On September 6th 2017, Mr. Chan, who introduced Bill H.3361, also sent to all the House members a list of “Frequently Asked Questions and Answers”, or a “Fact Sheet” (“Q&A” or “Fact Sheet”). Asian American for Equal Rights (“AAER”) would like to respond to Mr. Chan’s Q&A as follows.
- Question 1: Why does this bill only address the Asian population? Why not White, Black, and Latino?
Mr. Chan’s Answer:
The AAPI community has been fighting for disaggregation of data for over thirty years and this bill is a culmination of those efforts. This in no way limits other groups from pursuing similar legislation. Should other groups see a similar need, we are willing to work on amending the legislation.
At the same time, as the fastest growing population in the United States AAPIs represent one of the newest immigrant groups, particularly as compared to White and Black populations. The White population in Massachusetts is made up largely of Anglo, Irish and Italian heritage who immigrated primarily in the early 1900s, well before governments had the resources and foresight to offer disaggregation of data and the benefits that come along with it. For African Americans, much of their history is tied to slavery in the U.S, and as many of their ancestors were brought to the U.S. as slaves without their consent, there is little means for today’s African American population to accurately trace their ancestry back to a particular country to identify with. There is, of course, huge cultural and linguistic diversity among African countries, and as newer immigrants from across Africa and the Caribbean immigrate to the U.S., conversations have begun to focus on the benefits of disaggregation for this population as well.
Our Response:
First of all, Mr. Chan initiated this Bill H3361 with a misleading claim that he or this Bill represents the Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) community. Many facts clearly contradict his claim. To name just a few examples:
1) A recent survey was conducted among Lexington residents from six public school districts between September 01 and 05, 2017. Among the 306 responses received, 300 responders were against H3361, 5 says neutral, and only 1 was for H3361.
2) Within only two months since mid-July, about 5200 electronica signatures and close to 2000 paper signatures against this Bill has been conllected and the number is going up everyday.
3) Hundreds of people have gone to the rallies strongly opposing the Bill H.3361. All facts unequivocally show that Mr. Chan does not speak on behalf of all Asian American people and the claim of Asian Americans supporting data disaggregation or H3361 is simply false and misleading.
In reference to the AAPI organizations that Mr. Chan relied on for his basis of proposing H3361, and the “30 years of effort seeking disaggregation”, one should be aware of certain potential consequences brought by such “organizations” or individuals plotting to bring historical and geopolitical conflicts from Asia to the American soil. The proposal to disaggregate Asian American is against our American value “Together We Are Strong”. We’d also caution that if misused, the disaggregation data could potentially do harm to new immigrants, impeding their journey of assimilation into our American culture. In our communication with the Asian American community, two dozens of organizations have expressed strong opposition against Bill H3361. Only few organizations have expressed neutral stand for fear of political retaliation, but individual leaders expressed their personal opposition to the Bill. These facts further demonstrate that AAPI organizations do not represent the best interest of Asian American.
Secondly, Mr. Chan cited that the government’s inability to address all populations through disaggregation of ethnicity data as a reason to only give Asian Americans the special treatment. This reasoning is without merit and is fundamentally against basic principal of equality for policy making either at the federal or state levels. If ethnic data disaggregation were a cure to the benefit resource issues, then all ethnic groups are entitled to the perceived “benefits that come along with” disaggregation. The suggestion that this “benefit” should only apply to Asian American is illogical. In reality, the benefit includes language assistance, as well as medical services that are agnostic of ethnic background. This ethnic data segregation should then be universally applied to people from Europe and Africa for more fine-tuned medical diagnosis and treatment, as well as Asian American. Mr. Chan’s proposal amounts to a complete waste of resources with little to no gain for the following reasons.
- Question 2: Why is this bill dividing Asians when they only make up 5% of the population in this country?
Mr. Chan’s Answer:
While Asian American and Pacific Islanders makeup only 5.4% of the U.S. population, they are the fastest growing ethnic group in the country, having grown 46.9% between 2000 and 2010 according to the United State Census. Despite the small overall population percentage, there is a large gap in economic and educational success among this 5.4%, which is often masked by the “Model Minority” myth. With so much variance – in immigration history, language, and culture, among others – some Asian groups face very different challenges in the U.S. than others. For example, Massachusetts’ median household income is $68,563. Aggregate Asian median household income is $70,132, reinforcing the idea that the AAPI population, as a whole, is economically better off than any other population in Massachusetts. However when disaggregated, we see that there is a massive range in income among Asian populations: median household income for the Indian population is $101,829, while median household income for the Korean population is $47,603. Given stark educational attainment differences as well, it is essential that the “model minority” stereotype be dispelled in order to better serve those who are hidden by aggregate success stories.
Our Response:
If we understand Mr. Chan’s answer above correctly, he proposes to separate people according to their different income levels, to alleviate some people from being stereotyped as “model citizens”. If that is truly his goal, then data collection should be done on the income level instead of ethnic background. Anyone with the passion to care for the poor would know that Mr. Chan approach to use median household income will misrepresent the true needs, e.g. among people from Korea, even people from the same city of Korea, there are extremely well-to-do and those who are struggling to make ends meet. How does disaggregation data help?
The State of Massachusetts already leads the nation in collecting data of those economically disadvantaged and helps those in need, regardless of their country of origin, race, sex and sexual orientation, etc. Why do we seek income separation be route of ethnic separation?
Between 2000 and 2010, according to the US census, Hispanic or Latinos have grown 46.4% (from 428,729 to 627,654, vs. AAPI from 238,124 to 349,768) in MA. Under Mr. Chan’s logic, due to the almost identical growth rate and a much larger base than AAPI, the data disaggregation is equally necessary for Hispanic or Latinos. So why Asian Americans only? We are curious if Mr. Chan’s motive is to help those economically disadvantaged or to separate / exclude registered people?
- Question 3: Will the bill affect my children’s chances of getting into colleges and universities?
Mr. Chan’s Answer:
No. College and university admissions have nothing to do with government collected data. Admissions departments have their own standards and look at more than test scores, GPA and race. Other factors considered include community involvement, high school extracurricular activities, social economics, veteran status, athletics, alignment with the college or university mission, and whether you are a child of alumni.
Our Response:
We have witnessed Mr. Chan’s answers changing from previously stated “tailored benefit” to now “not tailored benefit” for college admission. Are his answers forthcoming? According to Mr. Chan’ “…Without accurate data, there is little means for policymakers, community organizations, healthcare workers, and educators, among many others, to better advocate for tailored resources to address the specific needs in their communities, especially to those that are invisible in current datasets…”). If the state government shall spend so much resources to implement Asian ethnic data disaggregation and most colleges receives state funding in one way or the other, then why wouldn’t this data be (mis)used to for colleges to provide “tailored help to the disadvantaged”? What is the real reason why Mr. Chan was not consistent and transparent on explaining the essence of the Bill he proposes?
- Question 4: Will the government use the data against me?
Mr. Chan’s Answer:
No. This information will in no way be used in the development of a registry. There
is no single agency that will be tasked with surveying the Asian population; this bill simply standardizes state forms to collect race/ethnicity data to more closely resemble the way the federal census breaks down Asian American and Pacific Islander data. This allows for more comprehensive research, analysis and provision of services to Massachusetts’ Asian communities, many of whom are currently invisible due to the limits of aggregate Asian American and Pacific Islander categorization.
Our Response:
Let’s suppose Bill H3361 is well intentioned, the disaggregation data could still be MISUSED to target or exclude a group of Americans on the basis of ethnic background. This is true especially given the history of race based profiling and that almost all the discriminatory actions started with separating people and data collection – to name a few, discrimination against Jewish, Irish, Italian Americans; Internment of Japanese Americans etc. – Bill H3361. This could also be particularly concerning given the recent political environment and white supremacist rhetoric that people of all colors found to be abhorrent. This disaggregation data Bill, will add on to the surge of many reported and non-reported incidences of even American born Asian Americans are being asked to “Go back to your country”, to create fear not for Asian American but people of all colors. Bill H3361 imposes the questions again and again, “Where are you really from”? It makes Asian Americans, after 200 years of immigrating to America, still feel as a perpetual foreigner, or lessor of American. Ask the same question to African American or European American or Middle-east American, everyone will tell you the same story of fear. The proposal of Bill 3361 already are hurting Asian Americans by impinging the perpetual foreigner and lesser of American social status on Asian Americans.
When can we stop making this discriminatory actions worse? Asian Americans are strongly against this Bill and will stand together against those who vote for this Bill.
source:https://calexma.org/oppose-h-3361/response-to-h-3361-faq/
Mass. Asian-American data collection bill sparks fears of profiling