Since UNITY is our Savior,and it will give us the fastest passage to equal citizenship (See United We Stand (1)),
why haven't we united yet?
A GREAT question. The answer is complex. In a single sentence, it is because WE have many DEFICIENCIES. Kindly please give me some leeway and hear me out.
Why Is Unity So Hard to Achieve within the AsAm community?
a)We Lack the Cultural Background to Work Together in a Democracy:
American high schools teach Robert's Rules of Order (RROO). BUT, most of us have never heard of RROO; have never attended a single meeting that applied RROO. YET, according to Wikipedia, RROO "governs the meetings of a diverse range of organizations-including church groups, county commissions, homeowners associations, nonprofit associations, professional societies, school boards, and trade unions-that have adopted it as their parliamentary authority.
Q: Is RROO easy to learn?
Very easy. After all it's taught in high schools.
Q: How do I get myself trained in RROO?
Click here to get a 2-page instruction prepared by 80-20 EF. Spend 20 minutes to learn the basic steps. Spend the next few days/weeks/months to internalize it. Then no one can use RROO in a meeting to deprive you of your rights to be an EQUAL participant in a meetings.
Q: How to internalize?
Practice using RROO during your family dinners. Get your children who are attending high school involved. Rotate to chair the meetings. Vote to approve or disapprove of each of the interesting things that president Trump did the last week. :-)
When RROO is applied, it is impossible for a biased chair to get his/her way against the will of a majority of the participants. Chairman's decisions can be appealed and reversed with a simply majority vote. But you need to know the basic steps.
AsAms are smart in so many ways. We need to pick up the basic tools of
democracy and learn them by heart. We can't blame everything on society's discrimination against us. We must do our part to learn about democracy..
b) We Lack Political Maturity:
Most of us know how to fight against other individuals who step on us, but we don't know how to fight against political establishments which step on us in much subtler ways e.g. glass ceilings and "race preference" admissions. To be effective, do we need too unite t?
Most of us don't realize that back in our respective "old countries" we were in the majority, but here in the US we are not only the minority but also viewed as foreigners. So do we need to unite to protect ourselves?
Read NYT's "Harvard rated AsAm Applicants lower on personality traits .." of 6/15. When our nation's top educational institution showed such deep rooted prejudice against Asian Ams, and use hidden & devious means to discriminate against our yooungsters who only wanted to learn from it, it's OUTRAGEOUS! Harvard's "whole-person"admissions policy is a "whole-RACE" admissions policy to discriminate against AsAms to benefit all others races.Do we need to unite to protect our children?
Politics needs to be learned. Unlike RROO, it can't be learned quickly. So trust is required. There is one reasonable rule to apply in trusting a political leader. His/er record over a long long period of time could be a guideline. Don't be too picky. The alternative is to suffer continued discrimination as a weak and dis-organized small minority..
Lookout for UNITED we STAND (3) next week. It will continue to discuss "Why Is Unity So Hard to Achieve within the AsAm community?" The
defects we'll discuss there are not about the other AsAms. Chances are some of them apply to YOU. :-)
POST YOUR VIEW by going to EF'S poster Board. We no longer post your IP number. So feel very relaxed to express your view.
Filed Motion Against Harvard for Summary Judgment Today
The following are from an undisputed authority on this lawsuit:
Today's filings-through documents, data, expert analysis, and testimony-expose what many Asian-Americans unfortunately already know: That Harvard penalizes them unfairly because of their race.
Harvard knows this too. Harvard's own Office of Institutional Research conducted an internal investigation concluding that Harvard's admissions process discriminates against Asian Americans. But instead of ending the discrimination-Harvard's leadership killed the investigation and buried the reports. This is a shocking revelation.
This pattern continues today. Harvard's President has chosen to deny the facts and to accuse SFFA of "misleading" and presenting "data taken out of context," rather than to grapple with the practical and legal consequences of Harvard's conduct.
Although today's filing is revealing, Harvard continues to hide from the public evidence it finds embarrassing, relying on misplaced claims of privacy and trade secrets. It is Harvard that does not want the full context known. But it will all come out soon and will add to the mountain of evidence proving that Harvard's use of race in admissions is illegal.
(2) SFFA'S CLAIMS
Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-American applicants: "Incontrovertible evidence shows that Harvard's admissions policy has a disproportionately negative effect on Asian Americans vis-a-vis similarly situated, white applicants that cannot be explained on non-discriminatory grounds."
Harvard engages in racial balancing: Harvard uses "ethnic stats" and other tools to manipulate the process so that it achieves essentially the same racial balance year over year. If, at the end of the admissions process, Harvard has admitted more (or less) of any racial group than it did the year before (what it deems, in violation of Title VI, to be "too many" or "too few"), then it reshapes the class to remedy the problem.
Harvard's use of race is not narrowly tailored to achieve critical mass: "Harvard concedes that it has no interest in achieving critical mass and has never given the concept serious thought. Harvard is adamant that racial preferences are indispensable to its mission-and always will be." Harvard also uses race as far more than a "plus" factor.
Harvard has not considered race-neutral alternatives in good faith: "Harvard never even considered race-neutral alternatives until this litigation was threatened. It then formed a committee, quickly abandoned it, and then formed a new committee at the close of discovery that, almost comically, was comprised of only three people and whose work was almost entirely outsourced to counsel."
(3) EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE COURT LISTING HARVARD'S
GUILT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN THIS SPACE SOON
Dear Asian Americans:
If we are half smart, we should be organizing and uniting NOW!
"Unity will mean instant first class citizenship for all or us." PLEASE give me a chance to explain this strong belief to you?
1) Why is UNITY the SAVIOR for ALL of us?
80-20 is the only AsAm organization that has advocated for a bloc vote. In its short 20-year history, look at what 80-20 has already achieved, using data from the NY Times.
Behold! Whenever 80-20 endorsed with RESERVATION, the strength of the bloc vote dropped, as in 2004 and 2016. Whenever a candidate gave iron-clad promises to 80-20 and really went to bat to implement his promises, as in Pres. Obama's case, the size of the bloc vote rockets upward.
Now imagine. If and when the entire AsAm community unites! AsAms will not only deliver a bigger bloc vote, but aSWINGBLOC VOTE.
Now think what a SWING bloc vote will do for the AsAm community. When that day arrives, both the Republican and Democratic Parties will compete fiercely for our endorsement. BOTH will not only eagerly promise us EQUAL opportunity but also fulfill their respective promise, AFTER the election.
WHY? For 2 reasons. First, our SWING bloc vote at the next election will keep them honest. Secondly, giving AsAms equal opportunity is what our gov. should have done to begin with.
2) Wait, wait, wait. Don't go too fast, S. B. You talk about a SWING bloc vote, but you have endorsed Democratic candidates only. EXPLAIN!
Giving politicians our votes without asking for their promises to helps us back
is politically immature. So 80-20 has always sent questionnaires* to presidential candidates. In fact, we often demand that the candidates would answer in clear-cut "Yeses" or "Nos", so that they canNOT wiggle out of their promises upon being elected. Click here to see how candidates Obama and Biden have answered our questionnaires in "Yeses" only. They also signed their replies. That's why we supported them!
However, not a single Republican presidential candidate has ever answered 80-20's questionnaire. So a competition in will power between our community and the Republic Party is on. We think the Republicans are about to wake up. They can see 80-20's powerful record in the table, shown above. You can also help induce them to wake up.
Some AsAm orgs. have supported candidates without getting their promise to help us back in writing. We think such orgs. were either politically immature or betraying our community. UNITY is our SAVIOR. Do your part please.
*The procedure with which 80-20 PAC endorses a presidential candidate is very democratic and transparent. The Delegates are elected. The procedure is all written down. Please read article 7 of 80-20 PAC's Bylaws, entitled "Protocol Regarding Presidential Electrons".
NOTE: We thank Jackson and Stella Yen, Laguna Woods, CA who contributed $7,000
to EF In memory of their beloved daughter, Jessica J. Yen. What e meaningful and lasting way to memorialize a beloved one.
Motion for Summary Judgment Against Harvard on June 15
Exciting news about Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard. SFFA, whose president is Ed Blum, will file a "motion for summary judgment" with the District Court on June 15. This motion will assert that the evidence against Harvard is so overwhelming that the court should rule that Harvard's admissions policies violate federal law.
A Trial in Boston Beginning Oct. 15
In addition, the court has scheduled a trial in Boston beginning Oct. 15th. While it is unclear right now how long the trial will last, the guess is about four-weeks.
The Logistics Of A BIg Trial:
SFFA will have "7 new lawyers from Chicago and Denver to supplement
the 3 current ones; 5 support persons; a video-grapher and graphic designer; 15 sleeping hotel rooms for one month; 3-4 hotel rooms with the beds removed and desks added as "war" rooms." Three catered meals a day; a car and driver standing by, etc... The cost* of the trial team is overwhelming." - quotes from Ed Blum.
This Should Be Our Fight!
To win equal opportunity to enter elite colleges for AsAm children is OUR RESPONSIBILITY. But the millions of $$$ that are required for this fight are still beyond our ability. So again we want to thank Mr. Ed. Blum for leading this fight for us.
In the meantime, we look to our super rich and our legal eagles to step up. History beckons. Please consider donatingto SFFA. EF donated$10,000 this year.
* The following is my hypothetical calculation of the kind of $$ that Ed Blum will need to raise. A top lawyer commands $1500/hr nowadays. Let's assume that Blum can negotiate a deep, deep discount of $500/hr. What will be the cost for the lawyers, not to mention the cost of the hotel and air transportation?
The fee will be (28 days/lawyer x 10 hours/day x 10 lawyers x $500/hour) = $1.4 million just for those 4 weeks of lawyers' fees. The above illustrates the best of America. There are still very capable individuals who will toil for justice for others.