My Responses to “Top 5 anti-Affirmative Action Myths About SCA5”

3/14/2014

(This article is widespread like a virus, so it deserves a rebuttal, even though its content is full of factual errors and empty of logic)

Ms. Jenn (A Chinese Canadian)’s article for SCA5 starts with a rhetorical title: “Top 5 anti-Affirmative Action Myths About SCA5 | NoLiesNoHate”. Unfortunately, right in the second paragraph, before she could even bring up a “lie” from anti-SCA5 camp, Ms. Jenn created a lie of her own: “Prop 209 has had a devastating effect on UC schools: Black, Latino … admission rates have dropped precipitously relative to the pace of their population growth over the last twenty years”.

The language looks so familiar that it immediately reminds us SCA5 author’s now infamous press release: “As a result (of prop 209), there has been a precipitous drop in the percentage of Latino… students at California public universities”. By now we all know this is a lie. Every bit of data from UC proved this is a ridiculous assertion, even the author’s ally, UC Admissions Director, had to admit that Latino percentage in UC almost doubled after passing prop 209.

Ms. Jenn is smarter than that, so she added “relative to the pace of their population growth”. But it is still a lie. From 1997 to now, Latino’s share in California’s high school graduates grew about 50%, much less than their 100% UC share growth. So there is NO drop for Latinos relatively to the population, let alone “devastating effect” and “dropped precipitously”.

With a crumbling foundation, Ms. Jenn went on to build her case for SCA5. She argued that US Constitution permits racial discrimination in high education. But she apparently doesn’t know, that just last year in the latest case Fisher v. University of Texas, US Supreme Court ruled that race may not be used as a factor in admissions where “workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” This exactly applies to UC system, which is rated among the most diversified universities in the nation by US News and World Report, through “race-neutral” policies, so racial discrimination should not be used in a working system.

Ms. Jenn then tried to use the same trick which SCA5 author repeatedly used, that SCA5 is not a quota. Of course they dare not to mention any “quota” in SCA5, they are not so dumb to challenge US Constitution. Instead they tried hard to push racial discrimination as close as possible to the “quota” red line: “California’s public universities and colleges should have all tools at their disposal to ensure their campuses reflect the demographics of our state.” The SCA5 author claimed. Is that loud and clear, Ms. Jenn? BTW, even if it’s not quota, we are firmly against any racial discrimination. That we don’t allow you to steal 50% of our assets, doesn’t mean it is fine to steal our wallets, computers and other personal properties. We will fight ANY theft from the democratic party politicians.

Ms. Jenn then presented a little nice chart to show that Ivy League schools don’t cap Asian-Americans to 1X their population percentage, so there is no “quota”. As if capping to 3X population percentage is not a “quota”. But, Ms. Jenn, any capping of Asian American students is indeed a “quota”. And there is an article about the de facto “quota” in Ivy League schools for your reference:http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

Now Ms. Jenn turned on to another myth: “Myth #4: Affirmative action lets in “unqualified” or “less qualified” Black and Latino students over more qualified Asian Americans, and a college admissions system that only considers grades and SATs is more fair and objective (from 80-20).”

Ms. Jenn, the first half of your claimed “Myth” is not a myth at all, it’s a FACT. Please spend some time reading Richard Sanders’ famous article: “The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action”:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Regarding the second half of the Myth, it is created by Ms. Jenn herself. I have never heard anyone saying that “a college admissions system that ONLY considers grades and SATs is more fair and objective”. We understand that grades and SATs are just parts of the entire admission criteria, but race should NEVER be. Grades and SATs have their own problems, just like our democracy is not perfect and sometimes can produce monsters like SCA5. Imperfect democracy doesn’t mean we should resort to totalitarianism, using similar logic, imperfect SATs doesn’t mean we need to use racism in college admission.

Near the end of the article, Ms. Jenn is confident that most Asian Americans in California would support SCA5, and cited a recent survey. Ms. Jenn, you should not rely on an outdated survey to prove your point. Just come here in California, you will see A Community Awoken, as David Lehrer described, you will see that we are united and determined to defeat the injustice, defeat your beloved monster SCA5.