今天主流媒体洛杉矶时报在它的Opinion栏目等出一篇文章：
标题是：Affirmative action at California colleges: A debate based on fear
副标题是：Asian Americans worry they will lose seats at UC campuses if affirmative action is reinstated
文章的作者是：Karthick Ramakrishnan。

这篇文章值得我们好好阅读，它为我们敲响了警钟。小编认为这反映了如下两个问题：

1、主流媒体已经开始注意SCA-5法案的问题以及华裔的反弹。一场关于教育要不要回到Affirmative action时代的讨论也许要开始。
2、在主流社会的眼睛里华人的反弹是处于一种对于“失去”的恐惧。

我们自己认为很有理的事情，别人看来不一定有理。那我们如何去说服人家呢？小编认为还是：第一、美国的核心价值观，第二、SCA-5所根据的数据到底有没有道理、是不是事实。

原文如下：

Affirmative action at California colleges: A debate based on fear

Asian Americans worry they will lose seats at UC campuses if affirmative action is reinstated.

By Karthick Ramakrishnan

March 7, 2014

Is the debate on affirmative action versus race-blind policies mainly about principle, or mostly about preserving narrow group interests? We are beginning to find out in California. A bill passed by the state Senate and pending in the Assembly would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would overturn portions of Proposition 209 to exempt public college and university admissions from the ban on racial, ethnic and gender preferences.

There are principled reasons to support as well as to oppose affirmative action in higher education. Supporters tend to invoke the importance of having diverse perspectives and backgrounds in educational settings, for advantaged and disadvantaged groups alike. Opponents argue for equal treatment in how rules are applied across racial groups. Both arguments, in different ways, speak to core American values.

However, in addition to principled debates, we are also seeing reactions that are more clearly motivated by group fears about potentially losing admission seats, in particular at the University of California.

Interestingly, many of these fears are emanating not from conservative white voters but from a few vocal Asian American organizations. National advocacy groups such as the 80-20 Political Action Committee, editorial writers in Chinese-language newspapers and activists from Chinese-language schools have begun to bombard Assembly members, urging them to vote against restoring affirmative action. They worry that Asian American students, who saw a sizable increase in UC enrollment following 209's ban on affirmative action in 1996, will see a big drop in enrollment if affirmative action is restored.

At the same time, most Asian American civil rights and community service organizations maintain that affirmative action is an important way to ensure equity and diversity in higher education, including among disadvantaged Pacific Islanders and Asian groups such as Cambodians and Laotians. Furthermore, most Asian American voters also favor affirmative action programs. In 1996, they opposed the ban on affirmative action by 61% to 39%, and data from the 2012 National Asian American Survey indicate continued strong support for affirmative action.

However, we might find a different set of racial dynamics in California today with the proposed state constitutional amendment to restore affirmative action.

First, using neutral survey language to ask voters about their hypothetical support for affirmative action is far different from gauging voter opinion after an intense issue campaign. If Asian-language newspapers and Chinese-language schools inject themselves more fully into the debate and stoke fears of losing admission seats, we may indeed see a significant shift in Asian American opinion. And these opinions will matter more now because the Asian American share of the California electorate has doubled since 1996 to 10%, potentially constituting the margin of victory or defeat.

Just as important, the focus on narrow group interests might also change the opinions of white voters in California in surprising ways.

When whites voted overwhelmingly against affirmative action in 1996, the UC admission rates for whites and Asian Americans were roughly equal, at 83% and 84%, respectively. Today, under the ban on affirmative action, the admission rate for whites is 65%, compared with 73% for Asian Americans.

These gaps may become relevant to the attitudes of white voters confronted with a new choice on affirmative action. Experimental studies of white voter opinion show that support for merit-based university admissions drops significantly when respondents are provided information about the high success rate of Asian Americans.

If the primary consideration in voters' minds is the potential loss or gain for their own racial group, we may indeed see a reversal in voting patterns of whites and Asian Americans on affirmative action. This is particularly true if group fears are based on the kinds of erroneous or exaggerated claims we are already seeing.

For example, some ethnic media stories claim that affirmative action would cap Asian American admissions to their share of the resident population. Not only has this kind of quota been ruled unconstitutional since 1978; such fears also ignore the fact that the Asian American share of UC students was about three times their state population share in 1995, when affirmative action was last in place.

Instead of deciding based on misinformation or fear, and worrying about narrow group interests, we can have a more principled conversation about whether a racially diverse college-educated population is important for a stable and equitable California. Proponents of affirmative action will also need to make a much stronger case for why existing programs to ensure diversity are insufficient, including one that admits the top 9% of students from most high schools in the state.

Such principled arguments hold the promise not only to elevate the debate among California voters but also to ensure its constitutionality in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Karthick Ramakrishnan is an associate professor of political science at UC Riverside and has published four books on immigration, race and politics.

谢谢关注“美国华人”。

“美国华人”微信公众号是一个立场中立的、传播美国华人正能量的微信自媒体。我们的宗旨是美国华人团结一心、关心政治、共同进步。近期会每天推送华人反对SCA5活动的最新消息和精选文章。点击查阅“美国华人”精选文章。

关注方法：在微信地址簿点添加，选“订阅号”，查“美国华人”，第一个就是，也可以查询微信号：ChineseAmericans，点关注就可。也可以打开你的微信扫上边的二维码。