In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 Asians and Native Americans in Higher Education Employment  The presence and achievements of Asians in higher education are a major characteristic distinguishing this group from other minorities. Summarizing demographic and enrollment changes for the period 1980–90, the authors of an American Council on Education report wrote, “In most states, the percentage of Asian Americans enrolled in higher education is proportionate to or slightly larger than their representation in the state population.” In many states, Asian higher education enrollment is far above their percentage of the population. In California, the state with the largest Asian population in 1990, “Asian Americans represented 9.6 percent of [the state’s] population, compared with 16.5 percent of four year enrollments.”1 Asian enrollment in graduate and professional programs is also impressive; indeed,“Asian Americans are the best educated Americans.”2 Asians’ performance in terms of test scores and grades is much superior to that of the other three minorities and is similar to and in some cases superior to that of whites. Asians differ from all other groups, including whites, in the selection of major fields of study, as they show greater interest in the sciences, engineering, and business programs than in education , the social sciences, and the humanities. Asian students come from relatively stable home environments. Most analysts attribute their success to “cultural factors that stress education, discipline, and achievement.”3 One scholar, Bill Ong Hing, questions such “straightforward ” explanations and argues: “The problem we can see after a review of the immigration history and a brief look at demographic factors is that because there are so many distinctive Asian American experiences, a single theory cannot address them all without simplifying their answers and negating the uniqueness of each community. . . . We must begin to appreciate the multifaceted , perhaps even contradictory, significance of achievement in Asian America .”4 Hing’s argument has merit, since Asians in America include over twenty subgroups with different historical, political, and cultural experiences, and since educational and economic achievements of certain Asian subgroups are far above those of some other subgroups. Yet, the cultural theory, however straightforward it may seem, offers the best available explanation of the Asian success in education. Overrepresentation of the Asian students in colleges and universities has led to discriminatory policies by some of the most prestigious and selective institutions of higher education. L. Ling-Chi Wang argues that these institutions, in particular the University of California–Berkeley, moved away from merit consideration in the 1980s and instead admitted students on the basis of “nonacademic and subjective criteria” and “student body diversity.”Wang further notes that such criteria redefined “the concept of diversity used in Bakke to justify the use of affirmative action programs to admit underrepresented minorities through the noncompetitive channel.” Limiting Asian students in higher education is “another manifestation of a very old anti-Asian racism deeply woven into the fabric of our society and embedded in our culture and national consciousness .” Wang claims that such racism is similar to the discrimination faced by the Jewish students in elite universities in the pre–World War II period , often referred to as the “Jewish problem.”5 Most Asian-American scholars agree with Wang. According to Jayjia Hsia, who presents a somewhat different perspective, “There is very little evidence for supporting the existence of widespread, collusive, or systematic exclusionary admissions policies. . . . Asian Americans being denied admission to the most prestigious colleges and medical schools each year are a mere handful compared to their total enrollment in higher education.” Hsia, however, cautions that “other pernicious problems may surface in these institutions if current admissions policies are continued over time by perpetuating the super Asian myth, . . . exacerbating divisiveness among ethnic groups, . . . discouraging qualified and motivated Asian Americans denied access to first-choice institutions.”6 Historically, employment discrimination against Asians was rooted in laws passed by Congress. Although Congress ended statutory discrimination against minorities by passing civil rights and immigration laws in the 1960s, prejudice against these groups did not disappear overnight. Bias against Asians in employment in higher education and other areas continued, despite immigration laws, civil rights legislation, and affirmative action programs. On the other hand, since Asians excelled in higher education and since their numbers in the country and, consequently, their political clout grew due to the removal of discriminatory immigration restrictions, we posit that their ranks in higher education employment also rose and that they increasingly faced less difficulty Asians and Native Americans in Higher Education...

Share