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.