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
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
RSS