Scholar Story: OiYan Poon

Dr. Poon is an assistant professor of higher education leadership at Colorado State University. She is an educator scholar who examines the racial politics of higher education, especially affirmative action. Her research was recently featured in the Vox article, "Asians are being used to make the case against affirmative action. Again."

I caught up with Dr. Poon to learn more about her upcoming article, "The Racial Mascot Speaks" (due summer 2019 in the Review of Higher Education), and how there’s a growing divide among the Asian American community about the benefits and necessity of affirmative action policies.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Tell me a little about this title, "The Racial Mascot Speaks."

I'm taking the term "racial mascot" from a critical race theory [CRT] legal scholar, Sumi Cho, who back in the 80’s and 90’s coined the term, when white anti-affirmative action folks were using Asians as a mascot for their cause of ending or rolling back affirmative action. So folks like Mari Matsuda are like, "Let's not be used." She has an essay called "We Will Not Be Used" as a mascot, as Asian Americans in the anti-racial equity fight to end affirmative action.

What prompted you to examine this topic?

In 2013, there was the ruling in Fisher vs. University of Texas. During this time, there were some media blips on Asian Americans being opposed to affirmative action. At the same time, there was a big major political opinion study from the University of California, Riverside called the National Asian American Survey, and something like 75% of Asian Americans supported affirmative action in that study, which was consistent with voting data in states that have had ballot measures on affirmative action.

I was like, "Why is the media saying one thing and this political science study and voting data saying something else? I'm just going to check out the amicus briefs and read them."

I took a critical discourse analysis method to understand the underlying ideologies, trying to understand what is happening and how each side is making their argument.

What was fascinating was, in Bakke vs. University of California, there was one Asian American amicus brief, and it was for affirmative action. In Grutter vs. Bollinger and Gratz vs. Bollinger, there were two Asian American amicus briefs, one against and one for. Then in Fisher I and II combined, there were eight. Four against, four for.

I saw this proliferation, this divide in my community as represented by legal briefs.

What did you learn from your research?

What I was finding through these amicus briefs was Asian Americans really putting out there who we are, what we care about, why we feel like we need to put our voice out there. It was this realization of being objectified in the debate versus being subjects and having agency in the debate. Asian Americans were not really in the debate. They were just kind of being used in the debate. They're being affected by the debate. There are implications for them in the debate. And now they’re central players in the debate.

A lot of the literature on Asian Americans in affirmative action and higher education talks about Asian Americans as the racial mascot. It assumes that we are just an object to be used. Some of the other research is all about benefits of diversity and how Asian Americans benefit from affirmative action in higher education — their educational outcomes.

What was interesting about the Asian American anti-affirmative action amicus briefs was that these newer Asian American organizations, mostly led by Chinese immigrants, partnered with traditionally very white, very conservative organizations. There was still this partnering with whiteness. They were articulating what they felt about affirmative action in mis-educated and ignorant ways. Some of the arguments they were making about racism and Asian Americans just made no sense, had no factual basis. The way they were twisting facts made no sense to me. But in the Trump age now, it kind of makes sense.

On the pro side, they were using Asian American historical facts and information to argue for affirmative action. They were coming from organizations that have had 30-40 year histories, that were started by the first generation of ethnic studies students; the activists who started ethnic studies in college campuses, who then went on to create community civil rights organizations and legal foundations.

Both sides acknowledged the existence of racism. They started with the same information and recognized Asian American experiences of racism, but the interpretation is so vastly different due to diverging racial ideologies. That's basically what “The Racial Mascot Speaks” is about.

Yes, Asian Americans are subjects. They're using their agency in the debate. The way they position and describe themselves on both sides of the debate, they're engaging the process of racialization in different ways for different purposes. On the one hand, I think reinforcing white supremacy, and on the other hand, trying to maintain what's left of affirmative action.

The interesting part is that in one of my older studies on public contracting, affirmative action and Asian business owners, I could not find an Asian business owner against affirmative action.

That’s interesting. How do you think some in the Asian American community evolved from "affirmative action is good in business but is not good in education"?

It's completely self-interest. It's "I need to get what's mine." I'm here to get mine. I want to live my best life. If the best life in this country means being a white privileged man, I want that life. I want to be treated like that.

They can see how it benefits them in employment and in public contracting as business owners, but they're not sure about it helping them in college admissions.

What are the key takeaways of your work?

I think we throw around terms like "racial justice" and "equity." I think we really need to have a deeper understanding of what this means. On the one hand, you do have people who are just like, "Just treat me like my white neighbors. Just treat me like white people get treated."

That doesn't change the game. That still assumes an unjust, unequal system. If you're really for racial justice and equity, then it requires that we question why there are some people at the top, so to speak, and why there are people who are suffering in disparate ways.

That requires a deeper analysis and then community mobilization. I think this is where it gets to the point of higher education. We don't do a very good job of connecting with people on the ground as much. We're still very much an ivory tower.

Are you interested in Dr. Poon’s work? Visit her profile here.