Examining Voter Turnout Among Asian American College Students Hyun Kyoung Ro (bio), Frank Fernandez (bio), and Sanga Kim (bio) Studying voter turnout in the 2016 presidential election among Asian American college students (AACSs) is timely given that the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has inflamed racism against Asian Americans. In the midst of this global pandemic, US President Trump incited racist attacks and led many to scapegoat Asian Americans for spreading the virus (Tavernise & Oppel, 2020). The negative national climate exacerbates racism against Asian Americans, which is particularly problematic, because AACSs tend to have lower voter registration and turnout rates in presidential elections than other racial or ethnic groups (Thomas et al., 2017). Yet, only a few studies have addressed AACSs' political engagement (Grim et al., 2019; Park et al., 2008). We sought to offer research findings on voting participation among AACSs and to help student affairs promote AACS voter turnout in 2020 and future national elections. Colleges and universities should prepare AACSs to be active democratic citizens by encouraging them to vote in national elections, which is part of higher education's responsibility to society (Colby et al., 2007). LITERATURE REVIEW Researchers have examined the influence of diverse learning experiences on civic outcomes (e.g., Bowman et al., 2016). Among AACSs enrolled in the University of California system, Wray-Lake et al. (2017) found that students who were actively involved in cultural and religious groups, in community service, and in academic learning (e.g., service-learning [End Page 373] courses) were the most politically engaged. While some scholars have found that college students' positive perceptions of campus climates promoted their democratic outcomes and citizenship engagement (Gurin et al., 2002), Wray-Lake et al. found that AACSs in California who reported a higher level of campus climate for diversity were less likely to be politically engaged. It may be that the relationship between campus climate and political engagement may differ for AACSs who attended universities where AACSs are relatively well represented (Grim et al., 2019). Click for larger view View full resolution Table 1. Factor Loadings and Reliability Estimates of Created Scales Voter turnout among AACSs has also been found to relate to social identities and backgrounds, such as ethnicity, gender, social class, and immigrant status (Park et al., 2008; Wray-Lake et al., 2017). For example, naturalized Asian American (AA) US citizens voted at a higher rate than US-born AAs (Krogstad & Lopez, 2017), but we do not know if this pattern held for AACSs. Those who came to the US at an early age or received prior schooling in the US may have fewer language barriers and more exposure to American political culture than recent immigrants. METHOD We analyzed data from six institutions where students completed the civic engagement module in the 2017 Student Experience in the Research University survey. We limited the sample to students who self-reported as Asian and were eligible to vote (N = 3,422). To address missing data, we used multiple imputation to generate 20 imputed data sets. We created voter turnout as a binary variable indicating whether the student reported having voted in the 2016 national election (0 = no, 1 = yes). To address diversity experiences, we used a single item to record whether students completed or participated in academic experiences with diversity, such as taking courses that addressed equity issues related to gender, race, or sexual orientation. We also created three variables to measure the frequency of diversity interactions: appreciation of different worldviews (α = .82), interaction with people who have different views (α = .77), and discussion of controversial issues (α = .70); see Table 1. We included three dichotomous items to measure cocurricular participation related to civic engagement; participation in a service-learning course, religious activities, and community service (0 = no, 1 = yes). For perceptions of institutional climate, we used five items to measure participants' agreement that students who shared certain characteristics were respected on campus (i.e., "Students [End Page 374] of my political beliefs are respected on this campus"); we used similar items for (a) race/ ethnicity, (b) socioeconomic status, (c) sex, and (d) sexual orientation. We included variables for social identities and backgrounds that relate to voter turnout. First, we included a binary sex...
Read full abstract
Nov 8, 2024
Ullu Yandi Aulia + 1
Just Published
Open Access