In recent incidents, high-school and university students have commented sarcastically about the bonus-point system for enrolling indigenous students, along with other prejudiced behavior. As some have opined on these incidents in the media, I will raise some points of my own.
Despite Taiwan’s declining birthrate, the number of universities remains constant. In such circumstances, indigenous students are awarded additional points.
However, to get a relatively high bonus score they must first pass a certification test in their language. Also, special university and college study programs offered to indigenous students recruit their students independently, as does National Dong Hwa University’s College of Indigenous Studies. The situation can hardly be compared with 30 to 40 years ago, when only about 20 percent of high-school and vocational school students could enter higher education.
In 2021, of a total of 985,144 students enrolled in Taiwan’s colleges and universities, 24,234, or 2.46 percent, were indigenous. Last academic year, the university admissions were divided into recommendations (the Multi-Star Project), individual applications and admissions via examination and placement. The latter, under which indigenous students are more likely to be admitted with reduced admission scores, accounted for 25 percent of the year’s total admissions.
However, if indigenous student numbers are calculated based on this ratio, the proportion is actually very low. Some students’ bigoted remarks about the system — despite the huge discrepancy between indigenous and ethnic Han student numbers — make it obvious that this is no longer a simple matter of allocating and crowding out learning resources, but involves deep-rooted ethnic prejudice. As this represents a serious social disorder in a country comprising diverse ethnicities and cultures, legislators should discuss the proposed “anti-discrimination act,” which has long been on hold.
What should indigenous students do under such a system that some regard as treating them preferentially? Lahok Ciwko, an indigenous student at National Taiwan University, says he has worked hard since childhood to be able to sit exams. Because of the preferential treatment indigenous students receive to advance from one education level to the next, starting from third grade in junior high, teachers often wrote his exam scores on the blackboard, asking the class to calculate what his score would be after adding his bonus points. In senior high, his teachers and classmates even called him a “bonus points dog,” a “barbarian.” This “beneficial” policy led him to dislike himself.
As mentioned, many indigenous students no longer rely on such preferential treatment to enter higher education. Some still negatively label all indigenous students indiscriminately, making it hard for them to avoid prejudice during their studies. This lifelong perception of inferiority imposes crushing pressure and stigma on indigenous students’ studies and willingness to progress.
Compared to the special resources ethnic minorities in China and students of color in the US receive, the points awarded are quite low. They are given during the interview process that involves assessing their cultural, religious and economic conditions. This differs from Taiwan’s set format of 15 or 35 percent bonus points. University docents know it is normally impossible to catch up when a 15 or 35 percent difference exists in ability in a specific subject. Indigenous students who enter universities in this way receive no counseling or resources enabling them to catch up or make up for this gap, and their tutors do not know how to help them. This is also why the dropout rate among them is high.
Rural and urban indigenous students differ in economic strength and in whether their family structures and connections and knowledge can support them. Some children can finish their studies step-by-step without preferential treatment; others with poor support networks need special provisions for a chance to enter school. Reforming this system in a fair, detailed and diverse way that allows students to make their own choices is the next step.
Pu Chung-cheng is an honorary professor at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS