A Proposition for the AAA

Alexis de Tocqueville, the great philosopher of American democracy, recognized a century and a half ago that voluntary associations are good things.

Not only do they serve to represent private interests, but they also help enlarge them, turning individuals away from selfish parochialism and toward the public good.

How? Through participation. Unfortunately, some organizations like the Asian American Association (AAA) at Harvard have focused too narrowly on ethnic interests. They have lost sight of the higher purpose of the freedom of political association, which is to broaden our minds through the practice of deliberation, persuasion and dissent.

We must be democrats first and Asian Americans second--not the other way around.

This week provides a blatant example of what has gone wrong. The AAA is collecting signatures for a symbolic petition against Proposition 187, which is the California referendum designed to strip the state's 2.1 million illegal immigrants of their rights to welfare, non-emergency health care and public schooling for their children.

AAA activists think all Asians should oppose the measure because it might raise xenophobic suspicions against legal immigrants including many Asians. But certainly not all Asian Americans oppose Proposition 187.

Indeed, Asian American interests on this matter are not as clear-cut as AAA would have you believe. In fact, the New Republic reported this week that two out of three Californians, including almost one-quarter of all Latinos, support Proposition 187.

But my main concern is a matter of principle. The very manner in which AAA has initiated this petition drive shows both a disregard for Asian Americans who hold opposing political views and a disdain for democratic principles.

AAA's propaganda shows through their unconvincing pretense of neutrality. In this week's AAA newsletter, political chair Veronica Jung '96 tells all AAA members who are registered to vote in California to "VOTE NO ON PROP 187" but then adds the bizarre disclaimer, "BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE CONVINCED BY THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE."

The article, entitled "Why Asian Americans should oppose Proposition 187," is written by a full-time volunteer with the Californians United Against Proposition 187 campaign in San Francisco. Unbelievably, at the top of this newsletter AAA claims to be merely "distributing information" on Proposition 187.

AAA should own up to the fact that its political activism is undemocratic, top-down, generated and directed by the few who comprise the executive steering committee. The AAA steering committee decided unilaterally to organize a petition drive against Proposition 187.

There was no general meeting to deliberate and vote on whether AAA should be doing this. Nor did the AAA steering committee solicit the views of the general membership two years ago, when AAA publicly condemned Professor Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. '53, issued demands for an ethnic studies curriculum, and called for an official investigation into the role of "institutionalized racism" at Harvard.

The highhanded political vanguardism of Harvard's AAA is endemic to many other left-wing Asian American "spokespeople" and advocacy groups. This became clear to me two summers ago after I interviewed some of the most powerful Asian American "advocates" in our country.

Henry Der was typical. He is president of one of the most prominent Asian American lobbies, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and virtually admitted to me that his advocacy group shuns democratic principles.

"Many [Asian] immigrant families do not have the benefits of full knowledge of the civil rights movement," he said. "Most Asian immigrant families would ask for meritocratic standards. These families don't understand that selection has never been based on meritocratic standards."

Der's organization supports affirmative action despite his acknowledgement that many, perhaps most, Chinese immigrant families oppose it. Der thinks he knows what's best for Asian Americans in spite of themselves.

All of this compels us to question the legitimacy of undemocratic ethnic organizations. Such groups essentially presume to speak on behalf of unheard, unconsulted and involuntary members. This problem inheres in AAA's very name.

As an Asian American, doesn't the Asian American Association purport to represent my views? Am I not, implicitly and involuntarily, a de facto member?

Don't I have a very strong stake in preventing AAA from acting like Bolsheviks, presumptuously throwing its political weight around with no regard for my views?

Historically, other progressive organizations have managed to get around this problem. The NAACP, after all, is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. NOW is the National Organization for Women.

Membership in both these groups is strictly voluntary and blind to race and gender. The NAACP, in fact, has had both black and white founders, executives, and administrators as well as prominent black opponents, like Booker T. Washington.

To live up to its name as an association for all Asian Americans, the AAA faces two alternatives: (1) Either AAA should dissociate itself from politics and limit itself to non-controversial cultural and social purposes (both of which AAA has commendably served); or (2) AAA should implement formal democratic procedures that insure accountability, encourage political participation and recognize dissent.

So long as there are serious political issues facing Asian Americans qua Asian Americans, like Proposition 187, I would opt for the latter course.

As de Tocqueville realized, there should be no political activism without political responsibility.

Daniel H. Choi '94 is a first-year Ph.D candidate in the Government Dept.