Jennifer Lee, Van C. Tran
Sociological Science, September 26, 2019
10.15195/v6.a21
Abstract
Presumed competent, U.S. Asians evince exceptional educational outcomes but lack the cultural pedigree of elite whites that safeguard them from bias in the labor market. In spite of their nonwhite minority status, Asians also lack the legacy of disadvantage of blacks that make them eligible beneficiaries of affirmative action. Their labor market disadvantage coupled with their exclusion from affirmative action programs place Asians in a unique bind: do they support policies that give preferences to blacks but exclude them? Given their self- and group interests, this bind should make Asians unlikely to do so. We assess whether this is the case by comparing their attitudes to those of whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Drawing on a novel three-way framing experiment embedded in the 2016 National Asian American Survey, we document how the “mere mention of Asians” in affirmative action frames affects support for the preferential hiring and promotion of blacks. Support shifts in different ways among all groups depending on the mere mention of Asians as either victims of affirmative action alongside whites or as victims of discrimination alongside blacks. Moreover, among Asians, support for affirmative action differs significantly by immigrant generation: first-generation Asians express the weakest support.
Presumed competent, U.S. Asians evince exceptional educational outcomes but lack the cultural pedigree of elite whites that safeguard them from bias in the labor market. In spite of their nonwhite minority status, Asians also lack the legacy of disadvantage of blacks that make them eligible beneficiaries of affirmative action. Their labor market disadvantage coupled with their exclusion from affirmative action programs place Asians in a unique bind: do they support policies that give preferences to blacks but exclude them? Given their self- and group interests, this bind should make Asians unlikely to do so. We assess whether this is the case by comparing their attitudes to those of whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Drawing on a novel three-way framing experiment embedded in the 2016 National Asian American Survey, we document how the “mere mention of Asians” in affirmative action frames affects support for the preferential hiring and promotion of blacks. Support shifts in different ways among all groups depending on the mere mention of Asians as either victims of affirmative action alongside whites or as victims of discrimination alongside blacks. Moreover, among Asians, support for affirmative action differs significantly by immigrant generation: first-generation Asians express the weakest support.
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
- Citation: Lee, Jennifer, and Van C. Tran. 2019. “The Mere Mention of Asians in Affirmative Action.” Sociological Science 6: 551-579.
- Received: July 15, 2019
- Accepted: September 2, 2019
- Editors: Jesper Sørensen, Kim Weeden
- DOI: 10.15195/v6.a21
This article states that “Despite being more likely to graduate from college than whites, Asians are neither more likely to attain a professional job nor earn as much as comparably educated whites, even after adjusting for age, gender, nativity, education, college selectivity, academic major, employment sector, and region of the country.” Very little evidence supports this claim which is grossly exaggerated and based on an obvious cherry-picking of the most limited studies. The most recent, thorough and detailed analysis of this issue was rejected by Sociological Science (MS#346389) in 2016 probably because it did not reach Lee and Tran’s bombastic claim (although MS#346389 was later published elsewhere). Lee and Tran of course totally ignore the latter publication of MS#346389 because it does not fit their political ideology. Contrary to its market branding, “Sociological Science” appears to be accepting papers primarily on the basis of their “political correctness” not their scientific correctness.
If these data are really “nationally” representative, then why is the sample size of Japanese (517) greater than the sample size for Chinese (475) as stated on page 558? The Chinese population in the US is over 4 times greater than the Japanese population in the US. These data do not appear to be based on a scientific sampling method that is nationally representative. Making conclusions about population-level parameters based on a convenience sample with only a 28% response rate (see page 558) is generally not scientifically valid.