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
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS