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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS