ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> The Volokh Conspiracy

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: The Volokh Conspiracy

Asian-Americans and Affirmative Action

By Ilya Somin

ADVERTISEMENTS
(Ilya Somin)

As co-blogger David Bernstein notes, Fisher v. Texas highlights the ways in which today?s affirmative action programs victimize Asian-American students for the benefit of groups that often have not endured the kind of massive systematic discrimination inflicted on blacks, and indeed may have suffered less historic discrimination than the Asian-Americans themselves. I previously wrote about this problem here:

The Asian-American case also highlights the contradiction between the compensatory justice and diversity rationales for affirmative action in admissions... If the goal of affirmative action is to compensate minority groups who have been victimized by discrimination for the injustices they have suffered, many Asian-American groups deserve not only equal treatment but racial preferences. Chinese and Japanese-Americans, for example, were victimized by extensive state-sponsored discrimination ? culminating in the internment of some 150,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II, despite the fact that none were ever proven to be enemy spies, and very few showed any signs of disloyalty....

If, on the other hand, the goal of affirmative action is [as Grutter holds] to promote ?diversity? for the sake of ensuring that each ethnic group is represented by a ?critical mass? in the student body sufficient to educate other students about their culture, then the lack of affirmative action for Asian-Americans becomes more understandable. Because of their impressive academic credentials, a critical mass of Asian students can be achieved even without affirmative action preferences. However, this conclusion may be overstated. ?Asians? are not a monolithic group. Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Cambodians all have very different cultures [and some of these groups don?t have as high average grades and test scores as others]. Indeed, immigrants from one part of India or China often have different cultures and speak different languages from those hailing from other parts of the same nation. Treating them all as an undifferentiated mass of ?Asian-Americans? is a bit like saying that Norwegians, Italians, and Bulgarians are basically the same because they are ?Europeans.? If diversity is really the goal, university administrators should do away with the artificial ?Asian-American? category altogether and start considering each group separately. They should do the same for the many groups usually lumped together as ?white? or ?Hispanic.? A university that already has a critical mass of native-born-WASPS might well not have a critical mass of Utah Mormons or Eastern European immigrants.


Full post as published by The Volokh Conspiracy on January 21, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0178 secs (new cache)