Taichung Municipal Taichung First Senior High School and National Taiwan University recently triggered a backlash due to discriminatory remarks made by certain students against indigenous people. That the culprits were young people indicates that the remarks were not mindless gaffes, but a result of a lack of understanding.
At a very deep level, humans tend to be wary or defensive of “the other,” those different from them in terms of ethnicity, language, residence, class, race, occupation and religion. This is not prejudice or discrimination, but a natural reaction and mechanism to maintain one’s sense of security, much akin to parents reminding their children to look out for things when they go out.
The nation’s education policy classifies the following students as eligible for affirmative action: those from any area that has suffered a major disaster; children of parents who have been assigned to work overseas by the government; those who have excelled in an international academic or skills-based competition; those who have excelled in sports; veterans; students from Mongolia or Tibet who have had their naturalization application approved; overseas Taiwanese; foreigners; those who have passed an indigenous language proficiency test; and indigenous people.
The affirmative action policy varies for each group, where the bonus points can range from 10 to 35 percent. The policy is not unique to Taiwan. The US’ affirmative action, also known as positive action or positive discrimination, is a set of policies and practices that give preferential treatment to minority or disadvantaged groups based on their ethnicity, race, religion, gender or nationality.
However, some have questioned its legality or whether it discriminates against other groups. For example, the US Supreme Court appears ready to rule on whether the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unlawful, likely imperiling more than 40 years of precedent that say race could be used as one factor among many in evaluating applicants.
The purpose behind the affirmative action adopted by the two universities is to bolster the number of black and Latino students to promote diversity and a greater representation of minority groups in the two colleges. However, the Supreme Court is concerned that the race-conscious policy contravenes Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment of the US constitution. In general, two themes ran through the questions and arguments: that educational diversity can be achieved without directly taking race into account and that there must come a time when colleges and universities stop making such distinctions.
Harvard University has said that it has taken applicants’ ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion and other factors into consideration to create classes that fully represent the US’ ethnic diversity.
A document submitted to the court by an attorney on behalf of Harvard University says: Americans have come to regard diversity as an essential part of learning, and that the road to leadership should be open to all people. According to a Gallup poll released in 2021, 62 percent of Americans favor affirmative action programs.
It takes more than one’s identity for an indigenous student to qualify for affirmative action in Taiwan. Since 2004, they have to pass the indigenous language proficiency test to get a 35 percent bonus. Tests in the 43 dialects of the 14 indigenous languages spoken in the nation are offered, and they differ from other language proficiency tests in that students are only tested on their listening and speaking abilities.
Furthermore, as colleges and universities usually admit indigenous students under a separate quota, the policy does not affect other students’ chances of admission. Aside from one’s ethnicity, the goal of the test is to ensure that the student possesses “proof of culture.” As a minority group who gets preferential treatment, they are expected to pass down their language and culture to promote diversity in Taiwanese society.
Due to the nation’s sub-replacement fertility, students who receive appalling scores can still go to university, unlike 30 years ago when only 20 percent of high-school and vocational high-school students could receive a higher education. As a result, bigoted students’ discriminatory remarks should not be directed at the admission quotas for indigenous people.
Taiwan has become a truly diverse and multicultural country, and as “the others” started appearing around us, it is imperative that we learn to respect, appreciate and empathize with others. More importantly, we have to ensure that the education we give to our next generation is in touch with the current society and environment.
Pu Chung-cheng is an honorary professor at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Rita Wang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS