Supreme Court on Affirmative Action

[ism]

The Supreme Court agreed earlier in the week to hear two cases that challenge the University of Michigan's race-based policy of ensuring diversity in its undergraduate and law school programs. This is the first time in two decades since the issue has reached the top level of the judicial system. In 1978, the Bakke decision invalidated racial quotas but upheld diversity as a goal. The cases here could invalidate the use of race as a whole.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th District upheld the school's position in a 5-4 vote. The Supreme Court vote is expected to be just as narrow, with the deciding vote by O'Conner.

The Constitutional right to equal protection only applies directly to government institutions. However, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any institution that receives federal money is barred from race discrimination. A white woman is challenging the law school, and two white students are challenging the undergraduate school, all for non-acceptance, citing less-qualified minority students who got accepted.

Now the interesting part. From the New York Times (emphasis mine):
At the law school today, 74 of 1,109 students are black (6.7 percent) and 49 are Hispanic (4.4 percent). Students of Asian background are not considered "underrepresented minorities" and do not benefit from affirmative action programs at Michigan. Among undergraduate students, 8.4 percent are black and 4.7 percent are Hispanic.
Should Asians care one way or the other about affirmative action in terms of whether it harms or helps us? On one hand, if an "underrepresented" minority takes a slot that an equally or more deserving Asian would have gotten, that is harmful. On the other hand, other minorities are being helped, and we, as a minority, are in a similar fight and what helps them helps us. What makes Asians the exception? The fact that in general, we excel?

What happens if in two or three generations, Asian aptitude resembles that of the general white population? I am asserting that Asian excellence in academia is a cultural phenomenon and not inherent; in several years as Asians assimilate, this cultural reinforcement could diminish. There is a possible future where the racism that affects current underrepresented minorities will affect Asians as our aptitude is not held in such esteem. If we let affirmative action go now, will it come back to haunt us?

[Azn Retribution]

affirmative action to begin with is Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Repeat it again with me, Bullshit

Jobs and Education should always be **MERIT** based.
It shouldn't matter what color you are.
What your background is
who gives a fuck.
It just matters if you can do the job well or have the intelligence for it.

Once again Jesse Jackson and his Black KKK/Extortion Company the NAACP are proved as colossal pricks.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 03:01 PM
affirmative action to begin with is Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Repeat it again with me, Bullshit

Jobs and Education should always be **MERIT** based.
It shouldn't matter what color you are.
What your background is
who gives a fuck.
It just matters if you can do the job well or have the intelligence for it.

Once again Jesse Jackson and his Black KKK/Extortion Company the NAACP are proved as colossal pricks.
but you're assuming that without affirmative action, jobs and education would automatically be merit based. in my opinion this is a false assumption. implementation of affirmative action is not perfect, but affirmative action itself is definitely not bullshit.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 08:01 PM
affirmative action to begin with is Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Repeat it again with me, Bullshit

Jobs and Education should always be **MERIT** based.
It shouldn't matter what color you are.
What your background is
who gives a fuck.
It just matters if you can do the job well or have the intelligence for it.

Once again Jesse Jackson and his Black KKK/Extortion Company the NAACP are proved as colossal pricks.
I don't believe that affirmative action is not the anti-meritocratic institution that you make it out to be. Unlike a strict, open-ended quota system, which most people seem to think of, affirmative action is an effective way of helping qualified minorities and disadvantaged people gain access to the channels of social mobility that would otherwise be closed to them for non-meritocratic reasons. It's not about "so-and-so number or minorities or bust." It's about using different criteria to measure and find qualified, smart people.

You assume that the job and school application processes would normally be truly merit-based. This is not true. People in power have always given themselves a leg up whether its due to legacy preferences, excess attention to frat and social club affiliations, family connections, whatever... In the end, the admissions and employment selection has always been more than a numbers game. Affirmative action forces admissions officers and employers to look beyond the innately biased measures that otherwise out-of-touch admissions officers would normally use to measure the academic and social merit of an applicant. They have to take a better look at what the applicant has done with the cards given to him or her. As a result, the progress we've made more meritocratic education system has happened because of affirmative action. The ability to look beyond a certain, misleading ideal of academic preparadness shaped by the outdated glory days of WASPy America has produced greater economic and academic gains because those with the persistence, ambition and capability are better able to make those qualities known and useful. Race has always determined and limited what we all will be able to learn and take advantage of. Until it stops playing such an undeserved role, we will need to take it into account to judge the true worth of applying students and employees.

In the end, I think people are usually against affirmative action because they don't quite understand what it does. In popular culture and "objective journalism," we've been subjected to so much white resentment about how they've lost complete control of the playground that most of us have started accepting all these misleading statements as fact without looking at the logic behind such sentiments. Just because some prep-school jerk thinks a black or hispanic kid from a much poorer neighborhood and a lower SAT score is not qualified to be at a certain school doesn't mean that assessment is true. You can just look at the shortcomings and biases that rule our schools and standardized testing system and realize that the outlook affirmative action has helped push schools and employers to more accurately and relativistically judge applicant potential.

-------

I feel that underrepresented minorities aren't taking spots away from deserving Asians. White people with a better hold on power, cultural capital and social graces do. They're the ones who reinforce stereotypes and deemphasize the diversity among minority populations, putting APA's in a highly selective and constraining mold. They're the ones who treat us like a distinct social group without recognizing the social and cultural barriers that influence APA's lives.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 12:01 PM
affirmative action to begin with is Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Repeat it again with me, Bullshit

Jobs and Education should always be **MERIT** based.
It shouldn't matter what color you are.
What your background is
who gives a fuck.
It just matters if you can do the job well or have the intelligence for it.

Once again Jesse Jackson and his Black KKK/Extortion Company the NAACP are proved as colossal pricks.
I am all for affirmative action to a certain extent. Affirmative action has gotten certain people to given an oppunitity to achieve. America is still a very white based society. Minorities have fought a lot to given an equal level playing field. Growing up in even San Francisco. I know that without affirmative action they will still be a slight inbalance of standard in the city.

VB Kao says it best. "I think people are usually against affirmative action because they don't quite understand what it does. In popular culture and "objective journalism," we've been subjected to so much white resentment about how they've lost complete control of the playground that most of us have started accepting all these misleading statements as fact without looking at the logic behind such sentiments. " Well said.

[Azn Retribution]

I know what it does more then you might think
I know the full implications and what it was intended to do.
and just as you are the representitive of one side of the spectrum I am the not the other as you might. I am more of a middle ground and would prefer an alternative solution.
and I do think it does more harm then it does good.

the way it is executed is completely wrong.
and people use it for the wrong reasons or for reasons it wasn't intended for.

Your version is the "public-relations" version.

Fact is what we end up with is not as desirable as what we would have without a formal or informal quota system, mind you in place.

What we do end up with praytell?

Underqualified workers in jobs where they shouldn't be and qualified workers going on unemployed. which is similar to students.

While it does work to a certain extent.
It is VERY VERY much abused.
as you can see with the NAACP's extortion like tactics.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 09:37 PM
I know what it does more then you might think
I know the full implications and what it was intended to do.
and just as you are the representitive of one side of the spectrum I am the not the other as you might. I am more of a middle ground and would prefer an alternative solution.
and I do think it does more harm then it does good.

the way it is executed is completely wrong.
and people use it for the wrong reasons or for reasons it wasn't intended for.

Your version is the "public-relations" version.

Fact is what we end up with is not as desirable as what we would have without a formal or informal quota system, mind you in place.

What we do end up with praytell?

Underqualified workers in jobs where they shouldn't be and qualified workers going on unemployed. which is similar to students.

While it does work to a certain extent.
It is VERY VERY much abused.
as you can see with the NAACP's extortion like tactics.
Hey, I never said it was perfect. Welcome to the world. I admit that I wish the world worked differently, but it doesn't. People are racist, smelly stinkers who don't do things the right way unless forced to by the market, by the government or both. You balance what you can. We accept some institutions (like income taxes, the tort system) that are open to abuse because they produce overall results that are better than no system at all and Americans have been unable to get our moral, intellectual and economic act together enough to consider using another alternative.

My personal experience hasn't been like yours and my opinion is based on more than the typical liberal spiel. I've seen smart kids who had to deal with a lot of socioeconomic shit get decent (but not stellar) numbers and get into prestigious places they deserve to be even though they couldn't afford to throw money away at Kaplan and Princeton Review. I've seen hard working minorities get good jobs they deserve because companies using affirmative are out looking for people of unique social backgrounds. Businesses are beginning to realize the value of diversity and

And if you're willing to admit that it works when it's done right, then it's not bullshit, is it? At least not according to the definition that I know. I just don't see the instances of abuse outweighing the real, if less entertaining, benefits it has brought to our society. I feel like it's worked in a widespread, quiet way that opponents haven't bothered to notice.

Out of curiosity, what do you find to be the NAACP's "extortion tactics?"

[Azn Retribution]

more often then not it is used the wrong way.
Extortion tactics? Sueing companies and threatning lawsuits
for not having enough of a certain race working for them.
That is what the NAACP has evolved to thanks to Jesse Jackson.
their actions as of late are insanely ludicrous.

some sort of system should be in place as
Its not perfect and in the end it always falls somewhere on the gray
but I vehemently disagree with the way affirmative action has been heading especially with the quota system. It has been heading toward pro-black and mexican disregarding the need poor white/asian etc families might need.
remember not all asians are geniuses or rich and same for the whites

I'm all for diversity but race should not be the deciding part of it.
Maybe situational but not definitely not race.
we are all human. and I will state again
that the race card is bullshit.

and as for the topic of this thread
what that means is that
Minorities(blacks/mexicans) even with significantly lower grades will be picked over whites and asians(whats new?)
when it comes to jobs/college what not.

[VV o n g B a]

what do you then think about the percentage rule? as being implemented in texas and cali (maybe elsewhere?) the plan lets all high school students in the top 5, 10 or something percentage of their class get into state colleges. nominally, this sounds fair. but it was implemented to get around the banned affirmative action laws because many high schools are minority dominated.

i personally think this is more fair than affimative action b/c low income kids then get to compete. unfortunately, it only applies to situations like college and not in the workplace.

[Azn Retribution]

how would low income kids not be able to compete?
Im talking about affirmative action being more race based these days not
situational based.

so are you saying low income kids are stupid and need help to get accepted?
because thats what these quotas are saying. they are insulting to the races they supposedly help.

Low Income kids can be just as smart as any rich kid and rich kids are usually too busy indulging themselves to get the qualities needed to suceed in life.
The money help I think is alright however the acceptance part is rigodamndiculous.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 10:42 PM
how would low income kids not be able to compete?
Im talking about affirmative action being more race based these days not
situational based.

so are you saying low income kids are stupid and need help to get accepted?
because thats what these quotas are saying. they are insulting to the races they supposedly help.

Low Income kids can be just as smart as any rich kid and rich kids are usually too busy indulging themselves to get the qualities needed to suceed in life.
The money help I think is alright however the acceptance part is rigodamndiculous.
given an equally smart and hard-working poor kid and rich kid, the rich kid will have higher grades cuz he has less chores to take care of and access to more resources.

so i do believe in affirmative action that takes into account 'disadvantaged" backgrounds. I kind of agree with race-based aff action too but anything i've wanted to say has been covered already.

re: VVongba, I don't know if i like the automatic top 10% rule. I'll say that someone in the top 50% of my school, for instance, is probably smarter and more qualified based on academic merit to enter a top state U than someone in the top 10% of a shitty hs. Different schools have different competition and different student bodies. I think the 10% rule isn't terrible, but it's by no means an excellent rule. Plus it may fill up a lot of state spots that could have instead attracted more qualified out-of-staters. also, i don't believe grades are the best metric b/c schools are so different fr each other; i think a better metric would be standardized tests even tho there are also problems w/ that.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Affirmative action doesn't (or shouldn't) work according to a quota system. It's generally unconstitutional for the state to use strict quotas. From what I've read, private employers and schools have found that once you do the recruiting, a certain level of applicants comes out and counteracts most discrepancies in number-based qualifications. Businesses have gone forward in diversity recruitment and affirmative action because they realize that it does not necessarily hinder their economic position or internal office dynamic. I don't doubt that it has in some cases, but I think the bad is simply more visible and colorful (pardon the pun) than the positive legacy.

Affirmative action is also not something that has stuck only to race. It has transformed the way colleges and employers work by forcing them to become more geographically diverse. It has helped fight past gender inequality as well. Like I said before, I don't think people realize how much affirmative action has actually helped them.

Because APA's are not recognized as a disadvantaged group, they don't get the benefit of a lot of affirmative programs. I think that's wrong, but I don't see that as a reason to take affirmative action away. It's a reason for us as APA's to start raising hell and get our problems noticed, recognized and remedied. We don't benefit by dragging down the poorest members of society who are in a better position to understand our needs. That only gets us a marginally higher trophy spot on the status quo's totem pole. We solve the problem by making ourselves heard and targeting the real culprits. We shouldn't aim to harm the social mobility of black and hispanics. We should learn from them. It took them hundreds of years to get where they are. Soon, the APA population will be in similar straits as more immigrants come in and the balance between "desirable", educated immigrants and poor immigrants looking for any opportunity they can find gets more and more skewed to the latter group.

As much as I wish I lived in a world where we're all considered human and race doesn't matter, it does not. Race matters. Whether we like it or not, it plays an integral part in who we are and how other people view and treat us. To not make it a deciding factor in any kind of effort to correct societal inequities without taking race into account just doesn't cut it. Making the business world and academic sphere more diverse implicitly means bringing in race. You can't get around it.

And to all you budding Marxists out there, Americans are too stuck in their capitalist delirium to want to want a system that works by class or income criteria, so that only leaves one avenue. I wish it could be more directly class-based in its approach, but that's the political reality we live in. Communism and populism are dead. Anything that sounds like them might as well be radioactive feces to the average voter or puppet politician.

-------------

WongBa: I think that top 5-10% rule is okay if the top 5-10% are really determined to go to the designated universities and are not headed to greener pastures like private and Ivy League universities. In the end, are poorer & minority kids who for some reason or another stuck in the slightly lower 10-20th %ile going to get a better chance of going to a university they're generally qualified for? I'm skeptical.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 10:42 PM
how would low income kids not be able to compete?
Im talking about affirmative action being more race based these days not
situational based.

so are you saying low income kids are stupid and need help to get accepted?
because thats what these quotas are saying. they are insulting to the races they supposedly help.

Low Income kids can be just as smart as any rich kid and rich kids are usually too busy indulging themselves to get the qualities needed to suceed in life.
The money help I think is alright however the acceptance part is rigodamndiculous.
yes, in many cases i believe low income kids need help, but i certainly don't they are stupid. there are certain habits you develop depending on where you live and who you hang out with. in many cases, its not cool to do too well in school. the kids i hung out with considered good grades a part of coolness. everybody studied and everybody took as many AP classes as they could fit. i knew kids in the same school however that thought differently. i think i was lucky that it turned out this way. part of my study ethic came from wanting to fit in. i believe it could easily have gone the other way however. if i felt considerable pressure from friends NOT to do well, i might well have caved in. in low income neighborhoods this pressure is greater. given the improper environment, those who would otherwise do well, won't. single parent families also hurt because the parent has to pull double duty making money and raising the kid properly. no man is an island.

rich kids may overindulge themselves, but rich families provide opportunities and connections a poor family couldn't dream of. i like to use george bush as an example... he was a fuckup in college, borderline alcoholic, and used cocaine. but based on his family connections, he got into prestigious schools one after another and cleaned his act up eventually. he went on to become CEO of an oil company, governor and president with significant help from his family and family friends. tell me of a poor family that could offer a similar story.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Dec 3 2002, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 10:42 PM
how would low income kids not be able to compete?
Im talking about affirmative action being more race based these days not
situational based.

so are you saying low income kids are stupid and need help to get accepted?
because thats what these quotas are saying. they are insulting to the races they supposedly help.

Low Income kids can be just as smart as any rich kid and rich kids are usually too busy indulging themselves to get the qualities needed to suceed in life.
The money help I think is alright however the acceptance part is rigodamndiculous.
given an equally smart and hard-working poor kid and rich kid, the rich kid will have higher grades cuz he has less chores to take care of and access to more resources.

so i do believe in affirmative action that takes into account 'disadvantaged" backgrounds. I kind of agree with race-based aff action too but anything i've wanted to say has been covered already.

re: VVongba, I don't know if i like the automatic top 10% rule. I'll say that someone in the top 50% of my school, for instance, is probably smarter and more qualified based on academic merit to enter a top state U than someone in the top 10% of a shitty hs. Different schools have different competition and different student bodies. I think the 10% rule isn't terrible, but it's by no means an excellent rule. Plus it may fill up a lot of state spots that could have instead attracted more qualified out-of-staters. also, i don't believe grades are the best metric b/c schools are so different fr each other; i think a better metric would be standardized tests even tho there are also problems w/ that.
i agree, the percentage rule isn't "excellent" but i feel its more targeted than a flat out race based rule because I don't think race is the root issue. its economics.

and yea, it does suck if u're a guy stuck right outside of the percentage... not much i can say there.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by VBKao@Dec 3 2002, 06:06 PM
Because APA's are not recognized as a disadvantaged group, they don't get the benefit of a lot of affirmative programs. I think that's wrong, but I don't see that as a reason to take affirmative action away. It's a reason for us as APA's to start raising hell and get our problems noticed, recognized and remedied. We don't benefit by dragging down the poorest members of society who are in a better position to understand our needs. That only gets us a marginally higher trophy spot on the status quo's totem pole. We solve the problem by making ourselves heard and targeting the real culprits. We shouldn't aim to harm the social mobility of black and hispanics. We should learn from them. It took them hundreds of years to get where they are. Soon, the APA population will be in similar straits as more immigrants come in and the balance between "desirable", educated immigrants and poor immigrants looking for any opportunity they can find gets more and more skewed to the latter group.
actually, current asian immigrants tend to be skilled professionals, doctors, etc etc. so it would probably be skewered toward "desirable" immigrants.

but concerning whether or not affirmative action helps asian americans. immigration trends in the past shows that there are two types of asian immigrants. those that came to the US looking for better opportunities, and those that escaped from unlivable situations in their home countries. the first group tends to do well in the states, but the latter group tends to perform at around the black and hispanic average, that is, well below the white average.

there's also the matter of the glass ceiling. it's a fact that asian individuals and women with the same reponsibilities on the job as a white male actually gets paid less than the white male.

Azn Retribution: i agree that race should not be a deciding factor, but without affirmative action, race would be a negative deciding factor for women and minorities. affirmative action, while not perfect, is the corrective action against that.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Dec 3 2002, 11:59 PM
Azn Retribution: i agree that race should not be a deciding factor, but without affirmative action, race would be a negative deciding factor for women and minorities. affirmative action, while not perfect, is the corrective action against that.
Good call.

Geopolitically and economically, I think the rest of the world's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, so I think we are going to be seeing more Asian immigrants with lower levels of education and in-demand skills though. You don't think the second group of people you mentioned are going to grow in number though and start balancing the number of educated ones out?

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by Azn Retribution@Dec 3 2002, 02:42 PM
so are you saying low income kids are stupid and need help to get accepted?
because thats what these quotas are saying. they are insulting to the races they supposedly help.


No, that's not it.

Low income kids who most likely attended overcrowded, understaffed schools can't be directly compared to kids who attended a fancy-schmancy New England prep school and whose parents could afford $700 worth of SAT tutoring but who needs that anyway because mummy went to Harvard and so a prime "legacy" spot is reserved for them.

Arguments against affirmative action ignore issues of racial and socioeconomic privilege some groups have over others. Are these privileges fair? Certainly not. But ignoring them and saying "Help yourself get ahead! Go by merit only!" will not make them go away.

And claiming that Asian Americans no longer "need" affirmative action is just wrong. It completely buys into the model minority myth. The stereotype is that APAs are successful, and thus don't need help. Last time I checked, APAs still suffer rampant discrimination, and quite a few of them are living below the poverty level. There are APAs who need help, and a pat on the back and a "You're smart enough to get yourself out of this without government help!" solves nothing.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by VBKao@Dec 3 2002, 07:47 PM
Geopolitically and economically, I think the rest of the world's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, so I think we are going to be seeing more Asian immigrants with lower levels of education and in-demand skills though. You don't think the second group of people you mentioned are going to grow in number though and start balancing the number of educated ones out?
no i don't see it happening. at least not for Asian immigrants. a big percentage of the "poor" group of asian immigrants belong to vietnamese, khmers, laos, cambodians, etc, southeast asian groups that were effected by the vietnam war. and i don't know about other asian countries, but i know there are plenty of poor chinese immigrants. however, now that china's economy is on the rise, a safer and easier option for poor chinese people is to go to urban areas in china instead of actually emgrating, legally or illegally. unless something traumatic breaks out in asia, i really don't imagine there would be suddenly a big influx of poor asian immigrants. and despite china and probably india's efforts to stop their "brain drain", (both countries combined account for 2/5 of the world's population) indian and chinese professionals still do get paid more in the US than in their respective home countries.

perhaps we'll see an influx of poor middle eastern immigrants?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Elizabeth A.@Dec 3 2002, 08:36 PM
And claiming that Asian Americans no longer "need" affirmative action is just wrong. It completely buys into the model minority myth. The stereotype is that APAs are successful, and thus don't need help. Last time I checked, APAs still suffer rampant discrimination, and quite a few of them are living below the poverty level. There are APAs who need help, and a pat on the back and a "You're smart enough to get yourself out of this without government help!" solves nothing.
correct.

i know that bad implementation of affirmative action (which involved quotas - which are definitely not condoned) has hurt asian americans in the past. but asian americans really are not doing as well as the media would have you think. asian americans do not get promoted past middle management as much as their white counterparts do, asian americans are paid less for doing the same jobs.

and yes, be careful of the model minority myth. it was pretty much created by the Reagan administration so that they can point to blacks and hispanics and say, "look, asians can do it, why can't you?". in other words, it was created to use asian americans as an excuse to cut welfare, and blacks and hispanics benefitted from welfare the most.

[ism]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Dec 3 2002, 11:17 PM
and yes, be careful of the model minority myth. it was pretty much created by the Reagan administration so that they can point to blacks and hispanics and say, "look, asians can do it, why can't you?". in other words, it was created to use asian americans as an excuse to cut welfare, and blacks and hispanics benefitted from welfare the most.
This is what I originally was concerned about. I wasn't really too interested in debating Affirmative Action per se but wanted to discuss what Affirmative Action means to Asians. If this myth crumbles, and it is conceivable it will in time, because it is not true, the racism that affects the "other" minorities will affect us as well.

And I don't know if it was clear in my original post, but hard racial quotas have been ruled unconstitutional since 1978. These new cases are testing whether the goal of diversity is something the government has any say over.

[Shuriken]

Whenever someone brings up affirmative action, I always think of the Miss Saigon controversy.

Back in 1990, British producer Cameron Mackintosh insisted on casting the white British actor Jonathan Pryce in the stage musical's Asian male lead — which was to be Broadway's first Asian male non-supporting role in 15 years. (Ostensibly 100% Vietnamese in the libretto, the character was described as "Eurasian" to accommodate a white actor in the part.) Some minority members of Actors Equity, including B.D. Wong, got the union to veto Pryce's casting because no Asian actors were considered for the part. The union hoped that Mackintosh would take their decision to arbitration, where Equity's side of the story could be argued and potentially reversed. But by then, Miss Saigon had already racked up $25 million in advance ticket sales (a record at the time), so Mackitosh decided that he didn't need to deal with Equity. He cancelled Miss Saigon's Broadway production, citing that Equity had discriminated against Pryce "on the basis of his race." The backlash against Equity and the Asian American creative community was immediate and intense. Pryce was extolled in the press as a victim of "reverse discrimination." George F. Will wrote:

Remember this name: Cameron Mackintosh. He is the British producer who, by standing up for artistic freedom and against today's trendy racism [i.e., affirmative action], told some American liberals that he will not be party to their traducing of this American...principle: It is wicked to allocate opportunity on the basis of race.

However, Will completely overlooked the fact that Mackintosh had used race as a consideration in casting Miss Saigon's Asian female lead. As far as Mackintosh was concerned, it was okay to consider race when it came to casting the attractive, "exotic" ingènue — and to travel the world to find her (Mackintosh cast Lea Salonga after holding auditions in the Philippines). But when it came to casting the Asian male lead, different criteria were suddenly applied: the actor must be an established star of the British stage (which meant that East Asian actors were automatically out of the running), and being Asian would not be a factor.

Mackintosh prevailed in the Miss Saigon dispute largely, I believe, because the press were only interested in Pryce's status as a "victim" of affirmative action, as an individual. They had no interest in the institutional racial disparities of Broadway casting or Mackintosh's arbitrary racial double standard in casting the male and female leads. (For more about the Miss Saigon controversy, see the book Asian American Dreams by Helen Zia.) This is indicative of the way the affirmative-action debate is generally handled in the press: focus on the white individuals who are being disadvantaged by affirmative action, and ignore the larger racial disparities that privilege whites institutionally.

When it comes to Miss Saigon, Asian Americans who oppose affirmative action will usually just dismiss the musical because of its content: it's just a treacly exaltation of the Madame Butterfly stereotype. They say that the equally stereotypical role of the musical's Asian male lead wasn't worth fighting over, and they leave it at that. But can anyone honestly say that Asian American actors have equal opportunities to play lead roles in the mainstream entertainment industry? And if the industry can prevent Asian American actors from playing a "bad" Asian lead role, what will stop it from preventing Asian American actors from playing "good" Asian lead roles?

[Shuriken]

Once again, Shuriken posts another conversation-killer... :P

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Dec 7 2002, 07:00 PM
Once again, Shuriken posts another conversation-killer...   :P
hahhah you just know waaaay more about films and theater than the rest of us! don't know where to begin talking! hahhaha!