Sunday, January 7th 2007
The Asians are coming! Call the diversity police!
From the pages of the New York Times comes this article, the latest salvo in the battle against meritocracy in college admissions. The campus discussed is our very own, and the problem? Apparently there are too many Asians.
That’s right. Forget the supposed underrepresentation of other minorities, the substandard public schools that lead to differing educational opportunities, or any of the other myriad reasons cited in arguments for the reintroduction of affirmative action. The biggest problem caused by Proposition 209 seems to be that it has increased the number of Asians on campus. After a few paragraphs of reminiscing about the good ol’ days of protests, pot, and Peoples’ Park, the author describes today’s Cal as something more like a “small, industrious city of über-students” due in large part to its ever-increasing share of Asians. Yeah, that’s not stereotypical or anything.
And, of course, if we’re not careful, this demographic nightmare could happen at other schools too!
“IF Berkeley is now a pure meritocracy, what does that say about the future of great American universities in the post-affirmative action age? Are we headed toward a day when all elite colleges will look something like Berkeley[?]”
I’m not one to cry “racism” needlessly, but seriously, why is it okay to talk about there being too many Asians on a college campus (or mock Asian languages) and not okay to do this for other people? Oh, that’s right, because there aren’t any prominent Asians who make a living by telling people that it’s not okay.
This double-standard aside, it’s yet another example of how the proponents of racial preferences seem to think that race is a truly defining characteristic of a person. Diversity is hard to achieve if 41% of the people on your campus are all exactly the same…again, that’s not at all racist to think along those lines.
Now, okay, hyperbole aside, let’s take a long hard look at this reasoning.
“The oft-cited goal of a public university is to be a microcosm — in this case, of the nation’s most populous, most demographically dynamic state — and to enrich the educational experience with a variety of cultures, economic backgrounds and viewpoints.”
That’s all well and good to say, but if we want to be truly representative of all of California, shouldn’t we be taking people who aren’t academically qualified at all for Berkeley? People who haven’t completed high school? People who didn’t pass the high school exit exam? Reminds me of G. Harrold Carswell, the supposedly mediocre nominee for the Supreme Court who was defended by a couple Senators who argued that mediocre Americans deserved representation too.
Obviously a university isn’t trying to be truly representative of its state, not in all senses. Why then is race a special category? Diversity’s nice, but a school looking for students should try and pick the best *students*, whatever racial mix that process yields.
This is an epidemic! Those gosh darned Asians are coming and stealing our women! And by “women” I mean “academic achievement.” You know how those Asians are. They lust for our academic achievement all the time. What next? Interracial classrooms? Drinking from the same fountain of knowledge as other races? Clearly we need affirmative action to head this off.
Comment by B.A.D. — 1/8/2007 @ 12:37 am
*must hold back james-related asian comment*
Nicely said, though.
Comment by Megan S — 1/9/2007 @ 12:20 pm
James has an asian fetish.
Comment by Splinter — 1/10/2007 @ 2:22 pm
Hmm, Megan, looks like not everyone has your willpower. =P
In all seriousness, though, Splinter, I think that the fact you would say something like that points to something I sort of alluded to in the post, but didn’t explicitly discuss. Let me expand on it here for a sec.
Have you ever heard anyone say that someone has a “white fetish?” Or a “black fetish?” Or a “Latino fetish?” Probably not. (I’ve heard the second one a couple times, but rarely.) On the other hand, sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re not nearly the first person to come up with the phrase “Asian fetish.” Or, in case you think of it later, “yellow fever.” Or anything clever like that.
You know why that is? Asians are stereotyped and grouped together like no other. Because Asians are more recently arrived, in general, than other minority groups, and less numerous in most areas of the country, they’re more…different, in the eyes of the average American.
Let’s take a look at two of my favorite TV shows, for example. First, Grey’s Anatomy. In general I think this is an awesome show as far as not being stereotypical - they didn’t have the race of characters in mind when the characters were created, and you can definitely see that. Webber, Burke, and Bailey all are black, while most of the other main characters are white, but the story is really colorblind. It doesn’t matter what race the characters are. Switch the actors and actresses around, and it’d be trippy, but it wouldn’t make a difference as far as race goes. BUT - the exception is Christina Yang. The one Asian doctor…who happens to be the hardworking, competitive, Stanford and Berkeley grad. Intentional? I dunno. Stereotypical? Yup.
The other example is Lost. Sun Paik, the Korean lady who is a whiz with herbs and miracle asthma cures and all-natural ways to transfuse blood. One of the oldest Asian stereotypes in the books - the idea that there’s something mystic and exotic with their Eastern magical ways.
My point is this. Asians are viewed as being just a little different than the rest of us, which is why 1) they’re stereotyped in the media 2) it’s still fashionable to worry about them taking over a college campus and 3) it’s okay to assume that if someone hangs out with/dates multiple Asians, they must have an “Asian fetish.” Because, obviously, they’re all the same, right? (Answer: no.)
And that’s the same non-colorblind assumption that underlies these arguments about racial representativeness. It’s subsuming the individual as part of the group.
Comment by jfullmer — 1/11/2007 @ 1:26 pm
Here is a pretty well-written response to the NY Times article:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/01/10/the_new_yellow_peril
Comment by Rohit J — 1/13/2007 @ 4:49 pm
James:
-Grey’s Anatomy: Good show. Christina Yang is raised Jewish by non-biological parents. Your point- out the window. Look at the rest of the cast. George, Izzie, Alex: All extremely competitive, especially when it comes to scrubbing into surgeries. The show makes it clear that Izzie in particular had to work harder given the her trailor upbringing, posing for magazines in underwear to get through med school, etc. Meredith despite all her drama gets by and succeeds more than others based upon intelligence/capabilities alone…if she’s working hard, she hides it well.
-Lost: Don’t watch it.
I never claimed to make up the phrase “asian fetish.” I’m just saying it applies to you. And I’m sure it does.
Asians may be more “exotic” to many for the reasons you claim, but if that’s the case, explain why asian men generally don’t have that same effect on women. When you try to explain that, consider that the reason some guys have an “asian fetish” for women may be related.
As for other races, yes there are phrases to explain them. “Jungle fever” anyone?
Also, don’t fool yourself. You CAN generalize appearance on the basis of race and people do that all the time. There’s absolutely nothing wrong or unnatural about having a type.
Comment by Splinter — 1/19/2007 @ 3:04 pm
Aww, you’re back. I was just starting to get worried about you.
Your Grey’s Anatomy knowledge is indeed impressive (though Christina is actually raised by her biological mother and a stepfather - ’tis but a minor point). Izzie does indeed work very hard, but at the same time she comes across as more, I dunno…human than Christina? While they’re all competitive, Christina is definitely seen as more of a machine.
And you should watch Lost, at least the first season. It’ll change your life.
Not sure why you’re sure the phrase applies to me, but whatever.
The reason Asian men don’t, in general, have that same effect on women? The stereotype is different. Asian men are either stereotyped as crazy wise martial arts experts or nerds with glasses and spiked hair. And the second is I’d say, more prevalent as a stereotype, especially among people younger people. And it’s quite unfair, too.
I did note that I’d heard of phrases to explain a “black fetish.” I was in fact referring to “Jungle fever;” perhaps I should have explicitly stated that. My point was that it’s not nearly as common.
And…yeah…you can generalize appearance on the basis of race. I can, for example, say that most people of African descent will have dark skin or that most people of Asian descent will have dark hair.
Now, if you meant that you can generalize a person’s personal characteristics on the basis of race, there’s where I’d disagree with you.
Comment by jfullmer — 1/19/2007 @ 4:53 pm
Quickly:
The first stereotype of asian men as martial arts experts isn’t one I think really exists outside of your head and, oh, say ethnic studies. Nerds with glasses and spikey hair is becoming less and less true, but that’s just because having spikey hair is less fashionable now.
The phrase “jungle fever” is definitely more common than “asian fever,” but perhaps not outside of your circle.
And as for generalizations about race: “Jungle fever”/”Asian fever” generally to my knowledge characterizes a physical attraction to the respective race. You can generalize physical characteristics on the basis of race.
Comment by Splinter — 1/19/2007 @ 5:12 pm
Er, I mean “inside your circle.”
Comment by Splinter — 1/19/2007 @ 5:12 pm
Okay, yes, I agree that you can generalize physical characteristics on the basis of race. We’re cool there.
What I was taking issue with, in the original article, was the tying of personal characteristics (ie studiousness and whatnot) with race. I assumed that you were talking about attraction as not being based solely on physical aspects, in which case, having an “Asian fetish” or “Jungle Fever” would imply an attraction to some sort of non-physical characteristic common to Asians or blacks. That’s what I took issue with, so if that was me extrapolating too much, my bad.
Comment by jfullmer — 1/19/2007 @ 5:20 pm
Bush goes ballistic about other countries being evil and dangerous, because they have weapons of mass destruction. But, he insists on building up even a more deadly supply of nuclear arms right here in the US. What do you think? Is killing thousands of innocent civilians okay when you are doing a little government makeover?
What happened to us, people? When did we become such lemmings?
We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!
Comment by Antibush — 2/14/2007 @ 5:48 pm