

Affirmative action programs were predi-cated on a common understanding thatdiscrimination based oft race and gen-der was pervasive in American societyand that eradicating such discrimina-tion required more effective measures.While affirmative action evolved intoa key part of America's national policyto end discrimination, the efforts todesegregate the workplace have beenmodestly successful, and minorities andwomen are still underrepresented inmany industries and professions. Thebipartisan Glass Ceiling Commissionreports that "despite 30 years of affir-mative action, 95% of senior manage-ment positions are still held by whitemen, who constitute only 43% of thework force."

For Asian Pacific Americans, other mi-norities, and women, breaking the glassceiling is a major goal, yet statistics stillreveal the glass ceiling is a very realobstacle. Asian Pacific Americans areunderrepresented on corporate boardsand in management. In public con-

9 common ground 8

tracting, hard evidence shows the dis-parity between opportunities for mi-nority contractors and opportunities

reject the view that Asian Pacific Ameri-can should be held to a higher standardthan majority race applicants. More-

...both the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act and the1988 Civil Liberties Act could not have come

about without broad support...

for similarly situated majority contrac-tors. In San Francisco, an MBE programthat included Asian architects as anMBE category was eliminated afteryears of successful bidding. During thefollowing year, when bid preferenceswere no longer available to these AsianMBEs, not one company was awardeda government contract despite the sup-posed goodwill built up during theyears of mandatory MBE bid prefer-ences.

Many Asian Pacific Americans haveraised concerns and even doubts aboutthe benefit of programs which limit thenumber of Asian admitted to educa-tional institutions. Others have lookedat the statistics where Asian Pacifics arethe largest minority group on manyprivate and public campuses and haveargued that Asian Pacific Americans nolonger should benefit from affirmativeaction programs because we may nowbe "overrepresented." Until the late1970s, there were few Asian PacificAmericans in educational institutions.The large percentages of Asians in theUniversity of California system havecome about since 1980 and are due inlarge part to the change in demograph-ics and the acknowledged emphasisAsian Pacific Americans place on edu-cation. Asian Pacific American appli-cants are, in fact, often held to higherstandards for GA and SAT scores thanmany other groups, including whites.But it is still unknown whether thesegraduates are getting the jobs and jobadvancements commensurate withtheir educational levels and whetherthey are breaking through the glass ceil-ing.

We must be open to the idea that affir-mative action programs should assistunderrepresented groups to reach par-ity. In some instances, there may behistorical reasons for creating more spe-cific goals and timetables. However,until the playing field is truly level, we

over, in the overall decision-makingprocess diversity can and should be afactor.

In summary, affirmative action has re-ceived strong bipartisan support fromCongress, executive political supportfrom eight successive Presidents andcontinued endorsement from the busi-ness community. It does not mean"quotas" nor should it result in the low-ering of selection or hiring standards.Hiring or admissions decisions are

made from a pool of applicants alreadydetermined to be qualified for the job orposition, a fact often disregarded by crit-ics of affirmative action. Many factorsmake up a hiring decision, the reward-ing of a contract or the admission of astudent. Race and gender should con-tinue to be utilized as factors in thosefields where minorities and womencontinue to be underrepresented. Affir-mative action measures are essential tothe process of promoting equal oppor-tunity whether in the legal system, theworkplace, schools or other institu-tions. NAPABA supports affirmative ac-tion programs and policies that seek topromote diversity and to remedy pastor current discrimination or to preventdiscrimination from recurring in thefuture based on race, ethnicity, nation-ality, gender or disability, and NAPABAopposes any legislation that seeks tolimit the use of affirmative action.

.1JaD z,9 nib may© Lott 4a, , a eye to ss ci tesJuanita Tamayo Lott is the President of Tamayo Lott Associates, a public policy consulting firmbased in the Washington, D.C. area and a former Division Director at the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights. Ms. Tamayo Lott joined the LEAP Board of Directors in January 1995.

On the 30th anniversary of ExecutiveOrder 11246 which mandated affirma-tive action with respect to federal con-tractors', the debate on affirmative ac-tion is being narrowly cast in threeways: which populations are affected,what constitutes affirmative action, andhow long affirmative action programsshould continue. Such a limited viewis short-sighted and pits group againstgroup. The current questioning, assault,and/or defense of affirmative actionshould instead be viewed in terms oftwo larger policy issues: 1) the role andresponsibility of a democratic govern-ment to its residents, and 2) a balancebetween social justice and profits in apost-industrial, capitalistic society.

Affected PoptgantiontsThe current debate has shifted from theunderrepresentation and under-utiliza-tion of protected or historically disad-vantaged groups to possible adverseimpact on the white population, par-ticularly white males. More specificallythe black population is cast as unwor-thy beneficiaries and white males asvictims. Rarely are other populationsmentioned. Less attention has beengiven to the fact that affirmative actionhas embraced a sizable proportion of

the American population other ra-cial/ethnic minorities, including AsianPacific Americans, women, the disabledpopulation, and socially and economi-cally disadvantaged individuals, regard-less of race.

Recently, white women, the primarybeneficiaries of affirmative action pro-grams, have entered the debate in sup-port of current federal policy.2 AsianPacific Americans and other commu-nities must also articulate the fact thataffirmative action is a win-win situa-tion. Asian Pacific Americans must re-affirm that the goal of equal opportu-nity, embedded in law, distinguishesthe United States from other nations.Many generations of all our foreparentshave fought bitterly with their time,money and lives to uphold this prin-ciple. We must continue their strugglefor our children and future generations.

Too much of the focus on affirmativeaction is on the entry of people of colorand white women into schools, disci-plines, and occupations traditionallydominated by native born, white males.Civil rights policies have opened newopportunities for all workers and stu-dents. New educational programs (e.g.

Povsemailives moo LiggintrooDive &Mon 9

ethnic studies, women's studies,multicultural curricula) and non-tradi-tional occupations (e.g. equal opportu-nity specialists, diversity trainers, cur-riculum specialists) have been createdand developed as a result of implement-ing affirmative action.

Types of Affirmative ActionThe debate on specific affirmative ac-tions has similarly been reduced tomean quotas and preferential treatmentof minorities and white women at theexpense of white males. In fact, thereare several distinct types of affirmativeaction as statutes and case law makeclear. These include the concept of"making whole" the victims of illegaldiscrimination in employment or con-tracting, and special recruitment, train-ing and education for people of colorand/or white women to enhance their

dividuals, without fear or favor of be-ing members of a particular group. Ac-cording to Van Alstyne, "In respect toaffirmative action and race, one portionof Title VII. . . forbids ways of classify-ing applicants or employees that tendto affect their chances although notmeant to do so. The law imposes anobligation to review employment totake care that they are, in fact, job re-lated."4 For example, weight and heightrequirements may appear to or actuallydiscriminate against Asians andLatinos. This warrants a case-by-caseinvestigation rather than a universaldecision.

Despite the obviously wide latitude ofpermissible and flexible affirmative ac-tions, the current and foreseeable po-litical and media trend is to restrictwhat constitutes affirmative actions.

...there is now more subtle and not-so-subtle discriminationagainst racial and ethnic minorities and women as manifestedin the rise of exclusion, violence, and hate

crimes against these populations in the 1990s.

ability to compete for jobs, promotions,or contracting opportunities.

William Van Alstyne identifies otheruses of non-racial affirmative action,'primarily as a matter of attitude inthinking well of persons and treatingpersons as individuals rather than rep-resentatives of dominant or subordi-nate groups.

However, affirmative action may alsolead to steps to ensure that discrimina-tion does not occur within organiza-tions. A prime example is ExecutiveOrder 11246 issued by President Rich-ard Nixon. This policy requires that fed-eral contractors engage in no racial dis-crimination and, more importantly,take meaningful affirmative action toensure that discrimination does notoccur. This policy seeks the better pro-tection of each person from discrimi-nation that might otherwise occur (forexample, in a white-owned enterpriseagainst blacks or its converse, in a black-owned enterprise against whites).

A third type of affirmative action is theremoval of gratuitous discrimination orbarriers to equal opportunity for all in-

This pattern is coupled with increasingefforts to reduce the length of time nec-essary for affirmative actions.

How Long Should there beAffirmative Action?An implicit assumption of affirmativeactions as remedies is that they are tem-porary as well as specific to situations.An argument for ending the policy isits success in increasing presence since1965 of racial and ethnic minorities andwhite women in educational institu-tions and occupations from which theyhad been historically excluded. Criticsof affirmative action contend that it hasreached the point of diminishing re-turns, given a decrease in black collegeadmissions. Faulty implementation ofa few affirmative action plans has beenused to argue for the elimination of thepolicy in general.

The reality is that there is now moresubtle and not-so-subtle discriminationagainst racial and ethnic minorities andwomen as manifested in the rise of ex-clusion, violence, and hate crimesagainst these populations in the 1990s.Occupational and educational gainsmade in the seventies and early eight-

ies have plateaued or even eroded. Moreoften there is a bipolarity of successesand failures in these communities byeducation, income, and occupation.

The assault on affirmative action is notan isolated phenomenon but must beviewed in the context of other attackson policies and programs related tothese populations, most notably immi-gration reform and welfare reform atnational, state and local levels. Of equalconcern are systematic efforts to dimin-ish the ability to obtain quantifiabledata via national surveys and censuses.It is ironic that there is a movement todelete data by race and sex just as thesepopulations are increasing and becom-ing more diverse.

The post Civil War reconstruction era,when blacks were no longer slaves butcitizens, was followed by decades of JimCrow laws which continued to placeblacks and other racial and ethic mi-norities in subordinate and segregatedpositions until the Civil Rights Move-ment of the 1950s and 1960s. Today,the situation is just as precarious. Witha tight global, post-industrial economy,fewer individuals are able to affordhigher and continuing education nec-essary to compete economically (gainsin education, employment, and incomein the last three decades are vulnerabletoday and are unraveling within a gen-eration). Only thirty years after land-mark national decisions on human andcivil rights and barely over 100 yearsafter reconstruction, we find that non-discrimination and equal opportunityare tenuous laws. We cannot allow thereconstruction history to be repeated.

One final instructive note about affir-mative action was made in 1981 undera Republican administration by the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights:

The conclusion that affirmative action isrequired to overcome the discrimination ex-perienced by persons in certain groups doesnot in any way suggest that the kinds ofdiscrimination suffered by others par-ticularly members of Euro-ethnic groupsis more tolerable than that suffered by pro-tected groups. A problem remedy approachinsists only that the remedies be tailoredto the problem, not that the only remedyfor discrimination is affirmative action tobenefit certain groups. Affirmative actionplans are not attempts to establish a sys-

common ground 10

tern of superiority for minorities andwomen, as our historic and ongoing dis-criminatory process too often have done forwhite men. Nor are measures that takerace, sex and national origin into accountdesigned to stigmatize white men, as dothe abusive stereotypes of minorities andwomen that stem from past discrimina-tion and persist in the present. Affirma-tive action plans end when non discrimi-natory processes replace discriminatoryones. Without affirmative action interven-tion, discriminatory processes may neverend.

Properly designed and administered, affir-mative action plans can create a climateof equality that supports all efforts to breakdown the structural, organizational andpersonal barriers that perpetuate injustice.They can be comprehensive plans thatcombat all manifestations of the complexprocess of discrimination. In such a cli-mate, differences among racial and ethnic

groups and between men and women be-come simply differences, not badges thatconnote domination or subordination, su-periority or inferiority.'

1 Affirmative action was first given official sta-tus in 1965 by Executive Order 11246, whereFederal contractors were required to complywith the 1964 act and to take affirmative ac-tion to eliminate continuing effects of past dis-criminations. The Office of Federal ContractCompliance Programs (OFCCP) was created tomonitor contractor responses to this order.

2 Women comprise over half of the college edu-cated population and between one third andone-half of students in medical and lawschools. At the entry levels, full-time womenemployees make $.95 of full time men employ-ees. This is up from $.63 only two decades ago.

3 William W. Van Alstyne, "Affirmative Actionand Racial Discrimination under the Law: APreliminary Review," in Selected AffirmativeAction Topics in Employment and Business SetAsides volume 1, a consultation/hearing of theUnited States Commission on Civil Rights,March 6-7, 1985.

4 Ibid pp 182-35 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Affirmative

Action in the 1980s: Dismantling the Processof Discrimination, A Statement of the UnitedStates Commission on Civil Rights, Clearing-house Publication 70, Washington, D.C., No-vember 1981.

jD® bEfinegori o CongRion ©q &dm Pagdna nmeviinunDale Minami is a partner with Minami, Lew Sr Tamaki, a San Francisco-based law firm. Mr.Minami is a founder of the Asian Law Caucus, the Asian American Bar Association, and theCoalition of Asian Pacific Americans. He has been active in civil rights issues for the past 25 years.

The debate raging over affirmative ac-tion has become a victim of exagger-ated rhetoric and political posturing.While its opponents have cast affirma-tive action only as "preferences" or"quotas," it is, in reality, a diverse mix-ture of remedies ranging from aggres-

vor of white males. The bipartisan U.S.Glass Ceiling Commission found thatafter 30 years of equal opportunity pro-grams, 95% of senior management po-sitions remain occupied by white maleswho constitute only 43% of the totalwork force. Asian Pacific Americans are

After 30 years of equal opportunity programs...

Asian Pacific Americans are a blipon the screen at 0.3% of top management ranks.

sive efforts to increase the candidatepool of qualified minorities and womento the more controversial "set-asides"requiring minority participation inpublic contracts. All such remedies weredesigned to help counter the effects ofpast discrimination and virtually noneexclude non-minorities. By portrayingaffirmative action as only a "quota" or"preference," the anti-affirmative ac-tion lobby has misled the public andcreated a chasm of misunderstandingand racial friction.

For example, some opponents talkabout "leveling the playing field," butthat field has always been tilted in fa-

a blip on the screen at 0.3% of topmanagement ranks. Discarding affirma-tive action programs will tilt the play-ing field further in favor of white males.It is ironic that many of the opponentsof affirmative action who are now call-ing for a "level playing field" or a"colorblind" society did little to ad-vance the cause of civil rights in thepast.

The rhetoric also obscures the basic flawin the criticism of affirmative actionthat an objective means to judge"merit" or "qualifications" exists. Thecentral core of the anti-affirmative ac-tion thesis is that the "most qualified"

_1

persons are denied their due as if someobjective standard could rate the "mostqualified." In reality, very few jobscould be reduced to objective standardsrelevant to job performance. Except forOlympic track and field events wherethe winner of the high jump is clearlythe "most qualified," in virtually everyother job or educational opportunity,subjective criteria are applied. And aslong as race, sex and national origindiscrimination exists, such subjectivecriteria will be applied against womenand people of color.

Without affirmative action programsestablishing goals, not quotas, subtlediscrimination injects an unfair disad-vantage to women and minorities intothe "most qualified" equation. Duringthe fifteen plus years I practiced em-ployment discrimination law, I sawmany examples of Asian Pacific Ameri-cans with excellent leadership and workrecords, but were denied promotionsbecause they were "not assertive,""lacked leadership qualities," or "faredpoorly in the oral interview." Of course,these were stereotypes and pretextualreasons for elevating another personusually white and male, usually a friendof the appointing officer, and manytimes, a person trained by the AsianPacific American over the well-quali-fied Asian Pacific American.

As long as discrimination exists, affir-mative action is necessary to create atruly diverse society. Numerous stud-ies and statistics have proven that dis-crimination is still pervasive; the hugebacklog of unresolved discriminationcomplaints at the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission provide fur-ther proof. Lawsuits by private attor-neys remain beyond the financialmeans of most people. Until and un-less discrimination complaints can beeffectively addressed, affirmative actionis not only a practical means to diver-sifying the workforce and other insti-tutions, but establishes a cultural normthat encourages voluntary efforts atdiversity.

Through effective affirmative actionprograms, we can promote the diver-sity which must be accepted as a natu-ral part of the technicolor tapestry ofour country.

Copyright ©1995 Dale Minami

Pevspeatives on bafrunualue &Mon 11

"

Rea MaltaahavashiiIles nacelles Couai ly Duman Rell NOES COMMIASSOVERon Wakabayashi is the Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commis-sion. Mr.-Wakabayashi is the former National Director of the Japanese American Citizens Leagueand has been involved in Asian Pacific communities and organizations for over twenty years.

There are two main contending per-spectives in the affirmative action dis-cussion, one theoretical and the otherpragmatic. One premise rests in thebasic tenet that "all men are createdequal." Implicit in this statement is thepremise that equality includes the ab-sence of unfair discrimination. Poll

The inclusive application of affirmativeaction beyond the African Americanpopulation evolved with the struggleof other disenfranchised groups seek-ing inclusion. The disparity of educa-tional access, employment and hous-ing among women and identifiablegroups resulted in the inclusion of these

1111MINECHILIFINCINEMM ISEMTIME, Frro,

If the goal is the achievement of equality, then eliminatingpresent discrimination and advancing remedies for past

discrimination is a logical marriage of approaches.

taxes, segregation, contract preferencesand hiring quotas based on member-ship in a group violate this principle.

An alternative, and not mutually ex-clusive view, is that the existence of dis-crimination against individuals becauseof group membership requires redressor remedy in order to achieve equality.Each perspective identifies equality asa goal.

These perspectives are complementaryin their relationship. If the goal is theachievement of equality, then eliminat-ing present discrimination and advanc-ing remedies for past discrimination isa logical marriage of approaches.

The ability to manage an effort with thegoal of equality in a complex environ-ment with enormous variation is ex-ceedingly difficult. The mere fact thatthe effort toward equality spans manygenerations further complicates imple-mentation. The scope of the effort,which includes a quarter billion currentresidents of this country, is character-ized by unprecedented diversity andadds another level of complication andsensitivity.

The enactment of affirmative actionlegislation was extraordinary. It at-tempted to remedy an epic injustice:slavery. So large is the impact of theconditions of slavery that such extraor-dinary measures were adopted. At itscore, affirmative action addresses aneffort to repair a past wrong, a principlewell established in our system of laws.

populations under the umbrella of af-firmative action principles. The debateexpanded from one arena to another,moving from schools to the workplace.

The results of the affirmative actionstrategy to bring about equality andinclusion remain mixed. There are in-creases in the degree of inclusion. Atthe same time, new barriers appear inthe form of glass ceilings and walls.

The language in California AssemblyConstitutional Amendment No. 2, andin the proposed California initiativecircuitously proposes the eliminationof affirmative action. The initiative'slanguage cites a position opposed to alldiscrimination among groups ofpeople. This language has a surface at-tractiveness, intentionally so, but ismisleading. The target of the initiativeis ending all programs which addressremedies for differences that exist solelybecause discrimination exists.

American race relations has historicallyfocused on barrier reduction strategies.It assumes that the elimination of dis-crimination has the consequence ofconstructing equity and inclusion. Alook at our history invalidates thispremise. Removing a barrier has a rela-tionship to the achievement of a goal,but by itself has no intrinsic directionor movement toward a goal. Goals areachieved through planning and imple-mentation, not by simply removing abarrier.

An approach to equity based solely onbarrier removal is passive. Affirmative

action to design and implement activi-ties intended to result in equity is ac-tive. Passivity presents a dangerouscourse. Our social environment isstressed by divisive interests with eth-nic and racial implications. Not to ad-dress these stresses invites an expandednumber of potential flashpoints thatcould have a devastating impact on thebasic social contract which builds com-munity. How we formulate publicpolicy and design programs to accessdiversity as a positive resource and miti-gate the potential for dissension willdefine how well, our diversity serves us.

Affirmative action and all the associ-ated programs contain complexitiesand sensitivities that may give rise totensions among contending group in-terests. By its nature, controversies willdevelop with such a strategy. It is fairand reasonable to refine its applicationto minimize these tensions, but it servesnone of the nation's long term inter-ests to abandon the strategy because ofits complexity.

The affirmative action discussion nowunderway should discuss our interestsin policies of inclusion versus policiesof passivity, and the likely conse-quences of each. Passivity has the at-tractiveness of simplicity. Affirmativeaction is complex and full of sensitivi-ties. The scope, contentiousness andimplications of the issue are such thata passive approach appears to be fatallyflawed as a strategy to increase equal-ity among all Americans.

To characterize efforts to eliminate af-firmative action as a way to increaseequality is disingenuous. Arguments toeliminate affirmative action lack rootsin building equality. These argumentsstem instead from anxieties raised bythe changing social landscape trans-forming our business and governmentinstitutions. Changes in populationdiversity are readily visible while eco-nomic changes are more subtle. Thedanger is that this perspective will beapplied to other social issues and willlead to a more deeply divided and hos-tile situation. Today's debate about af-firmative action is only an initial en-counter with the deeper crisis with so-cial anxiety and an important reasonwhy serious efforts to challengetoday's nervous point of view must bemade. 0

common ground 12

Promoting

Diversityin

Education

The Asian American Factor: Victim or ShortsightedBeneficiary of Race-Conscious Remedies?Henry Der Chinese for Affirmative ActionHenry Der is the Executive Director for Chinese for Affimative Action, a San Francisco-basednonprofit organization created to protect the rights of Chinese Americans. Mr. Der is one of themost influential and effective civil rights leaders in the Bay Area. His commentary can be heardregularly on NPR radio.

As the national debate over affirmativeaction intensifies, Asian Americanshave emerged as a critical factor in thearguments put forth by the opponentsagainst this policy to promote equalopportunities for racial minorities andwomen. These opponents argue thatAsian Americans do not need affirma-tive action and have actually beenharmed by it. To bolster their claims,affirmative action opponents cite theuse of differential admission scores byrace to cap the number of ChineseAmerican students admitted to SanFrancisco's highly-acclaimed LowellHigh School and of "racial preferences"to admit African American and His-panic freshman students to Universityof California's Berkeley and Los Ange-les campuses, at the expense of aca-demically-competitive Asian Americanapplicants. Other opponents also em-phasize that, as the number of post-civilrights era Asian immigrants increases,there is little justification to grant af-firmative action benefits to individu-als who have not resided long enoughin America to have suffered historicdiscrimination.

Indeed, some Asian Americans haveplayed an increasingly visible role todismantle race-conscious remedies. InJuly, 1994, a group of Chinese Ameri-can families, encouraged and supportedprimarily by the Chinese AmericanDemocratic Club through- the AsianAmerican Legal Foundation, filed a fed-eral district court lawsuit, Brian Ho v.San Francisco Unified School District, tochallenge the constitutionality of racialclassifications to desegregateSan Fran-cisco public schools. These familieshave alleged that the use of racial clas-sifications have denied Chinese stu-dents access to schools of their choice.

On July 20, 1995, University of Cali-fornia Regents Stephen Nakashima andDavid Lee voted with a majority of theircolleagues to approve Regent WardConnerly's resolutions to ban the useof race as a factor in admissions, em-ployment and contracting decisions.

The UC Board of Regents invited theonly Asian American California statelegislator, Republican AssemblymanNao Takasugi, former but not con-firmed UC Regent Lester Lee, a repre-sentative of the Asian American LegalFoundation, Lee Cheng,' and PacificResearch Institute Senior Fellow LanceIzumi to testify before the Board.2 Allspoke in favor of the Conner ly resolu-tions.3

Have Asians been hurt by race-basedremedies benefiting other racial minor-ity groups? Or, have Asians benefitedfrom affirmative action, but opposerace-conscious remedies targeted to-ward other racial minority groups? Isthere a split within the Asian Ameri-can community about affirmative ac-tion and the use of race-conscious rem-edies in public policy decisionmaking?What are the political and social im-plications of such a split? To answerthese and other questions about theAsian American factor in the affirma-tive action debate, there has to be anunderstanding of the legal and educa-tional context in which race-consciousremedies are being implemented.

Affirmative Action andSchool Desegregation:Similar but not the SameWhat is affirmative action? Affirmativeaction is a race and gender-consciousstrategy to identify, recruit, and appointqualified racial minorities and womenfor employment, higher education, andcontracting opportunities. As PresidentBill Clinton outlined in his July 19,1995 speech at the National Archives,affirmative action is not rigid quotas,reverse discrimination, preferences forunqualified individuals, or the continu-ation of programs that have met theirgoals. Affirmative action is a narrowly-tailed race-conscious remedy used ona temporary basis to overcome historic,persistent problems of discrimination,afflicting racial minorities and women.

Not all race-conscious strategies are af-firmative action. The U.S. Supreme

14Perspectives on Affirmative Action 13

Court in Brown v. Board of Educationoutlawed "separate but equal" or ra-cially-identifiable schools. Conse-quently, school desegregation is a race-conscious remedy to eradicate racially-identifiable schools whether White,Black, Chinese, or any other racialgroup. School desegregation is not af-firmative action, though. Affirmativeaction as a public policy does not andcannot exist at the K-12 educationallevel because all school-aged childrenare required by law to attend school;students do not, or should not have to,compete among themselves to deter-mine who will receive an education. Assuch, public schools have a legal obli-gation to provide equal educational op-portunities for all students.

Affirmative action opponents andmembers of the press have routinelycharacterized the Brian Ho lawsuit as achallenge against "affirmative action"because Chinese American studentswho gain admission to Lowell HighSchool are required to achieve highergrades and test scores than students ofother racial backgrounds, includingother Asians." In their attempts to gar-ner popular support for the lawsuit,supporters of the Brian Ho case haveaggressively highlighted Lowell's ad-mission policies, as if such policies arerepresentative of how all ChineseAmerican students are negatively af-fected by racially-based enrollmentguidelines specified in the school de-segregation Consent Decree.5

Lowell is one of 107 public schools inSan Francisco. Lowell's admission poli-cies are not typical of how other highschools admit their students. Lowell'sadmission policies must be understoodand placed within the context of theentire Consent Decree and its effects onChinese American students throughoutall 107 public schools.

While Consent Decree enrollmentguidelines specify that no racial groupshall constitute more than 40% repre-sentation at any alternative school6 or45% at any regular neighborhoodschool, the Consent Decree neither re-quires nor calls on alternative academicschools like Lowell to use grade and testscore rank to select its students. Theother alternative academic high schoolsin San Francisco Wallenberg, Burton,Thurgood Marshall and International

Studies Academy (all of which are alsohighly sought-after) use a lotterysystem within the racially-based enroll-ment guidelines to select their studentsto achieve school desegregation. In fact,such a lottery system for magnet schooladmission is commonly used across thecountry in court-ordered and voluntarydesegregation plans.

Without a doubt, the use of racially-based, differential admission scores by

patterns strongly indicates that the ra-cially-based Consent Decree enroll-ment guidelines have not barred Chi-nese access to schools of choice.8

When the June 1995 graduating classof the San Francisco Unified SchoolDistrict began high school in Fall 1991,there were 5,832 students enrolled asfreshmen. Of these 5,832 students,1,476 Chinese constituted 25% of thefreshman class; 1,080 Blacks, 19%;

...school-aged children are required to attend school; students do

not, or should not have to compete amongthemselves to determine who will receive an education.

Lowell places extraordinary pressure onChinese applicants to achieve highergrades and test scores. For those Chi-nese students who score below the cut-off for Chinese, but score equally to thecutoff for other racial groups, feelingsof unfairness, frustration, and resent-ment are understandable.' Such pres-sure and resentment can and should beeasily resolved. Admission by grade andtest score rank is not the only legitimateform of a so-called "merit-based"school. If Lowell were to establish mini-mum qualifications or a uniform cut-off score for all racial groups and thenadmit students by lottery within Con-sent Decree enrollment guidelines,Lowell could maintain its status as a"merit-based" school and eradicate re-sentment caused by differential admis-sion scores. There is a Lowell problemin terms of how its current "merit-based" admission by grade and testscore rank is applied, but it is inappro-priate to generalize the Lowell problemas a barrier facing Chinese students atthe other 106 schools.

Brian Ho alleges that, until racial classi-fications and the enrollment guidelineof 40% representation of any one ra-cial group at an alternative school siteare abolished, Chinese students willcontinue to be constitutionally harmedand denied access to schools of choicethroughout the entire school district.Relative to other racial groups, haveChinese students suffered less access toschools of choice? Contrary to theseBrian Ho allegations, a careful review ofChinese and other student enrollment

1,226 Hispanics, 23%; and 710 Whites,12%.

Among this SFUSD Fall 1991 freshmanclass of 5,832, a total of 1,315 studentswere granted admission and later en-rolled in the city's alternative academichigh schools (including Lowell,Wallenberg, Burton, and InternationalStudies Academy). Of these 1,315 stu-dents, 37% or 480 were Chinese. Only9% or 118 were Black; 15% or 198 His-panics; 13% or 171 Whites.

Relative to their overall representationin the freshman class and in compari-son to all other racial groups, Chinesestudents were more likely to be grantedchoice and enrolled in one of the city'salternative academic high schools. Incontrast, Black and Hispanic studentswere considerably less likely to be en-rolled in a school of choice. White stu-dents had an even chance.

Black and Hispanic students were notthe only groups who suffered dimin-ished chances of gaining access toschools of choice. Limited English pro-ficient, low-income and low-achievingstudents suffered equally worse accessto schools of choice. Whereas limitedEnglish proficient students comprised23% of all entering freshmen, only 4%of all freshman students granted choicewere limited English proficient. 19% ofall freshman students were classified aseducationally disadvantaged, but only5% of those enrolled in alternative highschools were educationally disadvan-taged students (even though these stu-dents are probably in the greatest need

II ,5 common ground 14

of challenging, alternative academiceducation).

Of the Chinese students who are de-nied admission to Lowell because theirgrades and test scores are below theChinese cutoff but at least equal to thatof other racial groups, these studentsseem to gain access to other alternativeacademic schools or other schools ofchoice. For example, among the threenamed Brian Ho plaintiffs, one is a highschool student, Patrick Wong.9 WhenPatrick Wong submitted an applicationto attend a school other than his neigh-borhood high school, he requested fourschools of choice: Lowell, Wallenberg,Lincoln, and Washington. He was de-nied admission to Lowell andWallenberg, but gained admission toLincoln. Given that he was granted oneof his four choices, it is arguablewhether the Consent Decree racially-based enrollment guidelines deniedPatrick Wong access to a school ofchoice.

In any given year, over 75% of allLowell applicants come from either amiddle-class, west side or privatemiddle school. Compared to low-in-come and/or immigrant students liv-ing on the east side of San Francisco,middle-class applicants and their fami-lies have many educational choicesavailable to them. Consequently, appli-cants who are not admitted into Lowell,more often than not, have otherchoices, either in public schools or inthe independent sector.

Do all Chinese students in San Fran-cisco who request school choice gainaccess to schools of first choice? Clearly,the answer is no. On the other hand,students of other racial backgroundsalso do not achieve access to schoolsof first choice in every instance. Thereis strong convincing evidence that, rela-tive to other racial and other identifi-able groups of students, Chinese stu-dents and their families appear to takestrong advantage of school choices orappear to be overrepresented amongthose who are granted choice.

The federal court specifically designedthe racially-based Consent Decree en-rollment guidelines to prevent theresegregation of San Francisco publicschools. As it stands, 70% of all Lowellstudents are Asians Chinese, Japa-

nese, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese,and other Asians. There is no more thana combined 30% representation ofWhites, Blacks, Hispanics and Ameh-

fice of the President reaffirmed itslongstanding policy of promoting di-verse undergraduate student bodies oneach campus. This policy calls on each

The controversy over which applicants get admitted to Berkeleyis really a fight over the number of choices granted tohigh-achieving students among all racial groups, but has beencharacterized... as Asian applicants being denied access

to a U.C. education.

can Indians at Lowell. The nine distinctracial classifications, provided for in theConsent Decree, have actually workedto the advantage of Asian students seek-ing access to Lowell, including ethnicChinese from Southeast Asia who clas-sify themselves as "other non-whites"and are not counted in the "Chinese"category.'° The true representation ofChinese students at Lowell is closer tofifty percent of the student body thanthe enrollment guideline of 40% for analternative school. Nonetheless, thesupporters of Brian Ho remain unsatis-fied and demand more Chinese stu-dents admitted into Lowell, as if stu-dents of other racial backgrounds can-not or do not deserve to benefit from acollege preparatory education atLowell.

Merit and Racial Diversity in HigherEducationJust as racially-based enrollment guide-lines must be understood in the con-text of school desegregation and its ef-fect districtwide, admission to UC Ber-keley and UCLA must be understoodin the context of the California MasterPlan for Higher Education and admis-sion opportunities throughout theeight undergraduate UC campuses. TheMaster Plan calls on the University ofCalifornia to select its undergraduatestudents from among the top 12.5 per-cent of graduating high school seniors.Contrary to popular belief, the MasterPlan does not specify nor mandate eachUC campus, including Berkeley, to ad-mit students solely on grade and testscore rank.

What the Master Plan and relevant statelaws require is that UC serve studentsof diverse racial backgrounds who canbenefit from a university education. Tothat end, seven years ago, the UC Of-

campus to admit 40% to 60% of its stu-dents on grade and test score rank andthe remaining students on a combina-tion of grades, test scores and other fac-tors, including race and socio-economicstatus. UC does not measure academicexcellence or the potential to benefitfrom a university education solely onhigh school grades and test scores. TheMaster Plan allows for UC to serve stu-dents with a range of academic abili-ties and achievements, ranging from a3.3 to 4.0 GPA. Delegated the responsi-bility to establish admission criteria, theUC faculty has determined over timethat GPAs lower than 3.3 could be off-set by high test scores to determine eli-gibility.

Leading up to the UC Board of Regents'recent vote to dismantle race as a fac-tor in admissions, Regent Connerlycharged:"

Many of those who support (UC's) currentaffirmative action practices labor under thevery false impression that no innocent per-son is harmed, no one is admitted to theUniversity who is not eligible, no one getsadmitted because of their race or ethnicbackground, and the quality of the univer-sity is improved because of affirmativeaction... Asian and White students havea much higher standard to meet than Af-rican Americans, Hispanic and AmericanIndians. Thus, innocent people are harmed,students are admitted solely on the basisof their race...

Connerly's allegation that Asians havebeen harmed by the university's affir-mative action program strongly sug-gests that members of this racial groupare being denied access to UC because"less qualified" Blacks and Hispanics arebeing admitted to UC. A review of uni-versity student enrollment indicatesotherwise.

1 6 Povsposiliues ouo ilgOinnative &Mon 15

According to data by the UC Office ofthe President, for the Fall 1994 Semes-ter, among all racial groups, Asian12 andWhite applicants enjoyed the highestrates of admission as first-time UCfreshman students. 85% of white ap-plicants were admitted to UC; 84% ofall Asian applicants were admitted. ForBlack and Hispanic applicants, the ad-mission rate was 76% and 82% respec-tively. Stated in another way, Asian andWhite applicants have a slightly betterchance of getting admitted into UCthan either Blacks or Hispanics.

Between Fall 1991 and Fall 1994, theadmission rate of Asian first-time fresh-man applicants increased from 79% to

lic is the total number of Asians admit-ted into UC would not increase underthe sole use of economic-based crite-ria. Certain UC campuses like Berkeleyand UCLA would gain more Asian stu-dents, but other UC campuses wouldlose Asian American student enroll-ment from an overall shifting of AsianAmerican students within the UC sys-tem.

Further, affirmative action opponentsconveniently ignore the study's owncaution that its findings are "specula-tive and subject to additional exami-nation." This study excluded other fac-tors, such as rural, special talents, ath-letics, disabled and re-entry women,

To be race and color conscious is inevitable because racialdiversity is America. Race-consciousness can and

should be used positively to be inclusive, not to be exclusive...

84%; for White applicants, 77% to 85%.During this same period, the admissionrate of Black and Hispanic applicantsdid not increase substantively.

Because UC admits every eligible AsianAmerican applicant as well as eligibleapplicants of other racial backgrounds,in Fall 1994, more than 40,000 AsianAmericans were enrolled as UC under-graduate students, constituting morethan 35% of all UC undergraduate stu-dents. This 35% Asian representationis more than double the rate of AsianAmerican students graduating fromCalifornia's high schools. The astound-ing numbers and percentages of AsianUC students hardly support the claimthat Asian Americans are being harmedand denied access to UC.

One recent preliminary UC study° sug-gests that if there was no considerationfor race and if low-income status wasthe only other consideration given inadmission decisions besides grades andtest scores, theoretically 15-25% moreAsian applicants would be enrolled ata UC campus like Berkeley. Opponentsof affirmative action and some AsianAmericans have embraced this prelimi-nary study, arguing that, rather thanrace, socioeconomic status should be afactor in university admission deci-sions. What is not clearly understoodby these Asians and the California pub-

which are an integral part of UC's cur-rent admissions criteria. Once these fac-tors and the newly-adopted, Board ofRegent factor, "dysfunctionalism," aretaken into consideration in admissiondecisions, it is highly unlikely thatAsian American enrollment would sig-nificantly increase; in fact, it could de-crease if "dysfunctionalism" affectsnon-Asian families at a higher rate thanAsian families. If low-income status isused as the sole supplementary crite-rion, the UC study predicts that theaverage grade and test scores of UC Ber-keley admittees would be lower thanthat of current admittees, whereby raceis one among many factors in admis-sions decisions. Relative to their pleasto maintain "high academic stan-dards," how willing would affirmativeaction opponents be to accept a lower-ing of the average grade and test scoresof UC Berkeley admittees under a "soleuse of low-income status" criterion sce-nario? In spite of their rhetoric, notlikely.

There is no question that many AsianAmerican families want their studentsto study at UC Berkeley. There is a verystrong Asian American tradition there.Because of this desire and tradition,Asian applicants who are not admittedto UC Berkeley have complained aboutBlacks and Hispanics who, on average,are admitted with lower grades and test

scores, but are nonetheless eligible un-der Master Plan criteria. On the otherhand, affirmative action opponents likeRegent Conner ly have not hesitated ina misleading fashion to generalize theUC Berkeley admissions experience asthe UC experience at all eight under-graduate campuses.

Application and enrollment decisionsby Asians are as complex as those byother racial groups. Of the 2,465 Asianapplicants admitted to the UC Berke-ley Fall 1994 freshman class, only 1,158or 47% decided to attend that campus.Or stated in another way, of thoseAsians admitted to Berkeley, moreAsians decided not to attend Berkeleythan to attend. The number of Asianadmittees who decided not to enroll,1,307, exceeds the total number ofBlacks and Hispanics, 660, who en-rolled as freshman students in Fall1994. The fact that there are not moreAsian American students at a UC cam-pus like Berkeley is not the sole resultof affirmative action for African Ameri-can and Hispanic students.

The Master Plan has never guaranteedthat every eligible UC applicant will begranted campus of first choice. UCfreshman applicants routinely apply foradmission to multiple campuses. Theyapply to campuses where they believethey will be admitted, but obviouslynot where they will eventually enroll.To achieve diversity, university officialsat a high-demand campus like Berke-ley have to balance a wide range of in-terests and needs, including the needto field its football team which is pe-rennially and enthusiastically sup-ported by Cal Chinese alumni. Not-withstanding the challenge of achiev-ing diversity, UC admission policies donot appear to have discouraged nornegatively affected Asian Americanenrollment. University-wide, 68% of allAsians admitted to UC enrolled as fresh-man students at one of eight under-graduate campuses in Fall 1994, thehighest enrollment rate among all ra-cial groups. What evidence is there that,if Asian applicants do not get admittedto Berkeley, they are discouraged fromenrolling at UC? The controversy overwhich applicants get admitted to Ber-keley is really a fight over the numberof choices granted to high-achievingstudents among all racial groups, but

17 common ground 16

has been characterized by affirmativeaction opponents as Asian applicantsbeing denied access to a UC education.

Asian Annericans at a Crossroad:Segregated or Multiracial Democracy?Affirmative action opponents, includ-ing the co-authors of the so-called"California Civil Rights Initiative,"have strategically highlighted the ad-mission practices at Lowell High Schooland UC Berkeley to drum up publicopposition, including that of someAsian Americans, against race-con-scious remedies. Ironically, if it quali-fies for the state ballot and is approvedby California voters, the "CaliforniaCivil Rights Initiative" would have nolegal authority or power to cause anychange in the school desegregationConsent Decree in San Francisco, in-cluding the racially-based enrollmentguidelines. In exploiting Asian vulner-ability on the Lowell and UC Berkeleyissues, affirmative action opponentshave conveniently evaded the fact thatAsian Americans, like other racial mi-norities and women, still need and canbenefit from race-conscious affirmativeaction remedies in employment, pub-lic contracting, and even faculty hiringand graduate admission to° certain aca-demic fields in higher education.

Reports like the Federal Glass CeilingCommission's Good for Business: Mak-ing Full Use of the Nation's Human Capi-tal and Chinese for Affirmative Action'sThe Broken Ladder: Asian Americans inCity Government Reports'" have docu-mented that Asian Americans have notachieved equality in the workplace, inspite of their educational attainmentand professional experience. Racistjokes about homogenized Asian Ameri-cans like LA Superior Court Judge LanceIto and LA Criminalist Dennis Fung arenot-too-funny reminders that racismand stereotypical treatment againstAsian Americans run deep in Americansociety today.

Unequivocally, Asian Americans havebenefited from affirmative action in themass media, construction, banking, lawenforcement, telecommunications,utilities, and public sector employment.For example, based on Chinese for Af-firmative Action's twenty-year effort toeradicate discriminatory practices inthe San Francisco Police Department,

Asian Americans have gained employ-ment and promotions because of race-conscious remedies. Two decades ago,there were fewer than five Asians onthe San Francisco police force of 1,971sworn personnel. Because of affirmativeaction, the representation of AsianAmericans today stands at 290 swornofficers, a 5,800% increase and consti-tuting the largest racial minority groupin the SF police department. Similarly,because of CAA's efforts to integrate theSF Fire Department and court-approvedaffirmative action remedies, the repre-sentation of Asian firefighters jumped373%, from 34 in 1985 to 161 in 1995.

The true challenge facing Asian Ameri-cans today is not whether more Chi-nese or Asians can be enrolled at Lowellor UC Berkeley, but whether we willplay a responsible role in creating andmaintaining a multiracial democracy.If not, Asian Americans face the realpossibility of playing a leading role ina segregated society where Asian Ameri-cans will assume a role similar to theone held by Asian Indians in colonial

standing that affirmative action ben-efits and aids only those who are "un-qualified." Some Asians reason that,because they are qualified, they do notneed affirmative action. Quite the op-posite is true. Precisely because Asiansare qualified and affirmative action isin place, Asian Americans have realizednew opportunities, without under-standing fully that they have been af-firmative action beneficiaries.

More troubling than the differences inopinion about affirmative action is theselfishness and hypocrisy of some AsianAmericans who oppose affirmative ac-tion but, in fact, have benefited fromrace-conscious programs and strategies.These character flaws will accelerate therole played by Asian Americans in aresegregated America society. In such asociety, Asian Americans become the"preferred minority," only to the extentthat racial minorities fight each otherwithout realizing true equality for anyone racial minority group.

The current affirmative action debate

As affirmative action takes center stage in next year'spresidential election, its proponents face the double challenge of

stemming the resegregation ofAmerican societyand of providing clear evidence that race-conscious

remedies remain essential to the quest for equality.

East Africa when this racial minoritygroup was perceived to be smarter andtreated better than black Africans, butnever as equals in the white-controlledcolonial government. America willnever be a colorblind society becauseof its history, institutional practices andindividual experiences in a diverse so-ciety. To be race and color conscious isinevitable because racial diversity isAmerica. Race-consciousness can andshould be used positively to be inclu-sive, not to be exclusive as suggestedby affirmative action opponents.

There are Asian Americans today whodo not support affirmative action andrace-conscious remedies. Differences inopinion within the Asian Americancommunity reflect differences in lifeexperiences that Asians have had in thiscountry. Such differences are rootedpartly in the widespread misunder-

has engaged some Asian Americans tothe extent that their selfishness andhypocrisy are central to the dismantlingof affirmative action. When the Cali-fornia State Senate rejected the confir-mation of Regent Lester Lee, GovernorPete Wilson and his office specificallycontacted key Chinese Americans torecommend "someone from your com-munity" to fill the vacancy on theBoard of Regents. David Lee's namesurfaced among Chinese Americanscontacted by the Governor. The Gov-ernor eventually appointed David Lee.When questioned whether race was afactor in the David Lee appointment,one Chinese American colleague ofDavid Lee vehemently claims that racewas not a factor, but that Lee's being aSilicon Valley businessman was. In hiscomments to support the Connerlyresolutions, David Lee stated that he

1 8 Perspectives ono &Him:alive &cam 17

"(does) not care about race." Eventhough he has personally benefited byrace-consciousness, Lee's vote to dis-mantle affirmative action is not onlyhypocritical but selfish because manyqualified Asian Americans will be de-nied employment and contracting op-portunities at UC.

invoke their mantra of "individualrights," "hard-work", and "merit,"these Asian Americans have come tobelieve that they are better than otherracial minority groups and specificallyview Blacks as unqualified, undeserv-ing individuals who could not getahead, were it not for affirmative ac-tion. Others believe that Blacks have

The federal court specifically designed the racially-basedConsent ecree enrollment guidelinesto prevent the resegregation of San Franciscopublic schools. As it stands, 70% of all Lowell students

are Asians Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos,

Koreans, Vietnamese, and other Asians.

Then, there are Asian Americans whoopenly oppose race-conscious remediesand then turn right around to benefitfrom affirmative action. Prior to theadoption of the San Francisco Fire De-partment Consent Decree, a ChineseAmerican firefighter submitted to thefederal court a signed statement oppos-ing adoption of the Consent Decree,alleging that "standards" would be low-ered if race were a factor in hiring andpromotions. Some years later, this Chi-nese American firefighter took a pro-motive exam and found himself notscoring very high on test. He ap-proached Chinese for Affirmative Ac-tion and claimed that the oral portionof the test may have been discrimina-tory. As a party in the firefighter litiga-tion, Chinese for Affirmative Action in-tervened and challenged the discrimi-natory aspect of the promotive test.Because of race conscious remedies pro-vided for in the Consent Decree, thisChinese American firefighter eventu-ally received a promotion over indi-viduals who had higher test scores. Nomatter how many times some AsianAmericans may complain about andoppose race-conscious remedies, Chi-nese for Affirinative Action has yet towitness any Asian American refuse arace-conscious or affirmative actionopportunity.

Possibly worse than this hypocrisy andselfishness is growing intoleranceamong some Asian Americans towardother racial minorities, in particularBlacks. As affirmative action opponents

neither worked nor achieved enoughto deserve an admission opportunity toa campus like UC Berkeley and shouldenroll in "lesser colleges." There is, attimes, little empathy that Black Ameri-cans may have suffered discrimination,different in kind and by degree whencompared to the Asian American expe-rience.

As affirmative action takes center stagein next year's presidential election, pro-ponents of affirmative action face thedouble challenge of stemming theresegregation of American society andof providing clear evidence that race-conscious remedies remain essential tothe quest for equality by Asians. Affir-mative action proponents initially re-acted with pessimism to the U.S. Su-preme Court decision in Adarand v.Pena, requiring federal affirmative ac-tion programs to adhere to the standardof "strict scrutiny," already imposed onstate and local government-sponsoredrace-conscious programs. In spite of theworrisome trend of the Supreme Court'srecent decisions on race-conscious rem-edies, affirmative action proponentswill meet the challenge ofAdarand anddetail where race-conscious remediesremain necessary for Asian Americansand other racial minorities to achieveequality. By doing so, Asian Americanswill demonstrate that a multiracial de-mocracy remains viable, but requires ahigh degree of collaboration and workamong racial minority groups to under-stand the many forms of race discrimi-

nation and to promote an array of race-conscious remedies.

1 Based on a post-UC-Board-meeting discussionwith the President of Asian American LegalFoundation, Roland Quan, Lee Cheng was notauthorized to oppose affirmative action inemployment, contracting or university admis-sions.

2 Former UC Regent Yori Wada and Henry Der,chairperson of the California PostsecondaryEducation Commission, spoke in oppositionto the Connerly resolutions.

3 UC Regent Ward Connerly has stated that heis not opposed to affirmative action if thispolicy is used to identify and recruit qualifiedracial minorities for employment opportuntiesor to render early outreach services to minor-ity youths for university admission. Under nocircumstance does Connerly want race or gen-der to be a factor in any decision to hire anemployee, admit a university student, or awarda public contract. Therefore, his opposition to"race as a factor" effectively guts the centralintent and purpose of affirmative action.

4 See, for example, "Minority Students Sue toEnd Affirmative Action Plan" in July 25, 1995Wall Street Journal and "A Question of Fair-ness: Excellence and Equity at Lowell High"in June 19-21, 1995 San Francisco Chronicle.

5 SFNAACP v. SFUSD (C-78-1445-WHO)6 Alternative schools (aka as "magnet school"

in other school districts) do not serve students,based on their neighborhood residence. Allstudents who attend an alternative school mustsubmit an application for admission. Studentsattending regular schools are assigned there onthe basis of neighborhood residence. There isno submission of an application, unless thestudent lives outside of the neighborhood at-tendance area.

7 Some White and other Asian applicants, whosecutoff scores are below that for Whites andother Asians, but higher than that for Blackand Whites, have also complained about anunfair admission system.

8 Der, Henry. "Class Between Race-ConsciousRemedies and Merit" in Asian American PolicyReview, January, 1994.Der, Henry. "Consent Decree: Observationsabout Student Enrollment Patterns - San Fran-cisco Public Schools," unpublished paper, Sep-tember 1994.

9 The other two named plaintiffs are elementaryschool students. One attends a parochialCatholic elementary school.

10 If the federal Office of Management and Bud-get guidelines on racial classification were tobe used, only 4 racial groups - Black, White,American Indian and Asian Pacific Islander -and one ethnic group - Hispanic - would berecognized.

11 June 30, 1995 letter from Regent WardConnerly to UC Board of Regents ChairmanClair Burgener.

12 The term "Asian" includes persons of Chinese,Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, Filipino,Asian Indian, Pakistani, Thai and other Asianancestry.

13 "The use of socio-economic status in place ofethriicity in undergraduate admissions: a re-port on the results of an exploratory computersimulation." University of California Office ofthe President, Student Academic Services. Oak-land, California, May 1995.

14 Henry Der, Colleen Lye, and Howard Ting. SanFrancisco, California: Chinese for AffirmativeAction, 1986, 1989, 1992.

1 9 common ground 18

MOthlvitdaig QnkumgOei® aaigicmClimmo-Un Thlan UnOussysiliiy Ceollgovrfarma ItafievDr. Chang-Lin Tien is the chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley and the nation'shighest ranking Asian Pacific American in education. He is the first Asian Pacific to be appointedto head a major university in the U.S.

I never rode the city buses when I at-tended the University of Louisville inKentucky. I had no car so sometimes Ihad to walk seemingly endless milesback and forth from the campus todowntown.

It was not simply the lack of moneythat forced me to walk, although I wasa poor immigrant when I was acceptedas a graduate student there in 1956.Rather, I refused to ride the buses be-cause I found it humiliating.

Today, I can still recall my shock whenI first boarded a city bus and found thatwhites rode in the front and "coloreds"rode in the rear. Just where exactly didan Asian fit in? I too have a skin colorbut I am not black. And if I chose thefront section, what kind of statementwas I making about the black men,women and children relegated to therear?

This great country has made phenom-enal progress since those days of JimCrow segregation. The Civil Rights Actof 1964 paved the way for the desegre-gation of our society. Yet this country'sleaders realized that de facto segrega-tion would remain so long as blacks andother minorities were not affordedequal opportunities in hiring, contract-ing and admission to institutions ofhigher education. Their concerns led tothe establishment of affirmative actionpolicies.

These historic social changes did notcome easily. The debates were heated.Pitched battles frequently erupted. Yetmost would agree that our country is abetter place as a consequence.

The Asian American community reapedsubstantial benefits from these effortsto integrate American society. Affirma-tive action opened doors previouslyclosed to immigrants and natives alike,offering broader opportunities for hous-ing and employment. It is now accept-able in America for an Asian to be CEOof a major corporation. Some Asianseven have become chancellors ofprominent universities. This wouldhave been unthinkable in the Americaof the 1950s.

Now, the debate over affirmative actionhas surfaced once again. There are seri-ous proposals to do away with thesepolicies altogether. I do not agree withthese proposals. I am particularly con-cerned about the impact these policieswould have on institutions like theUniversity of California, Berkeley. I

When we embarked on our journey todiversify our student body while pre-serving our excellence, there were nomodel admissions programs for us tofollow. In many senses Berkeley hasbeen charting new territory. And when-ever you travel in unfamiliar terrain,you expect to stumble at times andstrike off in the wrong direction at oth-ers. This has been our experience andwe have learned along the way.

The Asian community is painfully fa-miliar with some of our missteps. In the

Today, I can still recall my shock when I first boarded a city bus

and found that whites rode in the front and "coloreds" rode inthe rear. Just where exactly did an

Asian fit in?

worry that we may be turning back theclock, with harsh consequences for allminorities including Asian Americans.

I remain firmly convinced that diver-sity is the key to the continued aca-demic excellence that is Berkeley's hall-mark. I base this belief on the manysuccesses my campus has recorded overthe last decade, as it has grown increas-ingly diverse.

Furthermore, Berkeley is a public uni-versity that is charged with educatingthe diverse population of the state ofCalifornia. In the 1990 census, ethnicminorities represented 43 percent ofCalifornia's population. Any policy thatdoes not enhance access for these mi-norities to our university is shunningour most basic charge.

Achieving this diversity while main-taining excellent academic standards isnot a simple task. It requires an admis-sions process that takes into accounttraditional academic standards such asgrade point average and SAT scores.

Yet the process must go further. It alsomust assess the relative potential of ap-plicants as measured by that person'sspecial talents, the hardships he or shehad to overcome and the contributionshe or she may make to society if af-forded a quality education. It must takeinto account the obstacles to academicsuccess posed by an applicant's race orethnicity.

1980s, a controversy brewed over thefairness of our freshmen admissionstandards. Some critics includingcampus administrators such as myself

argued that proposed standards wereweighted heavily against Asian Ameri-cans. The public outcry triggered inves-tigations that ultimately resulted in arefining of our standards to insure fair-ness.

At the same time, we reformed the pro-cess of setting standards. As a result, thedetails of our freshmen admissions pro-cess is very much open to public scru-tiny. Our admissions standards are amodel copied across the country.

The new standards also define diversitymore broadly. We want to make sureour doors are open to low-income stu-dents, immigrant students, older stu-dents, disabled students, and studentsfrom rural and urban regions alike.

Today Berkeley has one of the most di-verse populations of any major Ameri-can university. No racial or ethnicgroup is in the majority. In the fall of1994 undergraduate student popula-tion, Asians represented 39.4 percent,whites 32.4 percent, Chicano/Latinos13.8 percent, African Americans 5.5percent, and American Indian/NativeAmericans 1.1 percent.

Critics of affirmative action say thatopening the door to minorities does notguarantee their success and yet ourgraduation rates have improved as the

Perspeatives on laOgivnuanirove iaaigion 19

campus has become more diverse.Other critics predict that academic stan-dards will decline as the numbers of mi-nority students increase.

At Berkeley, that simply is not true. Thefall 1994 freshman class is stronger aca-demically from top to bottom than thefreshman class of 10 years ago. Mea-sured by almost any academic criteriaone chooses, the excellence of our stu-dents is evident. The mean high schoolgrade point average is 3.84, for ex-ample, and the mean SAT score is 1,225

high by any standard. The overallacademic quality of our student bodyhas been improving consistently overthe past 10 years.

And the pool of highly qualified stu-dents applying for admission contin-ues to grow. For the fall 1995 semester,we received 22,700 freshmen applica-tions an increase of 9 percent overlast year. These highly talented appli-cants included about 9,500 studentswith a 4.0 high school grade point av-erage. The fact is our 1995 fall fresh-men class will consist of 3,470 students.

Furthermore, our graduation rates haveclimbed steadily over the past 10 yearsfor all students. Currently, 74 percentof our students graduate within fiveyears. In the mid-1950s, just 48 percentof our students graduated within fiveyears.

The numbers dispel the notion thatdiversity has somehow sacrificed thequality of our institution. In fact, thediversity has been coupled with risingstandards.

I know there are Asian community lead-ers who argue that traditional academiccriteria grade point averages and SATscores should be the sole determi-nants for admission. I would point outthat no major university admits stu-dents solely on this basis because suchan approach ignores other factors thatdifferentiate an excellent student froma good one. Elite private institutionsroutinely give special preferences to thechildren of alumni and of major do-nors. Yet no one argues that these prac-tices have caused the academic qualityof the Ivy League schools to decline.

The fact remains that diversifying ourstudent body is sound educationalpolicy in a country undergoing pro-

found demographic changes. Today'seducation student must be able to ef-fectively teach in a multicultural class-room. The medical student who can-not comfortably interact with AfricanAmerican, Latino or Asian patients willfail to address modern society's medi-cal needs. The business student whocan't work in concert with colleaguesfrom Hong Kong, Korea or Mexico willhave a hard time climbing the corpo-rate ladder.

Our country has come a long way sincethe days of segregated buses. But if wefail to provide access to higher educa-tion for all minorities, major sectors ofour population will not succeed in asociety that increasingly mandates ad-vanced academic skills. I fear that thenet result will be a two-tiered society,divided like those old buses along ra-cial and ethnic lines.

The Asian community has always beenunited by a strong sense of justice. I amconfident that we will come to the foreas the current debate on affirmativeaction unfolds.

As we face the challenges of the 21stcentury, we can draw inspiration froma poem carved on the wall of the AngelIsland detention center. As the anony-mous Chinese poet waited for clearanceto enter America, he wrote: "Already acool autumn has passed. Counting onmy fingers, several months haveelapsed. Still I am at the beginning ofthe road."

We, too, are at the beginning of theroad the road toward a society inwhich equal opportunity truly existsand in which universities prepare all ofour nation's students to live and workharmoniously in the global village ofthe 21st century. I look forward to trav-eling down the road together with you.

(this article previously appeared in the lune/July1995 edition of A. Magazine )

Public Statementre: Board of Regents for the University of Cali-fornia vote on July 20, 1995

To the UC Berkeley Community,As most of you know, the Board of Regents onThursday, July 20 voted to eliminate consider-ation of race, ethnicity and gender in hiring andcontracting effective January 1, 1996 and instudent admission decisions effective January 1,1997. I am disappointed by their decision be-cause I believe our policies have worked to offeropportunity to many and have succeeded in

strengthening our university for all. I am, how-ever, not discouraged. Now, we must work to-gether to develop new strategies to encourage con-tinued diversity at Berkeley.

The heartfelt debate over affinnative action hasbeen difficult, but we must-not let it be divisive.I know that our students and faculty and staffhold many opinions and we must respecteveryone's positions. I hold great hope that de-spite these divergent views, we can all work to-gether for the good of the university. I am opti-mistic because while we may agree on how toencourage diversity, it remains clear there iswidespread support for a UC that is inclusiverather than exclusive.

To all at Cal, but especially to our students, Iwant you to know that the Regents, PresidentPeltason and all of my fellow chancellors sharethe belief that the University of California mustbe open and welcoming to all the people of Cali-fornia.

Our challenge is to accomplish this within thenew guidelines. We will be working closely withthe Office of the President, systemwide admis-sions officers and the UC faculty to work outthe details of the new admissions policy.

In adopting the new admissions policy, the Re-gents showed great leadership in supporting en-hanced outreach effort to increase the numberof minority students eligible to enroll. Takingtheir lead, we will redouble these efforts at Ber-keley, as will UC campuses systemwide. Fur-ther we will reach out to our community tostudents, faculty, staff, and our neighbors todevelop creative, new strategies to assure con-tinued diversity on our campus.

Even with our best efforts, however, it would bewrong to imply the Regents' admissions policywill not have an effect on the composition ofour student body in the near firture. We wouldanticipate some reduction in the number ofunderrepresented minorities. How much of areduction is not clear. Projections to date havenot taken into account specific implementationguidelines still to be developed.

As to hiring and contracting, affirmative actionefforts are undertaken pursuant to federal rulesand regulations. The Regents' actions would notimpact those efforts, including open employmentsearches, in regard to faculty and staff employ-ment.

Our mission continues to be to serve a studentpopulation that encompasses the cultural diver-sity of the state. I remain as convinced as everthat this is essential if we are to properly pre-pare California's future leaders. Every studentwho graduates from Berkeley today leaves ourcampus with a better understanding of our com-plex world that he or she would have had inyears past. Diversity has and will continue tobenefit not only individual students, but thecampus and California as well.

I assure everyone on campus that I will join withmy colleagues throughout the UC system to useevery means available to continue the pursuitof excellence through diversity.

21 common ground 20

uIJD5® Melon ittlindev MnaoakHued L BoulDay Hughes Eiesilvonias CorpovagionDavid R. Barclay is the Vice President of Workforce Diversity at Hughes Electronics Corporation. Amember of the LEAP Board of Directors since 1994, he is nationally recognized as an expert inworkforce diversity and EEO issues.

For decades this country has been em-broiled in controversy over the need foraffirmative action programs. Now, fortyyears after the U.S. Supreme Court rul-ing in Brown v. Board of Education, whichstruck down the "separate but equal"doctrine in education, and thirty yearsafter the passage of the Civil Rights Actof 1964 and the issuance of ExecutiveOrder 11246, we should be celebratingour progress, our successes. But instead,we find ourselves embroiled in the mostsignificant and divisive debate thiscountry has ever engaged in regardingaffirmative action.

Now, we find ourselves questioning andre-examining these historic events todetermine if they remain relevant to-day.

Does affirmative action remain a viableconcept... have we moved beyond thisprogram and has the new focus on di-versity eliminated the need for goalsand timetables? Are minority set-asideprograms in public contracting stillnecessary? Does an integrated educa-tion environment provide the best op-portunity for minority children to learnor does it only create an artificially in-tegrated education setting that endswhen class is over? Should integrationbe our national goal or should our goalsimply be one of equality of opportu-nity... equal access?

These are not easy questions, but theyare the issues this society must con-front. We no longer have the luxury todiscuss these problems in the abstract,like some theory, some philosophicalrhetoric, like they're someone else'sproblem.

Has this society solved all of its raceproblems? Are we at a point in our his-tory that we no longer need govern-ment oversight? Is the playing fieldnow level? The answer to these ques-tions is clearly "no."

Is it in our national interest to capital-ize on the strengths of our growing di-versity? Is it still our national goal tocreate opportunities for full participa-tion in all facets of our society? I hope

the answer to these questions is "yes,"but these questions must be answeredbefore we move to the next step.

It is important to understand that thefocus and doctrine that emerged fromthe civil rights movement in the fiftiesand sixties was designed to correct "his-torical inequities." This doctrine wasfounded upon the modification of so-cial behavior... not the balancing of le-gal rights. This movement also viewedthe employer as the cause and there-fore the solution.

At that time, the debate was fueled byvisual images brought into our livingrooms every night by television... theimages of injustices and racism in itspurest form: dogs turned loose onpeaceful demonstrators, sit-ins at lunchcounters, burning of freedom buses, themurders of civil rights workers. The U.S.faced a moral issue that was compel-ling, one that we could not ignore.

Today, the visual images are not thereand we have lost the moral imperative.But the vestiges of racism remain.

As a result of last November's election,we're seeing a mood of political con-servatism sweep our country. Under theguise of balancing our budget, the newpower brokers in Washington are turn-ing the country away from the interestand needs of the poor, minorities, andeven the middle class.

During the last three decades, we havehad a multitude of court decisions thathave changed and shaped affirmativeaction in economic development, edu-cation, and employment in a mannerthat gave hope to many of us in ourcontinuing struggle to achieve ourrightful place in this society.

But in June of 1995, the U.S. SupremeCourt brought us back to the world ofreality and made clear the magnitudeof the struggle ahead for us. The court,in a span of several weeks has: (1) al-lowed a lower court decision stand thathad declared a minority scholarshipprogram unconstitutional; (2) sug-gested federal courts end their supervi-sion of school desegregation plans; (3)

22Peovectives oao Mammal/a &Mon 21

eliminated the contracting set-asideprogram for minorities, and perhapsthe use of numerical goals for affirma-tive action planning, for all practicalpurposes; and (4) attacked the use ofrace in drawing congressional districts.

This same court overturned a consentdecree in the Birmingham, Alabama,firefighters case in which: (1) blatanthistorical discrimination against Blackswas established; (2) the fire department

the legal system. At the same time, thissame Republican leadership is callingfor the elimination of the OFCCP andrefusing to provide adequate fundingfor the EEOC to meet their increasedworkload. Hardly a commitment to theeffective implementation of our civilrights law.

Even when cases go through the legalsystem and past discrimination is iden-tified and remedies ordered by an ad-

For those who say affirmative action hasn't worked, this issimply not true. It has opened many doors that had

been previously closed tight.... At the same time, weknow that more needs to be done.

refused to take affirmative actions toovercome this historical discrimina-tion; and (3) because of this unreason-able delay, the court ordered a quotaremedy. Now, twenty-one years afterthe original consent decree, this newSupreme Court has concluded that thisremedy has unfairly discriminatedagainst whites.

I must ask our opponents, "If not affir-mative action, then what?" Eliminationof this program is not a solution. Ouropponents have not suggested any al-ternatives. One must wonder if theybelieve the playing field is now leveland "fairness" will automatically be-come a reality. If they truly believe thatassumption, then we have a biggerproblem than I had ever imagined.

Some have suggested that the legal sys-tem is Our salvation which can resolvethe "few problems" that continue toexist. Hardly an answer. The EqualEmployment Opportunity Commis-sion (EEOC) struggles with their currentbacklog of nearly 100,000 complaints.The Office of Federal Contract-Compli-ance Programs (OFCCP) reviews annu-ally only about 5% of all federal con-tractors. The courts are overwhelmedwith an increasing number of discrimi-nation lawsuits being filed throughoutthe country.

Republican leadership reaches an all-time high for hypocrisy when they callfor the elimination of affirmative ac-tion and suggest individual acts of dis-crimination should be handled through

ministrative agency or the court, thereappears to be no finality to the process.It is lengthy, convoluted, costly, andsubject to the changing winds of po-litical storms.

For those who say affirmative actionhasn't worked, this is simply not true.It has opened many doors that hadbeen previously closed tight. We havemade progress and to deny this realityonly undermines the program. But atthe same time, we know that moreneeds to be done.

Even though there is no evidence ordata whatsoever that supports themyths and misrepresentations of re-verse discrimination, preferential treat-ment or lowered standards, our coun-try is prepared to amend our Constitu-tion, repeal executive orders, and to-tally eliminate a program that hasopened many doors. I find it amazingthat we are about to change nationalpolicy based on anecdotal stories.

We must shift from focusing only onsymptoms and examine the underly-ing causes for the conditions that con-tinue in our society. Our failure to dealwith causes only undermines our abil-ity to make rational decisions about ourfuture.

It is clear that problems of this magni-tude cannot and will not be solved bycatchy phrases and simplistic dreamsand visions. We must do more than juststate, "I support equal opportunity."The problems are far too complex.

President Lyndon Johnson, in a speechat Howard University in Washington,DC in June 1965, offered his rationalefor affirmative action. He stated, "Youdo not take a person who, for years, hasbeen hobbled by chains and liberatehim, bring him up to the starting lineof a race, and then say, 'you are free tocompete with all the others,' and stilljustly believe that you have been com-pletely fair."

But now, the attack and debate has es-calated to the national level. Virtuallyall of the Republican presidential can-didates have lined up to oppose affir-mative action and have stated that theywould eliminate this program at thefederal level if elected.

Earlier this year, President Clintoncalled for a review of all federal affir-mative action programs. Initially, hestraddled the fence trying to please ev-eryone but not pleasing anyone. Butin July 1995, the President outlinedbroad criteria for the continuation ofaffirmative action and concluded thatsuch policies are still necessary to com-bat continuing discrimination.

The business community has refused tojoin the debate. Many are willing todeclare their support of "diversity," butfew have come forward to support af-firmative action.

Now I hear an increasing number of mi-norities and women stating they havebeen stigmatized by affirmative action... they don't want to be associated withthe program. Let me offer one view-point... we may very well have beenstigmatized and stereotyped, but restassured it was not because of affirma-tive action.

This attack has far-reaching implica-tions. It is not limited to a simple dis-agreement over terminology... goals orquotas, preferential treatment, lowerstandards. It is not about affirmativeaction, case law or legal principles. It isnot about the myths and misrepresen-tations.

This debate is about the anxieties ofwhite mates brought on by the chang-ing demographics and a decliningeconomy; decreasing job opportunitiesand more competition because of anexpanded applicant pool for fewer jobs;the increasing representation of women

common ground 22

in the labor force; the emergence of alarge and increasingly visible minoritymiddle class; the persistence of racismand sexism; the dismantling of realpreferential system that has existed forhundreds of years; it's about the shar-ing of economic wealth and power; andfinally, it's about "racial politics" andthe use of "wedge issues."

We must understand that this debatehas not occurred by accident. It is partof a well thought-out strategy designedyears ago to drive a wedge betweenwhite male voters in the Democraticparty around the issues of abortion andaffirmative action. We should not besurprised by the use of racial politicsthis is not a new tactic. President Bushused Willie Horton to divide commu-nities; Jesse Helms used a racist strat-egy to defeat Harvey Gantt in his lastsenatorial campaign.

This debate is about a nation that hasbeen reluctant to change, reluctant tobring about true equality. It's abouthaving the social and political will tochange.

The opponents of affirmative action,supported by the media, have framedthis debate to make it a black/white is-sue. But the fact is that this debate isnot limited to the concerns of African-Americans. It encompasses problemsaffecting Asians, Hispanics, NativeAmericans, women, veterans andpeople with disabilities. All of thesegroups are covered by affirmative ac-tion obligations. The magnitude of thisprogram cannot be diminished. Wemust not allow these opponents to di-vide us as they attempt to polarize eth-nic groups and women against eachother.

The current debate should, if nothingelse, put an end to the optimistic vi-sion that the passage of time wouldinevitably lead to the end of discrimi-nation. Dr. Martin Luther King madethe point succinctly when he said, "Wemust purge ourselves from the tranquil-izing drug of gradualism."

If we are to overcome the historicalpatterns of prejudice and discrimina-tion that still exist today, we must useevery tool available to us... and thatincludes affirmative action. This is notthe time to eliminate any program or

process, imperfect as some may believethey are, that have worked and pro-duced results.

In our rush to implement the "Contractwith America," we must think clearlyabout the consequences of the regula-tory reform being offered up as the so-lution to our nation's problems. Let usthink about the kind of society we willcreate if all of the tools used to ensureour national policy of equity and fair-ness are eliminated. Our history hasbeen tragically clear in demonstratingthat equity and fairness for minoritiesand women has never been providedthrough voluntary means. It has alwaysbeen mandated by law, court decisionsand administrative regulations.

The societal implications are far greaterthan anyone has addressed up to thispoint. It will be short-sighted for anycommunity not to conduct a risk as-sessment of what can happen if we al-low America's ethnic communities, thefastest growing segment of our popu-

lation, to be further disenfranchisedand alienated from the mainstream...left with a feeling of hopelessness, frus-tration and despair. This will only leadto greater societal problems.

As long as we face discrimination basedon race and gender, then we must fash-ion remedies that take these factors intoaccount. Race and gender consciousremedies have proven essential in mea-suring our success or failure in overcom-ing discrimination and they remainessential in today's environment.

Rather than the divisive rhetoric, weshould come together to confront therealities of racism and eliminate thebarriers to equal access and opportu-nity. Let's have an honest inquiry andsober reflection into the state of racerelations in our country. Let's create asociety that establishes and affirms acommon vision and set of values thatensures fairness, equality and social jus-tice. Let's support the continued needfor affirmative action.

The Persistence of InequalityPaul M. Igasaki Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionPaul M. Igasaki is Vice Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission inWashington, D.C. Commissioner Igasaki's professional career spans years of involvement in civilrights. A lawyer by training, he is one of the highest Asian Pacific appointees in the ClintonAdministration.

As Vice Chairman of the agency thatenforces America's employment dis-crimination laws, my day-to-day workis not essentially about affirmative ac-tion, except to the extent that enforce-ment of anti-discrimination laws was

no longer a serious problem; that wehave reached the ideal of a level play-ing field. At the EEOC, it is clear this isincorrect. Employment discriminationis happening now at as high or higherlevels than at any time in history. Ra-

...the same laws that protect women and minoritiesprotect white men.

intended to overcome the effects of dis-crimination.' That, after all, is the defi-nition of affirmative action. It does notnecessarily mean quotas, or even pref-erences based on race or gender. Eventhe harshest opponents of affirmativeaction agree that vigorous enforcementof anti-discrimination laws is essential.While the EEOC reviews federal agencyaffirmative action programs, that is arelatively small portion of theorganization's mission.

In the current debate, many appear toassume employment discrimination is

2 4

cial and other tensions in the workplacehave gone through the roof. Racial cod-ing and "losing" minority applications,sexual harassment in the form of sexualassault or extortion, physical attacksagainst "foreign-looking" workers arebut a few of the cases that come to theEEOC at a rate of nearly 100,000 peryear.

It is also falsely assumed by many thatno ways exist for aggrieved white malesto challenge gender or race discrimina-tion against them. In fact, the samelaws that protect women and minori-

Pevspeatives ooa MOOvotraeaciue Riation 23

ties protect white men. Similar lawscover age and disability discrimination.There really is no "reverse" discrimina-tion; all discrimination is prohibited bycurrent law. Less than two percent ofcharges filed with the EEOC appear tobe in this latter category and, as withother cases, many lack merit. If an em-ployer discriminates, including allegeduse of illegal quotas in hiring, that casewill be handled aggressively by theEEOC. Reverse discrimination simplydoes not happen as often as the affir-mative action bashers would have usbelieve.

As an Asian American presidential ap-pointee and as Vice Chairman of theEEOC, I am also troubled by the misin-formation and manipulation of theAsian Pacific American community andits interests. I sat in on a recent Con-gressional hearing on the subject andheard testifiers on both sides refer sev-eral times to the Asian Pacific Ameri-can community and affirmativeaction's effect on it. Yet no one allowedan Asian to testify and none of theAsian American members of Congresswere on the committee. While it is con-venient to use us in the debate, we havetrouble getting our voices heard.

Before indicating Asian American inter-ests in affirmative action, it is neces-sary to define the term. For one thing,it is not about quotas. Statistical"straightjackets" that require the hir-ing of women or minorities at specificlevels are illegal in education and in em-ployment. While federal courts haveoccasionally ordered quotas when egre-gious discrimination does not respondto lesser measures, federal law gener-ally prohibits them. No one proposeschanging this policy.

Affirmative action applies to any pro-gram designed to overcome the effectsof past or present discrimination to pro-vide for a fairer representation ofunderrepresented groups. It shouldnever require the hiring of persons un-qualified to do a particular job or at-tend a specific institution. It can meanconsidering diversity, along with otherfactors, in making job or other deci-sions. It can mean targeting recruit-ment efforts to increase applicants fromgroups not being reached by currentefforts. It can mean reassessing tests orrequirements that may have a discrimi-

natory effect. In all cases, concernsabout preferential treatment must beexamined in detail on a case-by-case,context-by-context basis.

Some opponents of affirmative actionargue that any consideration of num-bers or statistics constitutes a quota,even though the Civil Rights Act of1991 provides for the use of statisticsand labor force availability to deter-mine when further inquiry is necessaryto identify discriminatory situations.For the enforcement of anti-discrimi-nation law, statistical analysis is both

all levels of government. Asian Ameri-cans clearly suffer from glass ceiling dis-crimination at a time when minoritiesand women make up some 60% of thenation's working population. Evenwhen they do reach some level of suc-cess, minorities and women generallymake less money, sometimes substan-tially less than those in similar jobs withthe same level of education and expe-rience.

Data reveal that few Asians advancefrom professional to management po-sitions, even in firms with extremely

...we should not allow short-run political gain to harmprograms integral to the enforcement of the promises ofthe original contract with the American people: the

Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

crucial and expected, but it is alsoneeded to determine whether the glassceiling or more overt discrimination isactually taking place.

Others oppose "goals and timetables"but favor targeted recruitment, but failto consider how it should be deter-mined for which jobs special outreachis necessary. When I worked for the Cityof Chicago, we were able to overcomedramatic exclusion of Asian Americansthrough targeted recruitment. Despitea growing Asian American population,substantially less than one percent ofnew hires were Asian before this pro-gram, but grew to over four percent asa result of special outreach. The settingof goals was necessary to determinewhich city departments needed this as-sistance and for which job categories.As long as goals and timetables are flex-ible, they are essential to fighting dis-crimination, but are not quotas. Fewoppose this form of affirmative action.

The results of the Glass CeilingCommission's studies document theimportance of affirmative action toAsian Americans. Authorized by legis-lation sponsored by Senator RobertDole and originally led by Labor Secre-tary Elizabeth Dole, the Commissionfound that whites occupy 97% of thesenior management positions in ourlargest corporations and men occupyfrom 95 to 97% of such managementpositions. Similar percentages apply at

high numbers of Asian workers. Affir-mative action has been found by manyto be good business as a 1993 Standardand Poors study showed, but presentpractices continue. A number of highlysuccessful Asian American-owned smallhigh technology firms have developedfrom professionals rebuffed by largehigh tech companies. While these smallcompanies are impressive, the loss ofquality managers in large firms dam-ages our nation's economic competi-tiveness as well as the prospect of everovercoming the glass ceiling.

Asian Pacific Americans have more con-flicted feelings in the education arena.Although Asian Americans were oncewidely excluded from most prestigiousuniversities, they do not, for the mostpart, need affirmative action consider-ation in most educational admissions.This does not mean, however, that theladder should be pulled up behind us.To have the tools necessary to breakthrough the glass ceiling in other ar-eas, we must support the efforts of othergroups still finding difficulty gettinginto educational institutions. If AsianAmericans dominate a public educa-tional institution, political support willdeflate and that institution will not beadequately supported.

I support President Clinton's review offederal affirmative action programs toassess their effectiveness and to correctany negative, unintended results. The

25 common ground 24

EEOC is heavily involved in this review.Some programs may not all be accom-plishing what they were intended to doand have not been reviewed for manyyears. We should be open both to morestrategic programs as well as changesthat eliminate discriminatory impactthat may exist. Affirmative action re-mains an important tool in advancingthe elusive goal of civil rights. However,we should not allow short-run politi-cal gain to harm programs integral tothe enforcement of the promises of theoriginal contract with the Americanpeople: the Constitution and the Billof Rights.

Lack of job security in a changingeconomy allows those that wouldblame women and minorities fertileground for frustration. All Americanshave suffered from these realities, butwomen and minorities most of all. Itbecomes easy to accept thisscapegoating when you feel the pain,yet most Americans continue to sup-port affirmative efforts to overcomediscrimination.

While acknowledging the frustrationsof those who feel this pain, we mustnot fall into the trap of tearing apartour social fabric or losing the progressof thirty years of civil rights gains. Theonly consistent conclusion from recentpolls is that there is wide misunder-standing of what affirmative action ac-tually is. By providing for resolutionand enforcement of the rights of those

who are hurt by discrimination, womenor men, whites or minorities, we ad-vance the cause of justice and equality.By caving in to a juggernaut of anti-affirmative action scapegoating, wemake things worse.2

My remarks are my own and do not necessar-ily represent the views of the Clinton Admin-istration, which is currently reviewing its af-firmative action programs, nor of the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission, whichis an independent, bipartisan enforcementagency. Nevertheless, I feel the need to addressthe affirmative action issue for a variety of rea-sons.

2 The Supreme Court's ruling in the AdarandContractors v. Pena case is clearly a setback foraffirmative action. It demonstrates how criti-cal one vote on the Supreme Court can be. Theeffect of this decision will depend upon howthe lower courts interpret it, subsequent Su-preme Court decisions on the subject, and howthe President, Congress and, ultimately, theAmerican public, react to it. I believe that, ifproperly informed (and that is a big "if"), thepublic will support programs to overcome theeffects of discrimination in the workplace. Amajority of Justices continue to support theuse of "narrowly tailored" race-based programsto further a "compelling state interest." Timewill tell how this standard will be applied.

While the standard applied to such pro-grams in this case is much higher than previ-ously applied, it is not insurmountable. Morejustification will be needed to support affirma-tive action programs generally. It is possiblethat employment, federal contracting and edu-cation will be differently affected. At the EEOC,it is clear that a high level of discriminationcontinues to occur in the federal governmentand in private employment that can, in addi-tion to the established histories of such dis-crimination, be used to justify remedial pro-grams. Many states and localities have main-tained aggressive affirmative action programsdespite the higher standard imposed by theRichmond v. Croson decision. These programshave withstood legal challenges. We shouldalso remember that the proposed Californiainitiative goes much farther than this decisiondoes, with potentially many more unintendedconsequences.

Linda Wong Rebuild LALinda Wong is General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer of Rebuild LA, formed in response tothe 1992 Los Angeles civil uprising. Ms. Wong, an immigration and civil rights expert, is a formerdirector of California Tomorrow. She serves on various national panels and advisory boards ofgovernment and public policy groups.

The focus of the debate over affirma-tive action is misplaced in many re-spects. The issue is not whether weshould adopt a so-called "merit-based"selection system, or even whether weshould strive for a colorblind society.The real question is whether affirma-tive action is effectively promoting access and change for institutional as wellas individual beneficiaries of the policy.

If we recognize the importance of thesocial juncture where we presently findourselves, we will understand why thisfocus is more appropriate in the long-

term. Though many would prefer toignore it, we are in fact in the midst ofa societal shift so massive that the rulesof engagement are being rewritten tocreate a new social and economic or-der. The impetus for the creation of a

new system has more to do with globalcompetition and technological ad-vances than with a rising tide of con-servatism. And the momentum is sogreat that no organization or institu-tion is immune from the need to trans-form itself in a fundamental way. It isin this context that affirmative actiontakes on a duality of character whichhighlights its promise, but also under-scores its inherent limitations.

On the one hand, affirmative actionopens the door to change because itbrings into the workplace, the school,or a neighborhood people who, by theirvery difference, help open a previouslyclosed system, making it more dynamicand adaptable to the surrounding en-vironment.

Look at any company preparing itselffor stepped-up competition. PacificBell, for example, demonstrates thevalue of affirmative action by using itto expand its domestic market. Over thepast six years, it has developed a nichein the ethnic marketplace, which hasproven to be one of the most lucrativefor the company. The establishment ofservice centers tailored to the needs ofcustomers speaking Spanish and themajor Asian languages have reaped tre-mendous financial rewards for PacificBell. Between 1990 and 1994, its cus-tomer base grew by 129 percent, far ex-ceeding the company's original projec-tions. If the Ethnic Markets Group werean independent company, it wouldrank as one of the twenty largest His-panic-owned businesses in the country.But Pacific Bell would not have beenso successful if it had not brought inthe managers and employees who re-flected the very markets it was tryingto reach.

Aside from Pacific Bell, there is a grow-ing list of corporate examples illustrat-ing this important lesson. From AT&T,which is waging an aggressive market-ing campaign targeting bilingual, bicul-tural Asian customers, to Wells Fargo,

Though many would prefer to ignore it, we are in fact in the

midst of a societal shift so massive that the rules ofengagement are being rewritten to create a new social and

economic order.

Perspectives on Af firmative Action 25

which expanded its private bankingservices to Latin America, companiesare waking up to the realization that alarge portion of their new businesscomes from these multiethnic, multi-lingual consumers.

But firms which have implementedthese outreach strategies know full wellthat it is not enough to bring togethera diverse group of people to increasetheir market share. Any manager whohas formed a team of technicians andmarketing people, as well as womenand minorities, realizes that their jobhas only just begun. Team members stillhave to learn to work with one another,reconciling different styles of commu-nication, conflict resolution and lead-

assume the mainstream behaviors forsuccess, that person was not likely tosurvive. Couple this with the situationthat many women and minorities stillface in business organizations theirsmall numbers and relative isolationand the chances for failure are evengreater. If they are placed in token po-sitions, they are marginalized. If theyare the first to move up the ranks, orone of a handful in management posi-tions, every mistake they make is mag-nified. And a misstep may be inter-preted as incompetency.

Avon's management realized that the"assimilationist" model of behavior wasdeadly, not only for the employee butfor the company as well. In a period of

...affirmative action cannot succeed if it is viewed strictly as astand-alone policy.... To succeed over the long-term, it must be

incorporated into a broader restructuring strategythat focuses on core values, belief systems and

work processes.

ership, in order to leverage their skillsand talents. It is in this setting that weuncover one of the shortcomings of tra-ditional affirmative action.

Avon Products, the cosmetics manufac-turer, was one of many companieswhich mounted major recruitmentdrives in the 1980s to attract womenand minorities into its employee ranks.It did so partly in recognition of thefact that the company could better re-spond to a marketplace that was be-coming increasingly diverse and seg-mented. The outreach strategy worked.But the women and minorities whowere hired did not stay. In fact, manyultimately left the company. After sev-eral attempts to address the problem,Avon's management finally realizedwhat it was doing wrong. The affirma-tive action programs which had beenimplemented opened the doors forwomen and minorities, but they didnothing to change the organization it-self once the new employees came into work.

What happened was typical for manynew hires. The burden was on the in-dividual employee, not the organiza-tion, to change. If the employee couldnot adapt to the corporate culture and

volatile change and increasing compe-tition, assimilationism stifles innova-tion and risk-taking, the very qualitiesa company needs to remain competi-tive. Employees focus instead on fittingin with the dominant culture, insteadof thinking and acting "outside thebox." Armed with the understandingthat change had to be a two-way street,Avon launched a five-year plan to over-haul the company's corporate culture,core values and behavioral norms. Inplace of the old model would be an"acculturationist" paradigm, one inwhich the organization would adapt tothe talents and needs of the employ-ees.

In taking this course of action, Avonhad clearly defined goals and measur-able outcomes related to productivityand market share. However, the com-pany also realized that the commit-ment to change had to be long-termand the strategies comprehensive.

These lessons are not lost on other in-stitutions. Public schools, for example,acknowledge the need to change in or-der to better serve students who arethemselves diverse. In fact, school re-form initiatives increasingly under-stand the cultural dimensions of

change: how the social organization ofthe school and deeply rooted institu-tional values and norms influenceachievement, rewarding some forms oflearning behavior while penalizing oth-ers, recognizing some kinds of intelli-gence (such as verbal communicationand abstract reasoning) but ignoringothers.

Understanding these issues is impor-tant in ensuring the lasting effects ofreform, because it means that changehas to be comprehensive, not piece-meal or program driven. Change of thissystemic nature therefore encompassesreform of both the structure and theculture of an organization. In theschool context, the first level of changemust include curriculum and instruc-tion; the organizational hierarchy ofdecision-making, student services,community and parental involvement,teacher training; student assessment,and accountability for results. The sec-ond level of change addresses the rootsof the organization the basic assump-tions and belief systems which give itlife and influence behavior.

In this context, affirmative action can-not succeed if it is viewed strictly as astand-alone policy. Operationally, itfacilitates the first level of change, pro-viding access for those who have beenexcluded as a result of discrimination.But affirmative action does not have thecapacity to initiate the second level ofchange in the culture of an organiza-tion. It cannot alter the relationshipsbetween people or reshape the valuesand norms which are deeply embed-ded. Indeed, if affirmative action is tosucceed over the long-term, it must beincorporated into a broader restructur-ing strategy that focuses on core val-ues, belief systems and work processes.

Should affirmative action be eliminatedtomorrow by its opponents, thechanges occurring today will not stop.But they would certainly be sloweddown. Such a loss of initiative wouldput all of us at great risk, because it fur-ther handicaps our ability to respondto external conditions which are in-creasingly fluid and volatile. If the de-tractors do not understand this, theprice we pay for political expediencywill be far greater than we ever imag-ined. ll

27 common ground 26

Po Co treating 0 gpowtonitiosmority Wo Entroproneur$

Edwin M. Lee San Francisco Human Rights CommissionEdwin M. Lee is the Director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission of the City andCounty of San Francisco. Prior to his 1991 appointment, Mr. Lee helped make history at the AsianLaw Caucus through leadership on major civil rights issues, including his successful defense of SanFrancisco's Minority/Women/Locally owned Business Enterprise law in federal court.

The DebateIn major cities across our country, pub-lic programs have been established toprovide business opportunities forwoman-owned (WBE) and minority-owned (MBE) enterprises. These pro-grams are tailored to correct the effectsof past discrimination in the awards ofpublic contracts. After years of exclu-sion, MBEs and WBEs are just begin-ning to be introduced into the market-place as public competitors.

In the growing debate over affirmativeaction, proponents of the "CaliforniaCivil Rights Initiative" (CCRI) have at-tacked these programs as unfair, quota-driven and racial- or gender-stigmatiz-ing. These attacks are far from the truthand serve only to misinform the pub-lic. The objectives of these programs areto re-establish fairness, eliminate dis-criminatory barriers, build business ca-pacity and create new business relation-ships. These objectives are affirmativeand critical to serving the public inter-est.

Re-Establishing FairnessAny examination of public contracting,be it federal, state or municipal levels,confirms the existence of business andsocial networks that share informationamong their members, establish busi-ness relationships, provide professionaland financial advice, support and ac-cess to government entities.

In San Francisco, members of such net-works have historically benefited fromeach other's experiences in the publicawards process. Such experiences havebeen critical to a contractor's ability tobid in compliance with City rules andregulations, to negotiate a contract, toperform effectively and to get paid in atimely manner.

Most of these networks operate in abuddy system (the "old boys' network")and are made up of primarily white andmale members. They protect the suc-cessful experiences of their membersand reinforce their social relationshipswhich remain exclusive. In industries

such as construction, these relation-ships in the private sector spill over tothe public works sector, thereby con-tinuing the exclusion of women andminority entrepreneurs. Such networksdominated the public works and gen-eral contracting sectors for decades.Only in recent years (1984, in the caseof San Francisco) have public entitiesdeveloped affirmative action programsto bring about an even-level playingfield by re-introducing WBEs and MBEsinto the public sector and into thesenetworks.

The mere introduction of WBEs andMBEs into the public domain does not,however, produce fairness. After de-cades of exclusion, most of these busi-nesses are seriously under-capitalizedand find it difficult to withstand thecomplexities of government contract-

grained practices. It merely wishesthem away by focusing on a "coin toss"approach to fairness and, by doing so,dismisses local attempts to promotefairness.

Eliminating Discriminatory BarriersA major objective of MBE/WBE pro-grams is to eliminate discriminatorybarriers, but such barriers are not eas-ily recognizable in our existing con-tracting systems. In a City such as SanFrancisco which awards over 20,000contracts every year (not including sub-contracts), our Program is dependentupon those who administer the systemto help us correct it. As governmentdownsizes, personnel are changed with-out respect for their knowledge or ex-periences. A personnel change may of-ten produce the effect of going back tosimilar, old practices or just plain igno-rance. The result is lost time and op-portunities for inclusion of MBEs andWBEs.

More common are barriers that alsoexist in the private sector, in such ar-eas as construction sub-contracting. InSan Francisco's program, we have had

Even the most dedicated MBE/WBE program will take years to

eliminate local barriers and discriminatory practices.

ing. The most effective MBE/WBE pro-grams contain a variety of incentivesand conditions that reflect the com-plexity of public contracting in its lo-cale. Some emphasize voluntary effortswhile others set contract goals, bid pref-erences, set-aside contracts and targetedoutreach. These affirmative action toolscan only be utilized after the local gov-ernment has established a record of dis-crimination that justifies use of thesetools.

Even the most dedicated MBE/WBEprogram will take years to eliminatelocal barriers and discriminatory prac-tices. Most public contract administra-tors attempt to repeat what has workedbefore; hence, there is resistance to ac-cepting new, often unknown playersinto a contracting system driven by lim-ited time frames, budget restrictions,competition and the need for financialcapacity. The proposed CCRI providesabsolutely no recognition of the linger-ing impact of discrimination and in-

to require sub-contract goals for theinclusion of available MBEs and WBEs.Nowhere is the presence of exclusivenetworks more dramatic than in thisparticular industry where private rela-tionships dominate. When goals arenot set or enforced vigorously, inclu-sion is often minimal or non-existent.

This particular combination of old gov-ernment habits and continued privatepractices serve to extend discriminatorybarriers in public contracting. Whilesub-contracting goals for women andminorities have produced great gainsin recent years, our experience is thatmuch more time is required in orderfor M/WBEs to gain a solid foothold ina competitive business environment.

Build Business CapacityA third objective of MBE/WBE pro-grams is to build the business capacityof its beneficiaries, not just its size.There must be an ability to sustain andcomplete public projects amidst gov-

'"4 Perspectives on iigffirmative action 27

ernment bureaucracy, project delays,payment delays, rising costs and unan-ticipated circumstances. Any of theseconditions can quickly destroy a devel-oping minority-owned or woman-owned enterprise.

Only now are we beginning to see atrickle of businesses "graduate" fromyears of capacity building, just as theirnon-minority counterparts have doneafter decades of networking. Their ca-pacities reflect adequate levels of insur-ance, bonding, credit with equipmentsuppliers, bankers, a consistent, avail-able and competent workforce and, ofcourse, public experience. These at-tributes take years to obtain. For ex-ample, while members of old networksuse their capacity to submit numerousbids while performing already awardedcontracts, MBEs and WBEs often areobliged to go from one contract to an-other. The CCRI simply ignores thesecomplexities of public contracting andreflects an inherent ignorance of howbusinesses develop.

Creating New Business RelationshipsArguably the most important objectiveof MBE/WBE programs is the creationof new business relationships betweennon-minority enterprises and MBEsand WBEs. Affirmative action in busi-ness has been a remarkable instigatorof these new relations. This is why af-firmative action does not seek to de-stroy the "old boys' network" but todramatically expand its ranks. By cre-ating incentives in the public sector toutilize MBEs and WBEs, local govern-ments have provided an environmentwhere majority firms have sought outbusiness relationships with other firms,rather than limit themselves to "net-work" players. This activity has pro-duced more competition in the publicsector and therefore increased competi-tive pricing.

In San Francisco, our experience showsnew relationships at both the primecontracting and sub-contracting levels.We observe the creation of joint ven-tures and joint professional associationsbetween majority and minority/woman firms. We are certain that suchrelations would not be created withoutgovernment incentives backed by acommitment to include historicallyexcluded groups. Race cannot be ig-nored by virtue of the large role it con-

tinues to play in the make-up of thepresent pool of public contractors. Thatparticular make-up will not, in our ex-perience, change by itself because of theexclusive nature of existing social rela-tionships upon which government hasfar less impact.

As already noted, business relationshipsreflect the social relationships withinour communities. Private social clubs(e.g. country clubs) spawn such busi-ness connections, as noted by Justice

Stevens' dissent in a recent SupremeCourt case (Adarand v. Perla USSC No.93-1841, 1995 W.L. 347345 * 32). If weare to serve the public interest effec-tively, it is imperative that MBE/WBEprograms be embraced, nurtured andsustained in order to re-include mem-bers that have been historically ex-cluded. This is no the time to abandonour commitment to a more just soci-ety. We know too much to blind our-selves to simplistic slogans uttered moreout of frustration than sincerity.

Stewart Kwoh, Kathryn K. Imahara and Elsie V. HuiAsian Pacific American Legal Center Of Southern CaliforniaStewart Kwoh is the President and Executive Director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Centerof Southern California, an organization founded by Kwoh to provide legal services to needy AsianPacifies. Mr. Kwoh, a member of the LEAP Board of Directors since 1989, is a prominent commu-nity leader in Los Angeles.

Kathryn K. Imahara is a Civil Rights Staff Attorney at the Asian Pacific American Legal Center ofSouthern California. Ms. Imahara is the author of "Language Rights Policy," an article previouslypublished in The State of Asian Pacific America: Policy Issues to the Year 2020.

Elsie V. Hui is a Project Coordinator at the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

For at least 50 years, the Los AngelesPolice Department (LAPD) was over-whelmingly comprised of white men.In 1980, this practice was changed viaa court order which required the LAPDto hire more women, African Ameri-cans, and Latinos to better serve thecity. Goals and timetables were even-tually established because "good faithefforts" to hire from underrepresentedgroups were not evident. For reasonsunknown, Asian Pacific Americans(APAs) were not part of the consent

solely on the consent decree. In addi-tion to bias reduction training at theacademy and staff level, the LAPD haslaunched an Asian Pacific Americanrecruitment effort after years of educat-ing and pressuring the LAPD, Chief ofPolice, Mayor, City Council and PoliceCommission by the Asian PacificAmerican Legal Center and concernedindividuals from APA community-based organizations. In addition, LawEnforcement Association of AsianPacifics (LEAAP) assists applicants

Affirmative action was never considered the only solution to

resolve the years of hatred, intolerance, anddiscrimination.

decree. This exclusion of APAs from theconsent decree has led to continued lowhiring and promotion rates of APA of-ficers and limited services to the APAcommunity,' although after 15 years,representation of more African Ameri-cans, Latinos, and women within theLAPD has increased. Because vestiges ofpast discrimination have not beeneliminated,2 the LAPD continues toabide by the consent decree which hasbenefited all Los Angeles residents.

In their attempt to eliminate bias fromthe police force, the LAPD does not rely

through the oral interview and otherexams, a voluntary affirmative actionstrategy aimed at increasing the num-ber of APA applicants and cultivatinggood officers.

These voluntary affirmative action pro-grams would be prohibited by the pro-posed California Civil Rights Initiative(the CCRI would abolish such programsin public employment, public educa-tion, and public contracting). WhileAPAs should have been included in theoriginal consent decree in 1980, theserecruitment and mentoring efforts re-

common ground 28

main vital tools to increase APA num-bers. As a remedy with a broad rangeof options, affirmative action allowsthese types of remedies to work. With-out them, the APA community wouldcontinue to be poorly served.

Affirmative action cannot eliminateracism; however, it never was meant todo so. Until the mid-1960s, it was legalto: "steer" people away from affluent,white neighborhoods into homes sur-rounded by other people of color; denyadmission to college because of the

major role, as the growing paucity ofwell-paying jobs and acceptances to topcolleges has created insecurity withinwhites and others. Affirmative actionprograms, viewed as the source of pref-erential treatment and quotas, have be-come the scapegoat, whereas the causeof today's anxieties lie in unsound eco-nomic policies and economic restruc-turing.

Affirmative action is about offeringequal opportunity to individuals fromhistorically excluded groups. It is about

Though we are lauded as the "model minority," Asian Pacific

Americans continue to feel the effects of past and presentdiscrimination.

color of someone's skin; and refuse toserve a person of color. These acts ofdiscrimination were not performedagainst African Americans alone. AsianPacific Americans (e.g. Pilipinos, Japa-nese, Chinese, and Koreans in Califor-nia) were also subject to cruel and in-equitable treatment. Though we arelauded as the "model minority," AsianPacific Americans continue to feel theeffects of past and present discrimina-tion.'

A number of laws were passed to rem-edy blatant forms of discrimination asthe nation's economy expanded in the1960s. Education, health, and literacyprograms headed the national agenda.The Voting Rights Act was passed toensure that discriminatory and intimi-dating voting practices (like assigningpoll taxes and stationing armed guardsat polling sites) were eliminated. TitleVII was enacted to ensure fair and equaltreatment in employment. Fair Hous-ing laws were implemented to elimi-nate "steering" and discourage the cre-ation of ghettos. The Education codewas updated to reflect the SupremeCourt's decision in Brown v. Board ofEducation. At the same time, affirma-tive action was designed to be one othermeans through which a history of ex-clusion could be potentially remedied.Affirmative action was never consid-ered the only solution to resolve theyears of hatred, intolerance, and dis-crimination.

So why are affirmative action programsnow under attack? Economics plays a .

4-.

creating a level playing field so thatqualified individuals can have an op-portunities they would have been de-nied if diversity programs were notimplemented. Nevertheless, rare casesof affirmative action programs that re-sulted in reverse discrimination havebeen greatly exaggerated by the oppo-nents of affirmative action.4

Affirmative action, used correctly, givesus a measuring stick to determine if weare utilizing the talents of all people inour country. It allows us to see if AsianPacific Americans, people with disabili-ties, and older adults are being givenopportunities to fully participate. TheU.S. Department of Labor's Glass Ceil-ing Commission found that diversityand inclusion are good for business.'

In the "good-old-days," only white menwere allowed to have promising em-ployment opportunities. Women wererelegated to domestic life and_ peopleof color were allocated the low-paying,low-status jobs, regardless of their edu-cational attainment. By only lookingat one sector of society, there is no wayto ensure the most talented make theirway to the top. In the past, the path toupward mobility was barred by racismand sexism. Affirmative action createsequal opportunity and provides a gaugeby which we all can measure our suc-cess in eliminating these barriers.

Affirmative action programs are notmeant to exist for an indeterminabletime. When diversity is achievedthrough efforts to improve opportuni-

ties for everyone on an equitable basis,then such programs should be alteredto reflect the changed circumstance. Af-firmative action will not necessarily endracism, poverty, or sexism, but anti-dis-criminatory laws cannot and will notsuffice. Affirmative action is a consciousand affirmative commitment to affordand promote equal access to persons ofhistorically discriminated groups. Thiscommitment can make equal opportu-nity a reality.

For APAs and the LAPD, this commit-ment will mean that more officers willbe available who speak languages otherthan English, understand the differingcultures, and can do community polic-ing in this burgeoning community. Af-firmative action, in whatever form ittakes, ensures that groups who con-tinue to suffer from the effects of pastand current discrimination are able toobtain redress and make progress.

1 We do not assert that only APA officers canserve the APA community. However, in a com-munity with 65% of the population born out-side of the United States and a low level of bi-lingualism, hiring APA officers is an effectiveway of serving this community. In 1995, theLAPD is only 4.2% APA in a city that is over10% APA.

2 In the last three years, the LAPD has been suedfor creating a "glass ceiling," and for pervasivesexual harassment. Both lawsuits allege thatracism and discrimination continue to affecthiring, promotion, and retention.

3 White men are: 48% of the college educatedworkforce, but hold over 90% of the top jobsin the news media; over 90% of officers ofAmerican corporations; 88% of the directors;86% of partners in major law firms; 85% oftenured college professors; and 80% of themanagement level jobs in advertising, market-ing and public relations.The weekly earnings of white males in 1992were 33% higher than those of any other groupin America.

Whites with college degrees make almost11% more than APAs, and with high schooldegrees, whites make almost 26% more thanAPAs.

APA managers in Silicon Valley earn $8,000to $35,000 a year less than white male manag-ers, even after controlling for education andlanguage ability. APAs were less likely to be inmanagement than whites, and in some cases,than African Americans.

In 1989, U.S. born Al.'. doctoral scientistsand engineers earned only 92% of that of whitedoctoral scientists and engineers.

4 A report prepared by Rutgers Law ProfessorAlfred W. Blumrosen for the Office of FederalContract Compliance Programs shows thatthere is no widespread abuse of affirmativeaction programs in employment. It also showsthere are only a small number (20) of reportedreverse discrimination cases by white malesa high proportion of which have been dis-missed by federal courts. By analogy, the75,000 case backlog at the EEOC will also showthat few cases are filed by whites or males al-leging "reverse discrimination."

5 Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Fact Find-ing Report, "Good for Business: Making Use ofthe Nation's Human Capital," March 1995.

Pevspedives on 110fiinnagiue &lam 29

r..

0

William H. "Mo" MarumotoThe Interface Group, Ltd./Boyden"Mo" Manimoto, in addition to serving as Chair of the LEAP Board of Directors, is founder andChairman of the Board of The Interface Group, Ltd./Boyden, the twelfth largest internationalexecutive search firm in the world. Prior to founding the firm in 1973, Mr. Manimoto was SpecialAssistant to former President Richard M. Nixon and the first Asian Pacific American to serve in theexecutive level of the White House.

When President-elect Bill Clinton ful-filled his promise to appoint a Cabinetthat "looks more like America" it wasintended as a statement about the im-portance of broader ethnic participa-tion in government policy making.

While some may argue over the caliberor credentials of the individuals he se-lected for positions of power in his ad-ministration, it is clear that Clinton wasreaching out to enlarge both his con-stituency and his circle of confidants.He feels strongly that he will benefitby the advice of a more eclectic bodyof counselors as well as gain a broaderbase of popular support.

Is there a lesson in this for business?Should Corporate America follow the

With nearly 7,300 seats on the boardsof these companies it would seem theremight be room at the top for morewomen and minorities. Yet progress infilling new and vacant seats has beenextremely slow.

One alleged reason for this slowprogress is said to be the difficulty infinding minority candidates of suffi-cient stature, with the professional ex-pertise and savoir faire of their prospec-tive peers.

This, of course, is nonsense. It is not aproblem I have ever encountered as anexecutive recruiter for some of thenation's leading corporations. Over thepast five years I have been able to lo-cate and present women and minority

For the most part, Board rooms have remainedislands untouched in asea of social change.

President's lead by trying to improveits record of minority participation incorporate governance?

The fact is that the present record is notvery good. People of color are notprominent in the corporate powerstructure. Even at a time when it hasbecome more de rigeur to include mi-norities in upper management, rela-tively few serve on the boards of bigU.S. companies. For the most part,board rooms have remained islandsuntouched in a sea of social change.

There are, for example, 131 Hispanicson the board of all of the 806 largestfirms. Blacks do better, but their num-bers still total only 225. Asian Ameri-cans are represented by a scant 65 andAmerican Indians are nonexistent.

Women alone have made progress inpenetrating the inner sanctums of busi-ness. There are now nearly 500 repre-sented on the boards of the 806 big-gest companies.

candidates who fully meet the demand-ing requirements of blue-chip compa-nies including a consumer goods com-pany, a telecommunications corpora-tion, an energy company, and a com-puter organization.

Neither was it greatly difficult for Presi-dent Clinton to find competent peoplefrom minority groups capable and will-ing to serve at the highest levels of gov-ernment. Members of his Cabinetwho will be responsible for managingmore employees and bigger budgetsthan most corporate CEOSincludefour women, four African Americansand two Hispanics.

It is almost miraculous to see how manywell-qualified minority candidates ap-pear in response to a search assignment.Washington, of course, is one of thebest sources for executive-level minor-ity talent.

Candidates often include former mem-bers of congress, senior-level govern-ment officials, trade experts, lobbyists,

agricultural and medical experts, andleaders in the fields of science and tech-nology.

Lack of talent is no deterrent. The sup-ply is much greater than the demand.It will remain so until there is a changein attitude and outlook at the corpo-rate level.

Some business leaders cling tight to theconviction that securing or reservingseats for minorities should not be a pri-ority if done simply for the sake of sym-bolism.

More important to most CEOS thanracial representation is the ratio of in-siders to outsiders, the professional orfinancial expertise of members and thechain of succession to the chair. Manyhold fast to the belief that board can-didates should be selected solely on thebasis of quality... and let the racial, eth-nic and gender chips fall where theymay.

Putting aside any suspicions of latentbigotry, that sounds fair. But is it smart?Not if you believe as does Bill Clintonthat the chief executive officer needsthe broadest possible advice and coun-sel he can get.

Symbolism may not be as important inbusiness as in politics, but its value isreal. Corporations with minority rep-resentation in the governance processare generally perceived to be moremodern, progressive and socially con-cerned.

The presence of women and minoritiesin the board room is more convincingthan spending millions of advertisingdollars to communicate with key mi-nority groups (conversely the presenceof the absence of minority board mem-bers sends another signal).

It is my business to find qualified can-didates for corporate positions, not togive business leaders advice or hectorthem on the value of heterogeneity inthe hierarchy. But I know that in today'sracially mixed marketplace, Board di-versity is a requisite to long term suc-cess.

Times are changing and recognition isslowly growing that minorities have animportant role to play in corporate gov-ernance. The day has come when atti-tudes must change. ED

common ground 30

15@rrationudoli SeB© lonn &meg= JJ©tovneardsts AssoatiadirmaBenjamin Seto is the national vice president of the Asian American Journalists Association, thenation's only media affiliation group serving the interests of Asian Pacifics. He is also a businessreporter for the Fresno Bee in California.

In discussions on a diverse newsroom,everyone from editor to reporter agreesthat the goal of reflecting the commu-nity we report on is a noble one. Themedia's success rests on its ability tounderstand the many sensibilities thatdrive the news.

Problem is, no one knows the quickestand simplest route to this microcosmof the world. The news industry, likeothers in the private sector, has at-tempted various programs that havetheir roots in the mandate known asaffirmative action. Today, a wave of dis-content is threatening to uproot thesepolicies, leaving them to shrivel intoobscurity without the slightest hints ofan alternative.

The Asian American Journalists Asso-ciation, an educational and profes-sional organization, has never taken aposition for or against affirmative ac-

inclusion of one qualified minority can-didate for every opening, or recruitingapplicants at minority journalism jobfairs.

Despite these voluntary efforts, theAmerican Society of Newspaper Editorsreported that in 1994, journalists ofcolor still made up only 10.49% of allthose employed in newspapers acrossthe country. This annual statisticused as a thermometer of the industry'sdiversity efforts has inched slowlythrough the years and, at this point,appears far from reaching the ASNE'sgoals of parity set for the year 2000.Figures for the radio and televisionmedia are no better.

It is clear that much more needs to bedone, and solutions that seemed sosimple are now complicated by thejournalists' innate cynicism. Reflectingthe community we report on, our news-

News organizations, to their credit,have attempted voluntary programs

to increase the number of women and minoritiesin their ranks... Despite these voluntary efforts,

the American Society of Newspaper Editors reported that

in 1994, journalists of color stillmade up only 10.49% of all thoseemployed in newspapers across the country.

tion a program of preference largelyassociated with government contractsand university admissions. But it hasas its cornerstone the mission to createopportunities for journalists of Asiandescent. Its job is not simply to encour-age Asian Americans to enter the pro-fession, but to knock down doors andshatter glass ceilings. To some this mayresemble the battle cry of affirmativeaction. To others, it's the route to a di-verse newsroom.

News organizations, to their credit,have attempted voluntary programs toincrease the number of women andminorities in their ranks. In varyingdegrees of success, these efforts havespawned such policies as requiring the

rooms are also filled with discussionsfocused on so-called preferential treat-ment. Stories of the "angry white male"have materialized in newsrooms wherewhite male journalists were required toattend sensitivity training without theproper foundation of understandingwhy they were there. At the same time,journalists of color hired under the ban-ner of diversity feel pressured to workharder to remove the false impressionof being there for the color of their skinrather than for the quality of storiesthey write or edit.

So has o47hinogive action fawnThe greatest challenge for everyone,those for and against affirmative action,is to act as if years of institutional dis-

crimination does not exist. That thecolor of the person next to you has nobearing on your attitude or treatmentof that person, and that he or she willbe judged by the stories they write, editor broadcast and the way they reflectthe world.

But until that happens, every tool usedto keep diversity in the minds of deci-sion-makers in all facets of societyshould be maintained. Unfortunately,the debate surrounding affirmative ac-tion has cast a shadow on the good thatit has done. Men and women, fromvarious racial and socio-economic back-grounds, have joined the professionand have added a different and uniqueperspective to the workplace. Stereo-types and ignorance are slowly beingchipped away through simple expo-sure.

Yes, affirmative action may need to bemodified or changed. All social policiesmust be made current to today's soci-ety. But I'm afraid that tossing it out ina heated moment of frustration is notthe answer.

Erasing affirmative action from ourminds would only deflate the small vic-tories of the past. It would be differentif starting from the beginning meantthat everyone is equal, no one betterthan the other, all with something toshare. But unfortunately, the difficultywith starting fresh is that we cannothonestly pledge that we come withopen minds, freed of all the fears of thethings we don't understand.

It's a tough road ahead to make affir-mative action work, but it's a road thatleads to that one common goal. Everyjournalist with that one good storyworks at it, checks details, verifies facts,and slowly, but surely, meets the dead-line for the task at hand.

biPitYPPASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANPUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE

A luzarp Organization

3 2 Povspeagiuss ono linvonothiue biagion 31

[lEopic2

kdctio

Hue c!

Action

Measures

O

U©l Ilemaaachs tne lama &Itasetacan Isoca Dam n® AEckacag llama Rood (MINN)Antonia Hernandez is President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense andEducational Fund (MALDEF), a national organization dedicated to protecting the rights of Latinosin the U.S. Ms. Hernandez is recognized as one of the nation's leading Latina advocates.

As a civil rights leader, I will be the firstto acknowledge that I have been helpedby affirmative action. I put myself for-ward as an example of an affirmativeaction beneficiary to remind others thatmany of us, minorities and womenalike, have gained the opportunity tosucceed in our field of choice throughprograms, like affirmative action, thatseek to eliminate discrimination. Toomany have forgotten that affirmativeaction has assisted them in overcom-ing the barriers of discrimination. Thesesame people, as well as many others,have also forgotten that those barriersof racial and gender discrimination arestill with us today. Moreover, while Iand countless others, from the SupremeCourt Justices on down, have person-ally benefited from affirmative action,society as a whole has gained in anequivalent manner from affirmative ac-tion programs that, by adjusting forthe effects of discrimination, lead to theselection of those with the greatest po-tential, the greatest merit.

These reminders are necessary becauseof unwarranted recent attacks on ournational commitment to equal oppor-tunity and affirmative action. Thatcommitment which has been of rela-tively brief duration in the context ofour national history, blemished by of-ficially-sanctioned discriminationshould remain unquestioned. To claimthat affirmative action allows unquali-fied men and women to gain access tojobs and to schooling is a divisive andwholly fallacious attack on the abilitiesand struggles of minorities and women.It is an insult to claim that these menand women, who would gain admit-tance or employment through theirown merit in the absence of discrimi-nation, are not qualified to engage intheir chosen field. It also unfairly di-minishes the contributions of the manywho have struggled against and brokenthrough discriminatory barriers, whichwould not have been possible withoutaffirmative action. We must all rejectthis implicit assault on ourselves, ourfriends, and colleagues. We defend our-selves and our community when we rise

to defend affirmative action. Remem-bering our history and its significancewill grant us ownership over this de-bate.

We can no longer afford to hide behinda "sanitized" debate that does not rec-ognize that affirmative action programsbegan and are still needed because dis-crimination still exists in our nation.History indicates that without pro-grams that assist qualified minoritymen and women to gain opportunities,many of us would not be where we aretoday. Let's face it: in the past, being awoman or being Latino, Black, or Asianmeant that you were not even consid-ered for a job or an education. Acknowl-edging that race, gender and ethnic dis-crimination continue to play a role, al-beit diminished from the worst days ofthe past, in employment, universityadmissions and other opportunities, isan important first step in defeating themyth that affirmative action is aboutquotas, preferences, or set-asides forunqualified individuals.

All Americans want a colorblind andgenderblind society. This is our goal. Weare on the right path, but still far fromthis goal. As we travel toward our goal,we cannot be blind to continued in-equality. While we have done awaywith some of the most blatant formsof discrimination in recent years, thiscountry has only now arrived at themost difficult point in the struggle forfull equality. This is no time to turnaway from America's historical commit-ment to fairness and equity. We knowtoo well that discrimination is not justa thing of the past. We have not gone"too far" in eliminating inequality.

Our country is in a great transition andis finding this transition extraordinar-ily difficult. This is to be expected. Di-versifying American society will con-tinue to be a very difficult endeavor.As we look into our futuie, we see thatkeeping affirmative action programsalive in our educational systems is a keyto facilitate this transition and diversi-fication for all of us. Ensuring that allAmericans understand that affirmative

common ground 32

action is an essential component ofequality is a task for each of us. Educat-ing our communities that affirmativeaction is about opening doors, aboutinclusion not exclusion, about contrib-uting to our changing society is ourresponsibility, no one else's.

At the same time, we must be awarethat affirmative action is only a tool, apiece of the whole. Its programs areintended as marginal assistance to com-bat discrimination and create a levelplaying field for all. It is not a completesolution or a substitute for other effortsto improve opportunities for women,

This debate is not an easy one. Detrac-tors will claim that affirmative actiontakes away from more deserving stu-dents, or allows unqualified persons toenter the halls of higher learning at thesake of more qualified individuals.

We must firmly reject these claims. Toomany detractors denounce without thefacts. According to the University ofCalifornia's undergraduate admissionpolicy, all eligible applicants whochoose to enroll at the University ofCalifornia are offered spaces. The ad-missions criteria at UC have gone up 5times in the past 13 years. There is no

This is no time to turn away from America's

historical commitment to fairness and equity.

minorities and other disadvantagedpeople. Programs that address the needsof socially or economically disadvan-taged persons are important on theirown merit. We must reject the false di-chotomy that pits affirmative actionagainst such other meritorious policies.There is no choice between the two.Both approaches addressing genderand race discrimination and compen-sating for socioeconomic disparitiesare needed to ensure full and fair op-portunities for everyone.

As the future of America is changing,so must our efforts to protect the rightsof our children. The affirmative actionprograms for our young adults in insti-tutions of higher education are work-ing. Study after study, like the one forthe Higher Education Committee of theCalifornia Assembly, find that withoutaffirmative action programs to achievegreater diversity the under-representa-tion of minorities will likely worsen andbecome permanent.

doubt that UC is teaching highly quali-fied individuals who have all earnedadmission.

Furthermore, the top 12.5 percent andthe top 33.3 percent of high schoolgraduates are immediately entitled toa place at the University of Californiaand California State University systems,respectively . No one is currently beingdenied a place. More than 95% of allstudents admitted to the UC system arefully eligible in terms of their academiccourse work scores and their admissiontest scores.

These numbers and figures are only thebeginning. The data stands on its ownmerit, but it is up to all of us to sharethe message. Affirmative action is notcausing "reverse discrimination."

Affirmative action is assisting all of usin diversifying America. An Americawhere "Opportunity for All" is notmerely an aphorism, but a reality. IN

Affirmative Action ChoicesFrank H. Wu Howard University Schooll Of LawFrank H. Wu is an assistant professor of law and the first Asian American on faculty at HowardUniversity law school. He is the author of Neither Black Nor White: Asian Americans andAffirmative Action, a comprehensive legal analysis of the subject. He also has written for TheWashington Post and is currently a columnist for Asian Week.

The role of Asian Americans in race re-lations was problematic well before itbecame prominent. Now, unfortu-nately, Asian Americans seem to bestuck in the middle of the affirmativeaction debate.

With the recent Supreme Court case,Adarand Contractors v. Perla, the affirma-tive action controversy has taken aturn. Whether that turn is positive ornegative, practically and symbolically,remains to be seen. In either event,

Asian Americans should be aware of thelegal landscape on which the politicalbattle is being fought and where theyhave been positioned.

The Supreme Court decision concernedone of many "set-aside" statutes de-signed to increase representation of "so-cially" and "economically" disadvan-taged individuals and small businessesinvolved in government contracting. Intechnical terms, the ruling establisheda "strict scrutiny" standard for all ra-cial classification, whether formerlycharacterized as "benign" or "invidi-ous." In the ruling, the court did notstrike down the particular program, butinstead decided to send the disputeback to the lower courts to determinewhether it passed this "strict scrutiny"test.

The majority opinion by the court thusclarifies the confusing standards whichhad governed affirmative action. Pre-viously, the validity of the programsturned on whether they were state orfederal, public or private, quotas orgoals, and numerous other factors. Fur-thermore, the treatment of AsianAmericans varied from wholesale inclu-sion to outright exclusion, and fromactive discrimination in a straightfor-ward sense to schemes that attemptedto benefit some Asian Americans bydistinguishing among different ethnicgroups or different fields of study andwork. In contrast to many other pro-grams, the "set-aside" regulation in-cluded Asian Americans.

Like many judicial decisions, however,the latest ruling may turn out to be asource of surprises. Since there willlikely be an intensive process of con-sidering the evidence, it maystrengthen rather than weaken affirma-tive action programs that ultimatelymeet the higher standard.

According to the opinion, if the fact-finding process by the lower courts re-veals regular race discriminationagainst non-whites in bidding for fed-eral government contracts, then it maybe appropriate to address the problemswith a systematic response in turn fo-cusing on race if it is done carefully.Indeed, under the circumstances, beingblind to race renders racism itself in-visible.

Perspectives ova blOtivntative blation 33

Despite all its rhetorical caveats and so-licitude for the disadvantaged, the stan-dard set by the new case is nonethelesspotentially dangerous. According to thedecision, it is not only concededly "be-nign" programs with a racial elementthat may be permitted, but also moresuspect classifications based on race. If

Just as Asian Americans should be partof the debate, they also can be used forthe sake of argument. Critics of thegovernment programs meant to rem-edy racial discrimination point at AsianAmericans in order to make a varietyof arguments. Many of the critics of theprograms believe in the model minor-

Ironically, where Asian Americans face maximum quotas or

glass ceilings in education and employment, the causetypically is a minimum quota or informal floor for

whites not for African Americans.

it is interpreted to reach conservativeresults, the opinion may in legal termseffectively reduce affirmative action tothe equivalent of chattel slavery.

An interesting but largely ignored as-pect of the majority opinion and thedissenting opinions is their heavy reli-ance on the precedent of the JapaneseAmerican internment. This affirmativeaction case contains an acknowledg-ment by the high court its firstlengthy statement to the effect thatthe governmental actions in World WarII instituting the internment werewrong and were based on prejudice.

As important is the fact that AsianAmericans are being considered. Gen-erally, Asian Americans, along withother non-black racial minority groups,have been relegated to footnotes if theyare mentioned at all in judicial deci-sions related to race. In the famousBakke case, for example, there is a notestating that including "Orientals" inaffirmative action at medical school "isespecially curious" because of the "sub-stantial numbers. . . admitted throughthe regular admissions process." Theneglect of Asian Americans occurred de-spite the late Justice William 0. Dou-glas observing in passing in the earliestaffirmative action case, "there is noWestern state which can claim that ithas always treated Japanese and Chi-nese in a fair and even-handed man-ner." Justice Douglas, though, thoughtdiscrimination against Asian Americansserved as an argument against affirma-tive action: if Asian Americans wereincluded, too many others might makeclaims as well.

ity myth of Asian American cultural as-similation and economic advances.Some observers assert that Asian Ameri-can success shows that affirmative ac-tion is not needed. Other commenta-tors assert that Asian immigrantsshould not be given any public benefits,special or otherwise, because to do sowould be unfair toward native-bornAmerican minorities.

As all too often happens, Asian Ameri-cans are being pitted against AfricanAmericans. Asian Americans are en-couraged to view African Americans,and programs focused on them, asthreats to their own upward mobility.African Americans are led to see AsianAmericans, many but not all of whomare immigrants, as another group thathas usurped what was meant for them.

Asian Americans should realize thatwhile they face discrimination, AfricanAmericans fare worse by almost anymeasure, whether historically, in con-temporary stereotyping, or as shown bysocial science data. Moreover, AsianAmericans stand to gain very little bydenying African Americans meaning-ful socioeconomic opportunities. Ironi-cally, where Asian Americans face maxi-mum quotas or glass ceilings in educa-tion and employment, the cause typi-cally is a minimum quota or informalfloor for whites not for AfricanAmericans. That was the case in thecontroversy over college admission andin the Lowell high school situation, andit may well be the hidden truth else-where.

Given the tensions that run throughthe affirmative action debate, AsianAmericans should see that they can behelped and hurt, and sometimes bothat once, by the legal recognition of race.Whether they support affirmative ac-tion or oppose it, they owe it to them-selves as well as the rest of society, toconsider the consequences of eitherextreme color-consciousness or ex-treme color-blindness. The challenge isto transcend race without ignoring rac-ism, without denying differences thatare valuable, and without suggestingsubtly or otherwise that everyoneshould be or pretend to be white. Inthe process, the political awakening ofAsian Americans is at hand.

We Won't Go BackLillian Galedo Filipinos For Affirmative ActionLillian Galedo is the Executive Director of Filipinos for Affirmative Action, a community-based,nonprofit organization based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Ms. Galedo is also the co-chair ofFilipino Civil Rights Advocates, a recently formed organization focusing on national civil rightsissues for the Filipino community.

In March, Governor Pete Wilson, whorode into a second term on a wave ofanti-immigrant hysteria he helped cre-ate with Proposition 187, announcedhis support for the anti-affirmative ac-tion proposals. As a Republican presi-dential candidate, he is obviously plan-ning to repeat the strategy.

This so-called "California Civil RightsInitiative" is a dishonest name. In fact,the initiative attacks civil rights. Itspremise is that our country has out-grown affirmative action, that the kindsof discrimination that gave birth to itin 1964 no longer exists, and that affir-

mative action is unfair to whites, andeven to Asians. Laws which prohibitovert acts of discrimination, its support-ers claim, should be enough to protectthose who have historically been itsvictims.

But are these laws alone enough? Notaccording to phone calls and letters thatwe regularly get from Filipino employ-ees. We recently received a letter froman employee of the State Compensa-tion Fund who tells us "still a greatmajority (of Filipinos) are in clericalsupport positions even if they have theexperience and education required (for

common ground 34

professional or management posi-tions)." "The current criteria for hiringand promotion is 'whom you know'and 'what you are' (group)." A 1993Equal Employment Opportunity Com-mission (EEOC) report on Californiapublic hiring showed that 76% of newhires in the highest job category ofpublic jobs 'officials and administra-tors' are white. African Americanshold 8.9 %, Hispanics 8.4%, and Asians6.3% of these top jobs. In the lowerrung hires (service and maintenancejobs), African Americans are 19%, His-panics 24.7% and Asians 10%.

Affirmative action was meant to cor-rect pervasive patterns of discrimina-tion, like those in the Oakland FireDepartment. In 1960, before affirma-tive action, there were no Asian Pacificfirefighters in Oakland. In the early1970s, a court ordered the departmentto set up an affirmative action program.The first Asian firefighter was not hireduntil 1972; by 1980 there were 5 Asians.By the early 1990's, when Asians hadreached 15% of Oakland and AlamedaCounty's population, there were 22Asians. "It took over 20 years, even withaffirmative action, to bring the num-ber of Asians up to 5% of Oakland'sfirefighters" says Oakland firefighter

nomic support had already dried up.The number of fall enrollments of Fili-pino students at UCB has since droppedfrom 113 in 1992 to 57 in 1994.

Affirmative action has also helpedmany whites. Hiring in the fire depart-ment used to be a "family affair." Thosehired were the sons and relatives ofother firefighters. Affirmative actionmade it easier for white workers whoweren't relatives of firefighters orfriends of the boss to break throughthose barriers. In the same way, eco-nomic assistance programs in supportof affirmative action in universitieshave helped many working-class whitesget an education.

At the core of affirmative action is theidea that ways can be designed to movemore quickly towards equality, ratherthan to wait for each generation to takea tiny step. The great majority of peoplein this country now believe thatwomen and minorities should be rep-resented in all facets of our societyblue collar, white collar, management,elected officials, even the SupremeCourt.

Ending affirmative action is a desper-ate attempt to reverse the gains thathave been made. The motive is the

...We can't let that happen. We must defendaffirmative action so that when the

dust settles on these economic changes,

we will not be at the bottom.

Antonio Edayan, hired in the early1980s. "Would we have achieved thiswithout affirmative action? I don'tthink so."

When affirmative action programs be-gan at UC Berkeley in the 1960s, theybrought the sons and daughters of Fili-pino workers into our publicly-fundeduniversities for the first time. These pro-grams targeted low income families,and included support for Filipino stu-dents while they learned. As a result, ageneration of working-class Filipinoyouth got a UC education that wouldotherwise have been unavailable tothem. Then, in 1992 Filipinos weredropped from the list of ethnic groupson UC's affirmative action list. The eco-

worst kind of political opportunism.Whipping up racism has become a po-litical strategy called the "wedge is-sue."

The authors of this strategy recognizethat there is a desperate anger amongmany people over the decline in theirstandard of living and at falling hopesfor a secure job and future. Rather thanusing this anger to force political andeconomic changes to solve real prob-lems, these opportunists use it as aweapon to win power. A way to forcepeople to fight over diminishing jobsand falling wages, instead of address-ing the real cause: the economy. Affir-mative action has had no role in low-ering our standard of living. All Ameri-

cans have become subject to techno-logical changes and a volatile globaleconomy. The economic future of allAmericans is insecure.

The day when a person could work forthe same employer for 25 to 30 yearsand retire from that job is practicallynon-existent. The average Americanwill be on a job from only three to fiveyears. An eighteen-year-old enteringtoday's labor market will- go- throughfour to six career changes before retire-ment. Twenty-five percent of job titlesfor the year 2000 are not even knownto us today.

Meanwhile, the gap between the richand the poor continues to widen, withthe wealthy one percent of our coun-try owning 40% of our country'swealth.

Ending affirmative action will notchange these emerging conditions, norwill ending affirmative action save jobswhich have been moved outside thecountry or eliminated because of cor-porate reorganization, urban flight, andchanging economic relationships withother industrialized countries. Endingaffirmative action during this majoreconomic transition is aimed at givingan advantage back to those who ben-efit from inequality and racism. AsAsian Pacific Americans, we can't letthat happen. We must defend affirma-tive action so that when the dust settleson these economic changes, we will notbe at the bottom.

To achieve equality, we must work inalliance with others who have steppedforward to continue the struggle. Thatunity must be based on renewing ourcommitment to the premise thatprompted affirmative action thirtyyears ago: to end racism we must takemeasured steps towards equality.

LaP2\orrDPASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANPUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE

A 113a3 Organization

26 Perspectives on Affirmative Action 35

Kent ens sia Pacific American Labor AllianceKent Wong is a founder and the National President of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance,the first nationwide Asian Pacific labor organization within the AFL-CIO. He is also Director ofthe UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education and previously worked as staff attorney for theService Employees International Union, Local #660.

The Asian Pacific American Labor Alli-ance, a national organization of AsianPacific American workers, is commit-ted to defending affirmative action incoalition with women, people of colorand all people of conscience who be-lieve in ending discrimination and in-equality.

Our support of affirmative action isbased in part on the long legacy of dis-crimination against Asians. Beginningover 100 years ago, Asian immigrantsto the U.S. were subjected to racist im-migration laws, including discrimina-tory quotas that lasted until the 1960s.

The discrimination facing Asian PacificAmericans is part of a larger problemof inequality in our society. Ninety-seven percent of senior corporate ex-ecutives are white males. At the otherend of the spectrum, nearly half of allAfrican American and Latino childrenlive in poverty. Affirmative action is animportant method to address past andpresent discrimination, and to increasethe access of women and minorities toemployment, education, and govern-ment opportunities.

It is no surprise that affirmative actionis under widespread attack today. From

Asian immigrants from generations past have been deniedcitizenshT, denied the right to vote,

denied the rig t to own land, denied theright to marry non-Asians, and deniedequal employment opportunities.

Asian immigrants from generationspast have been denied citizenship, de-nied the right to vote, denied the rightto own land, denied the right to marrynon-Asians, and denied equal employ-ment opportunities. The internment ofJapanese Americans during World WarII was a shameful episode in Americanhistory, an event that has affected AsianPacific American communities to thisday.

Today, many Asian Pacific immigrantworkers face exploitation in low wagejobs in the service and light manufac-turing industries. Abuse of basic laborlaws, including wage and hour provi-sions, are common. Many lack healthcare coverage and adequate job ben-efits. Many are discriminated againstbecause employers believe that theylook or sound foreign. Even AsianAmerican college graduates who haveobtained middle-income jobs fre-quently confront the "glass ceiling,"and are denied promotional opportu-nities due to employment discrimina-tion.

Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" toGeorge Bush's "Willie Horton" ads, con-servatives have successfully used"wedge" issues, particularly those withracial subtexts, to court undecided vot-ers who would normally be opposed tothe Republican party's pro-corporateand anti-worker agenda. This conser-vative economic agenda, which is cre-ating staggering income inequality inour society, includes tax breaks forwealthy corporations and individuals,corporate downsizing, the movementof jobs overseas, anti-union legislation,keeping the minimum wage low, block-ing mandatory health care, cutting fed-eral safety net benefits, increasing part-time and temporary jobs, deregulatinghealth and safety, and reducing eco-nomic resources available for educa-tion, training, and infrastructure devel-opment.

In order to advance their economicagenda, Republicans are promoting di-visive and distracting myths about im-migration and affirmative action. Theyclaim that most immigrants are taking

3?

jobs from others, are living off welfareand government handouts, and arethreatening our lifestyle and culture.They claim affirmative action givesunqualified individuals an unfair ad-vantage and establishes arbitrary "quo-tas." These attempts to scapegoat im-migrants and affirmative action areunfair and untrue, but have receivedlittle critical evaluation in the media.

The attack on affirmative action andimmigration by politicians like Gover-nor Pete Wilson of California is rootedin political opportunism. But there issomething more troubling taking place.Racism is once again on the rise inAmerica. The Supreme Court, domi-nated by Reagan and Bush appointees,recently issued three far-reaching deci-sions undermining minority contract-ing, school desegregation, and congres-sional districts with Black majorities.The Republican "Contract WithAmerica" will disproportionately harmminority communities by dismantlingfederal benefits and programs thatthese communities need. Many recentimmigration "reform" efforts are moti-vated by a desire to reduce the numberof Latinos and Asian Pacific Americanswho come to America. As Congress-woman Maxine Waters recently said, "Itfeels as if the Supreme Court, legisla-tive bodies, and organized right-winggroups have all decided their worst en-emies are people of color."

Our defense of affirmative action, there-fore, is rooted in part in the historicexperience of racism and discrimina-tion faced by Asian Pacific Americansand others in this country. It is alsorooted in an understanding that thisracism is still with us and is increasingin today's intolerant political and so-cial environment.

We urge all Asian Pacific Americans towork to support affirmative action incoalition with women, people of colorand other minorities. As with all thesegroups, our success as a community isultimately tied to the overall success ofthe civil rights movement. We mustfight to defend affirmative action, notjust because it helps Asian PacificAmericans overcome work place dis-crimination, but because we will neverabandon the dream of justice andequality for all Americans.

common ground 36

The Face Of Affirmative ActionWarren T. Furutani Warren Furutani & AssociatesWarren T Furutani served for eight years as a member and president of the Los Angeles City Boardof Education. He has long been a leading and outspoken advocate of civil rights isues for commu-nities of color and has championed Asian Pacific causes since the 1960s.

The most recent controversy around af-firmative action will be tested at thepolls in November with the CaliforniaCivil Rights Initiative (CCRI). In myopinion it is no coincidence that thisinitiative is attempting to follow in thefootsteps of Proposition 187. In bothcases, I contend that whatever side suc-cessfully defines the issue and connectsit with the most compelling humanimage will prevail.

Everyone remembers the impact of themean spirited "Willie Horton" ads dur-ing the Dukakis Presidential Campaign.More recently, everyone saw and wasinundated with the grainy infraredvideo shots of hordes of "illegal immi-grants" streaming over the borders into

The title of the bill itself has seized theinitiative in this political contest. No-where is the term affirmative actionused in the CCRI. The term preferen-tial treatment is instead being used syn-onymously with the term affirmativeaction. A report and poll by the Femi-nist Majority Foundation points outthat if these two terms become inter-changeable the battle is already lost, butif the terms are disconnected, the sup-port for affirmative action programsthat promote equal opportunity is verystrong and positive.

Therefore, we must define affirmativeaction for what it really is, a programfor equal opportunities, not quotas orpreferential treatment. It is a vehicle for

...we must define affirmative action forwhat it really is, a program for equal opportunities,

not quotas or preferential treatment. It is avehicle for fairness and equality

for groups who have been

historically discriminated againstand who have been

woefully underrepresentedin the areas of education, employment and

procurement of public contracts.

California during the Proposition 187campaign. Already ads have been run,sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms dur-ing his re-election campaign, showinga young white male tearing up a rejec-tion slip with the message being that aless qualified women or minority gotthe job because of affirmative action.These images defined the issues andpushed the emotional buttons to whichthe voters responded. We must redefinethe issue and forge a new image thatpeople will embrace.

Defining the issue and connecting it toa positive image is the key to overcom-ing the CCRI. In this regard we are al-ready behind the eight ball and play-ing "catch up."

fairness and equality for groups whohave been historically discriminatedagainst and who have been woefullyunderrepresented in the areas of edu-cation, employment and procurementof public contracts.

We have seen the unfortunate tendencyof public and private systems to revertto the status quo and institutionalizedracism when not under public or court-mandated scrutiny.

In relationship to the image factor ofthese debates, we need to put a humanface on the affirmative action issue.Interestingly, Speaker Willie Brown hasextricated himself from the battle be-cause of this concern. After clearly es-

tablishing the parameters of the discus-sion on affirmative action, he concededthat should he become the personifi-cation of the issue, it would be detri-mental to the cause.

The Proposition 187 campaign clearlydemonstrated the critical role of thehuman image factor. As it seemed themomentum was shifting toward theinitiative's defeat, the image of hun-dreds of individuals waving Mexicanflags at anti 187 rallies took center stage.This sent a reactionary message andgalvanized the pro 187 forces. The trueimage of thousands of immigrants find-ing a better life and working hard tocontribute to their own and thiscountry's future would have been themore compelling image.

Consequently, the image we need toportray in support of affirmative actionis one that reflects the thousands ofsuccess stories that affirmative actionprograms have produced. Let us basethe human image on the positive ef-fects of equal opportunity wherebythose given the chance succeeded andreturned to their humble roots to sharetheir bounty, knowledge and resources.

Let us remind the public that althoughadmitted through these programs, thegraduation requirements were equallysatisfied, the accountability for gettingthe job done or the contract fulfilledwas the same for everyone.

Lastly, after defining the issue and put-ting a positive human face on it, weneed to seize this opportunity to reaf-firm affirmative action from the pointof view of the future, not the past. Itseems the anti-forces want to go backto the 50's, to a time where everyonewas colorblind, those "good old days."

Many of the proponents of affirmativeaction seem to want to go back to, anduse the rhetoric of, the 60's, the "move-ment days." The challenge has got tobe how we move the agenda of affir-mative action to address the issues ofequality for a society vastly changedfrom the 50's and 60's.

Let us expend our energies not on re-acting to the latest initiative from thepolitical right, but on a future-orientedagenda based on the timeless principlesof fairness and equality for all..

3S Perspectives on Affirmative Action 37

Jackie Young Office Of The Governor, HawaiiJackie Young is the Director of the Governor's Office of Affinnative Action for the State of Hawaii.Ms. Young is also an adjunct professor at Hawaii Pacific University, an independent managementconsultant/trainer, and co-host of the television show, "Sound Off On the Road with Jackie Youngand Janice Wolf"

Affirmative action is in the politicalarena. So the weapon of choice forwomen and minorities is political ac-,tion. A conservative Supreme Court haseffectively narrowed the need for pro-gressive measures in affirmative actionplans. A Republican-dominated Con-gress is not expected to legislate sup-port for programs that challenge andchange old patterns of sexism and rac-ism in the workplace. Now Republicanpresidential candidates are showingtheir election year colors by bashingaffirmative action, confident that theirrhetoric is tracking public polls on theissue. In California, a bellwether state,the Governor has used his executivepowers to attack affirmative actionwhile college professors lead the popu-list initiative.

This is a mid-life crisis for affirmativeaction. We know from our long historyof immigration that it takes three gen-erations to fully assimilate into a newculture. Affirmative action is currently

ues and of perspectives has long beenpart of our reality and through ourstruggles for racial and gender har-mony, we continue to express a diver-sity of hopes for the future. One criti-cism of Hawai'i's state government hasbeen that employees of Japanese de-scent dominate the labor force. Histori-cally, state government has served as afair employer for this group, whoseprominent members joined thousandsof people of Japanese descent living inthe U.S. and Canada, and who wereunjustly incarcerated during the racisthysteria in the early months of WorldWar II.

But statistics generated for affirmativeaction plans point to the under-repre-sentation of Filipinos, Hawaiians andWhites in the state's workforce. Overthe past ten years, there have been sub-stantial increases of these groups instate government and if these trendscontinue, the state governmentworkforce will eventually resemble our

Hawai'i still remains an exception and, perhaps, a viewof the future. Unlike many other states, we have not had

to "discover diversity."

at 1.5 generations. While barriers at theentry level of the workforce have di-minished over time, the terms "stickyfloors," "glass walls," and "glass ceil-ings" are meaningful metaphors in de-scribing where women and minoritiesare today.

In Hawai'i, where the majority of mar-riages are interracial, there are still nowomen and very few Asian or PacificIslanders among Hawai'i's highest paidexecutives, who are predominantlywhite and male. Many of the majorcorporations are multinational andbased elsewhere. This kind of insensi-tivity to diversity in a multiculturalstate has a dampening effect on theworkforce.

Yet, Hawai'i still remains an exceptionand, perhaps, a view of the future. Un-like many other states, we have not hadto "discover diversity." Diversity of val-

population at large. However, a gendergap in wages persists in the workplaceas full-time male workers still averagemuch higher pay than their femalecounterparts.

In the executive, judicial and legisla-tive branches, Asians and Pacific Island-ers hold powerful positions and a criti-cal mass of women have emerged in allthree branches. Affirmative actionworks in Hawai'i to constantly strive forbalance, for inclusion and diversity.

But the key is in honoring the value ofinclusion while aiming for a criticalmass. Abuses have been committed inthe name of affirmative action but asjournalist William Raspberry notes,"...if merit, as measured by test scores,is a value worth preserving, so is inclu-sion, as measured by actual notmerely theoretical opportunity." Criti-cal mass, a concept from physics where

a minimum amount of radioactivematerial is needed to produce a nuclearreaction, can be applied to both womenand minorities as both groups are justemerging as a visible and powerful forcein America. Not yet a "critical mass" inpolitics, women and minorities needpolitical clout in order to confront theaffirmative action backlash.

In 1872, Elizabeth Cady Stanton testi-fied before a Senate Judiciary Commit-tee, " We have declared in favor of gov-ernment of the people, for the people,by the people, the whole people. Whynot begin the experiment?" Whereas,it took years of legislative efforts to fi-nally obtain the women's right to votein 1920, President John F. Kennedy firstintroduced the concept of "affirmativeaction" in 1961, and truly beganStanton's experiment.

We are not yet a government of thepeople. How much longer must affir-mative action last? Only one and one-half generations of women and minori-ties have benefited from the transitorygoals of affirmative action. Now, onlyconcerted political action can help ussustain our gains and keep the doorsopen for the next one and one-half gen-erations.

AcknowledgmentsWe wish to thank the following insti-tutions without whose generous sup-port of the LEAP Asian Pacific Ameri-can Public Policy Institute this publi-cation would not be possible: The FordFoundation, The Carnegie Corporationof New York, The James Irvine Foun-dation, ARCO Foundation, and TimeWarner, Inc. We also thank HughesElectronics Corporation and SouthernCalifornia Edison for generously pro-viding funds for printing.

We wish to acknowledge Gena A. Lewfor her dedication to this project as itscoordinating editor, LEAP interns Bran-don Sugiyama and Kristin Hokoyamafor their research assistance, JohnTateishi and Graham Finney for theirassistance in editing, Luis Maimoni ofFresh Graphics for the layout and de-sign, and LEAP Board members DavidBarclay, Peter Wiersma and FrankQuevedo for their invaluable guidance.

And lastly, we wish to thank all of theindividuals who volunteered theirtime, their efforts, and their expertisein contributing to this important pub-lication. We are grateful for their col-laboration and ongoing support of theLEAP Asian Pacific American PublicPolicy Institute.

39 common ground 38

ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANPUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE

A IM AP Organization

Americans for Affirmative Action44 East Mifflin St., Suite 303, Madison, WI 53703

800-875-8795

ACLU of Southern California1616 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90026

213-977-9500

Applied Research Center25 Embarcadero Cove, Oakland, CA 94606

510-534-1769

Asian American Journalists Association1765 Sutter St., San Francisco, CA 94115

415-346-2051

Asian American Legal Defense & Educational Fund99 Hudson St., 12th Floor, New York, NY 10013

212-966-5932

Asian Law Caucus486 Bush St., 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108

415-391-1655

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance1444 Eye St., NW, Suite 702, Washington, DC 20005

202-842-1263

Asian Pacific American Legal Center of So. Calif.1010 S. Flower St., Suite 302, Los Angeles, CA 90015

213-748-2022

California Legislature, Senate Office of Research1020 N St., Suite 565, Sacramento, CA 95814

916-445-1727

Chinese for Affirmative Action17 Walter Lum Place, San Francisco, CA 94108

415-274-6750

Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights2000 M St., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036

202-659-5565

Congressional Black Caucus Foundation908 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003

202-675-2060

Equal Employment Advisory Council1015 Fifteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20005

202-789-8650

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission1801 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20507

202-663-4900 public info800-669-3362 publications

800-669-4000 discrimination claims

Equal Rights Advocates1663 Mission St., Suite 550, San Francisco, CA 94117

415-621-0672

The Feminist Majority1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 801, Arlington, VA 22209

703-522-2214

Filipinos for Affirmative Action310 8th St., Suite 308, Oakland CA 94607

510-465-9876

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights301 Mission St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94105

415-543-9444

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights1629 K St., NW, Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20006

202-466-3311

Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics (LEAP)327 East 2nd St., Suite 226, Los Angeles, CA 90012

213-485-1422

Los Angeles County,Office of Affirmative Action ComplianceKenneth Hahn Hall of Administration

500 W. Temple St., Room 780, Los Angeles, CA 90012213-974-1080

Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90014

213-629-2512

Nat'l Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium1629 K St., NW, Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20006

202-296-2300

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund315 West 9th St., Los Angeles, CA 90015

213-624-2405

Organization of Chinese Americans1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 704

Washington, DC 20036202-223-5500

Poverty & Race Research Action Council1711 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 207

Washington, DC 20009202-387-9887

Rebuild LA (RLA)1000 West 8th Place, Los Angeles, CA 90017

213-312-1939

San Francisco Human Rights Commission25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94102

415-252-2500

Tomas Rivera Center241 E. 11th St., Claremont, CA 91711

909-621-8897

Urban Institute2100 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037

202-833-7200

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights624 9th St., NW, Washington, DC 20425

202-376-8110 publications800-552-6843 civil rights complaints

U.S. Department of LaborFederal Glass Ceiling Commission

200 Constitution Ave., NW, Room C-2313,Washington, DC 20210

202-219-7342

U.S. Department of LaborOffice of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

200 Constitution Ave., NW, Room C-3325,Washington, DC 20210

202-219-9475

U.S. Department of JusticeAssistant Attorney General for Civil Rights

P.O. Box 65808, Washington, DC 20035-5808202-514-2151

0 Perspectives on Affirmative Action 39

LEAP PU-B'LICATION ORDER FORMORDER BY MAIL

All individual orders must be prepaid by checkor credit card (see credit card instruction be-low). For bookstore orders, see instructionsbelow. Allow 8-10 days for UPS ground de-livery. Send your order to:LEAP327 E. Second St., Suite 226Los Angeles, CA 90012Fax: 213-485-0050 Tel: 213-485-1422Email: leap90012@aol.com

SHIPPING & HANDLING CHARGESPlease use the following shipping rates basedon the total purchase amount (excluding taxand discounts if applicable).

UPS Ground Service:$24 or less $3.75$25 - $49.99 $6.00$50 - $149.99 $9.00Standard Overnight $16.50/book

ORDER BY VISA/MASTERCARDList your name as it appears on the card,your card number and expiration date andsend or fax your order.

ORDER BY PHONE, CREDIT CARDS ONLYCall 213-485-1422, 9am-5pm PST, Mon-Fri.A phone machine will take your order if youcall after business hours.

BOOKSTORE ORDERS

Fax purchase order form to LEAP at 213 -485-0050. An invoice will be included with ourshipment. Book orders of 25 to 49 receive a25% discount. Orders of 50 or more receivea 40% discount.

SEND THE TITLES LISTED BELOW TO:

Name

Mailing address

City/State/Zip

Day phonePLEASE INDICATE THE QUANTITY OF PUBLICATIONS

The State of Asian Pacific America Series:Reframing the Immigration Debate, 322 pp/1996(ISBN: 0-934052-26-3) $17.00Economic Diversity, Issues and Policies, 305 pp/1994

(ISBN: 0-934052-23-9) $15.00Policy Issues to the Year 2020, 318pp/1993

(ISBN: 0-934025-22-0) $15.00Other titles:

Common Ground: Perspectives on Affirmative Action andits Impact on APAs, 40 pp/1995 $3.00Reapportionment & Redistricting in Los Angeles:Implication for APAs, 6 pamphlets/1991 $10.00

SUB TOTAL $

CA Residents add 8.25 % sales tax $

Shipping & Handling (see instructions) $

TOTAL ENCLOSED $

Method of payment (check one)

Check (payable to LEAP) VISA 0 MasterCard

Card Number

Expiration Date

Name of Card Holder

Signature

ABOUT LEAP...

Leadership Education forAsian Pacifics (LEAP) is a na-

tional, nonprofit, nonpartisan,

community-based organiza-

tion with a mission to achieve

full participation and equality

for Asian Pacific Americans

through leadership, empow-

erment, and policy.

Founded in 1982, LEAP of-fers wide-ranging and com-prehensive programs in cul-

tural diversity and leadership

training, community outreach,

and public policy researchand education.

Publications like this are pos-

sible.with the generous sup-

port of our funders and indi-

vidual members. Please sup-

port LEAP by sending yourcontribution today!

APAPPIASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANPUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE

A LEAP Organization

327 East Second Street

Suite 226

Los Angeles, CA

90012-4210

Phone: 213-485-1422

Fax: 213-485-0050

Email: leap90012@aol.com

41

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDLong Beach, CA

Permit No. 323

ACQ: ISL

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

(Specific Document)

ERIC

UO0307030

Title:Coy11400 GT? AD0139 = eviSPRT1/4) Witz-MKl(Acno---N-13-D (Ts (eteitcr 0.3 MAO 0,ctvic., muz(cAos

Author(s): G.ENPc Pc- (-613

Corporate Source:

LeK PcSIP03 eVcCAtc/ PcYta-tr--Pci eOGIACA0t-o1- LPSrTUMPublication Date:

1

06'15

H. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to clamminess as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced

in the monthly abstract jownai of the ERIC system. Ras:ours& in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche. reproducedpaper copy. and afactfolidoodcal made. and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EOM) or other ERIC vendors. Crack isgiven to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release Is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

It permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign at

the bottom of the page.

ICheck here

For Level 1 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4' x 6' film) orother ERIC archival meals(e.g.. electronic or optical)and paper copy.

Signhere,please

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to al Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

\e,

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to al Level 2 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS

MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPERCOPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2

Documents will be processed as iticficated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission

to reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

Check hereFor Level 2 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche x em) orother ERIC archival media(e.g.. electronic or optical).but not in paper copy.

gnat

hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Canter (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and cissaminata

this document as indicated above. Raprockiction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by parsons other than

ERIC employees and its system contractors requires pan ission /nom the copyright holder. Exception is made For nonprofit

reproduction by hbrarias and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.'

iCttk Lsv3 l "Nvo,betAct.1 HAtA-G

ni ep ne:

taiomk-k t(? 0)0c-Pc1 rktt fcsl Put l PReI1cS CLEM) "2,1$ 44 4-7/1" 1 m31 4-15- 00 SO

Sr) E. SE-CD OD ,(late:

LtS Kt4CLESI CA. MA t/PiiM'ovii-@ KOL.ODY <<(7A-( 11

lover)

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source,please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it ispublicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria aresignificantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:If the right to grant reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:

-Name.

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

gRIC Clearinghouse cn Urban EducationBox 40, Teachers COCRge

Columbia Univsirs!tyNew York, NY 10027

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:

(Rev. 6/96)