【TonyQin/才宫】California AB 1726: Divisive, Racist, and Unscientific
TonyQin/才宫-101096 03/27 2870California AB
1726: Divisive, Racist, and Unscientific
--- An Open Letter to AB 1726
Initiators and Advocates ---
To:
Assemblymember Rob Bonta, David Chiu, Evan Low, Philip Ting, Shirley Weber, Des
Williams
Dear
Assemblymembers,
AB
1726 is divisive. No matter how AB 1726 is presented, it, in essence, is to
divide people, pull communities apart, segregate the society, and build up
invisible walls among various ethnic groups. As leaders of our communities, you
are expected to unify people and ensure each and every California resident,
regardless of one’s ancestry or ethnic origin, to be treated equally, fairly,
and justly.
Half a century ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of
their character.” Dr. King’s dream is indeed everyone’s dream, which deserves
everyone, including you and me, to make every effort to turn it into true.
However, AB 1726 leads people into a wrong direction, which is totally opposite
to the human civilization process.
AB
1726 is narrow-minded and racist. By definition, racist is characterized as
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another or
that a particular
race is inferior to another. As described by Chief Justice John
Roberts, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race
is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Nevertheless, AB 1726 proposes
to subdivide Asian Americans into more subgroups with the assumption that
not all ethnic groups are equal. Isn’t it racist?
Of
course, you claim that AB 1726 is for the benefit of better educational
achievement for Asian Pacific Islander (API) subgroups. Wrong! Again, you have rooted
your reasoning in the assumption that not all ethnic groups are equal. Certainly,
we understand that some people, especially those who are now socioeconomically underprivileged,
may need extra assistance and care from other people, society, and government.
As a matter of fact, such underprivileged individuals can be of any ancestry or
ethnic origin. They can be Latino American, African American, Chinese American,
Filipino American, or British American, Irish American, or Italian American,
and so on. It is irresponsible and derelict that you simply and abrasively correlate
educational achievement of individuals with an ethnic group in a racist manner.
On the contrary, we should extend our help to every socioeconomically
underprivileged individual, regardless of one’s ancestry or ethnic origin.
You claim that AB 1726 is for the
benefit of better health outcomes
for API subgroups. Wrong! Legally, wrong! Morally, wrong! Scientifically,
wrong! As leaders of the communities, you are not expected to take care of only
API residents, but all people of all ethnic groups. So, why not subdivide other
ethnic groups, such as Latino, White, and Black, but only subdivide Asian
Americans? The bill claims not to apply its
categorization requirements to demographic data of graduate and professional
schools of the University of California. Why should the graduates and some
professionals be excluded from the health benefit? Moreover, the way of ethnic
subdivision, proposed by AB 1726, is far from being scientific, which may result
in disastrous health outcomes. The bill fails to recognize biological and
genetic disparities within each so-called ethnic subgroup, for it shows no
consideration of children out of interracial marriages, or complexity of
ancestry or ethnic origin within a subgroup. Taking Chinese Americans as an
example, there are 56 ethnic groups in China, and therefore, a Chinese American
can be from any one of the 56 ethnic groups, even without considering
interracial marriages.
We strongly suggest that you open
your mind, look forward, follow the correct direction of civilization process,
and build a better California, instead of wasting taxpayers’ money to play racial
cards.
Please
withdraw AB 1726!
Tony Qin, Ph.D.
March 27, 2016