New Bill a Hope for WWII POW Redress (in National News) California Assembly Members Create API Caucus (in Bay Area News) The Skyrocketing Cost of Employee Health Insurance (in Business) Himalaya: The Film (in A&E)

The Re-segregation of America

Has it sunk in yet? There are 10,123,169 Asian Americans in this country! When you add all the mixed race, and other folks like my unique census grouping, TAFKAF, a.k.a. “The As-Panic Formerly known as Filipino,” there are nearly 12 million who can legitimately claim standing rights under some kind of Asian American umbrella.

But don’t celebrate just yet. Now comes the hard part: How do we divide things up evenly? Who stays dry and who gets wet under our own umbrella?

Forget about everyone else for now, those 270 million others of which 69.1 percent are white, 12.5 percent are Hispanic, 12.1 percent are Black, and .74 percent are Native American. Is this the new standard for a public institution to “look like America”? Are these the new numbers for how we divvy up dollars in government contracting and public schools?

But before we can talk about the nation, first thing’s first. How do we view the issue in our own community, if we still view it at all?

With our growing numbers it should be clear. Where Asian Americans stand on this could very well shape the new affirmative action debate about to grip our country.

This past week, two major legal battles will test either a renewed resolve or our boredom with the issue.

In Michigan, a judge granted an injunction to some white plaintiffs who argued they were harmed by the University of Michigan’s admissions procedures. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman felt the school’s quest for diversity was not a compelling state interest, nor was it “narrowly tailored” in its use of race. Chalk one up for whites. Pun intended.

In Washington, the Supreme Court has agreed to look into a challenge to a federal contracting law that gives preferences to “socially and economically disadvantaged” companies. Known as “Adarand Constructors vs. Mineta,” (yes, our man Norm), it’s a version of a case that’s been chipping away at affirmative action for years.

Its roots go back to 1989, when Adarand lost a bid on some guardrails for some Colorado highways to a minority subcontractor. The main contractor was white (naturally) and got a bonus from the Department of Transportation.

Since then, the case has already been to the Supreme Court where the preference was ruled suspicious, thus establishing a standard for a lower court to rule. In September, the 10th Circuit Court in Denver found the program constitutional.

But legal careers have been made on these kinds of cases, and the virulent strain has evolved into yet another challenge. Same contractor, same federal law.

But it’s not necessarily the same old debate.

The country has changed. Even the contracting program has changed. And so have the players. The named defendant is the new head of Transportation, the aforementioned Mineta, the Asian American community’s standard-bearer of civil rights, and the lone Democrat in the Bush administration

But the man arguing the case is Attorney General John Ashcroft, who, as pointed out by the mainstream, voted against re-authorizing the very law while a senator from Missouri in 1998.

Then of course, there’s President Bush, who is already on record as being against affirmative action and for something called “affirmative access” which doesn’t yet show up in William Safire’s dictionary of political terms.

The court can just rule narrowly on Adarand. But it could also take a broad view and test whether any federal affirmative action program is constitutional if it doesn’t address specific discrimination brought on by the government. In other words, the government isn’t there to protect your interests, unless it screwed you in the first place.

That would be akin to “de-regulation” of civil rights, back to a kind of free market ethics that could only lead to one thing. More discrimination. Less subtle. More blatant.

As we learned in the last election, all you need is five votes on the Supreme Court. No matter what the popular vote says.

So how will Asian Americans respond to the new affirmative action debate? A lot will depend on our solidarity with other minorities, or our lack thereof.

In the Michigan case, the community will likely be split. Our demonic hunger for education puts selfishness on a high plane. Look at the Lowell High School case. Asian Americans publicly, thanks to folks like Elaine Chao, the current labor secretary, were seen as advocates against rules that would exclude them. Even though Asian Americans already had their fair share of places at Lowell, Chinese American plaintiffs cried foul.

What kind of victim does that make? Asian Americans complained they didn’t see anything wrong about a school that’s 80 percent White and Asian.

In Michigan, whites are making the same argument. The majority is acting like a minority and decrying its lack of benefits. Suddenly, guess who become the key allies of the anti-affirmative action cause?

In the Adarand case, Asian Americans’ moral fiber is buttressed by the presence of Mineta for moral guidance. But his political strength as the Democrat in the bushes will be tested. The main advocate will be Ashcroft, and he may pose a half-hearted defense of the law the administration detests. Asian American contractors aren’t too numerous, so guess where we’ll be here? You can bet we’ll want a fair share.

And then there’s the Census in the backdrop. Yes, there’s reason to celebrate. The mixed race category shows a definite trend. Asian Americans are 12 million strong when you stretch our genes. But it’s still just a fraction of the 70 million Hispanics and blacks in the U.S.

Do we share the interests of the traditional minority? Or do we declare our total assimilation in an America where whites still dominate?

How we choose may very well determine whether an ominous stage develops in our country’s race history — the re-segregation of America.