a former federal prosecutor who also served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno under the Clinton Administration.
Here are some excerpts from his article:
" .. the so-called "personal" score is especially offensive. If, as alleged by the plaintiffs, Harvard regularly scored Asian applicants lower than white applicants in such personality traits as "likeability," "integrity" and "courage," then that is dictionary definition racism.
Don't believe me? Here's the Oxford Dictionary definition for racism: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." ... the linking of personality to race is indefensible.
Scoring Asian-American applicants lower than white applicants for their "integrity," and "courage" is no different than calling them "sneaky" and "inscrutable." And scoring Asian-Americans lower for "likeability" and/or considering them more "boring" than white applicants is simply the practice of othering -- they (Asians) are different than us (whites), so we do not like them as much. It's code-word racism that cannot be tolerated."
Shan Wu has brought out the words that have stuck in my throat for months since learning of Harvard "personality rating" of AsAms. THANK YOU, Shan!
Other Noteworthy Features about Shan Wu & His Article
1) To my knowledge, Shan Wu is the first well-known AsAm Democrat who has publicly spoken out against Harvard. There is a deafening silence from elected AsAm Democratic officials, like Ted Lieu, Judy Chu, Grace Meng and others. The mid-term elections are coming up. You have the right to ask them to speak out on issues you care about, if you are a voter in their respective districts or have contributed financially to their past elections. If they don't, then don't vote for or contribute to them. Practice democracy.
2) Shan's focus is not so much on admissions as it is on Harvard's racism against AsAms. He is absolutely right on pointing to Harvard's racism.
3) Many D.C.-based "AsAm civil rights orgs," like OCA, JACL, and AAJC are also deafeningly silent in this matter. OK, they support "race-preference admissions." But must they support Harvard's racism against AsAms also?
We URGE You To Speak Out
Call or at least email the silent Democratic Congresspersons and "civil rights orgs." They cannot be silent on racism against AsAms. Also speak up on our Poster Board. If there is a strong consensus, 80-20 EF can help you persuade the elected officials and so called AsAm civil rights orgs.
S. B. Woo
President and a volunteer for the past 20 years
80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization,
PS: Those in CA will know the name of Fiona Ma who has been endorsed by LA Times to be CA's next Treasurer. Unfortunately, her Chinese name was listed incorrectly in a number of ballots. It should be 馬世雲. Instead it came out as 菲奧娜.馬 in some ballots. Please tell your CA friends about this error, since mail ballots are already being mailed in.
Crimson, Harvard's student paper, published the following article 3 days ago. Its title is:
"Asian-American Harvard Applicants Saw Lowest Admit Rate of AnyRacial Group From 1995 to 2013, Court Filings Show".
That article includes two graphs:
Note: Overall admissions rate also includes Native American/Native Hawaiian, International, and Unknown/Other students.
To see the Crimson article yourself, click here. In earlier days, Crimson seemed to fall victim to the mis-direction by Harvard lawyers. It reported repeatedly that if Harvard would lose the lawsuit, it'd be the end of Affirmative Action. Recently, it seems to be showing independent judgment & courage.* :-) :-)
More No Good Lawyerly Small Tricks
For a review of the BIG tricks reported by 80-20 EF earlier, they are:
BIG Trick 1, MISdirection: Our lawsuit is against Affirmative Action,
BIG Trick 2, MISinformation: Our lawsuit is against diversity, and
BIG Trick 3, Divide & Conquer : Get AsAms to fight AsAms and Ed Blum who works so hard for our children
Today we report 2 small courtroom antics:
a) Harvard uses anecdotes to refute statistics. It should be the other way around.
It is beyond dispute that "accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence." However, according to NY Times, Harvard lawyers used two anecdotes, one involving Thang Q. Diep (Harvard class of 2019) and another about Sally Chen, to refute the overwhelming statistical evidence that Harvard discriminates against AsAm applicants. Harvards shames itself when its lawyers turn thing upside down.
Tell your friends about the fallacy of these kinds of courtroom antics.
b) Harvard assigns the blame to others:
According to NY Times, the Dean of Harvard's Admissions Office said this week that one factor that could explain why Asian-American applicants get lower personal ratings may be the content of teacher and guidance counselor recommendations, i.e. blame it on the high school teachers & guidance counselors. However, Harvard rated AsAm applicants much much lower than teachers and guidance counselors. See the 5th, 6th and 7th ratings from the top of the graph, shown below. What a blatant lie. Harvard is really shaming itself.
Please FORWARD this e-newsletter. We need to educate our folks about the many lawyerly tricks Harvard is using to deceive us. Knowing the fallacy of these tricks will help us win in the "Court of the public opinion" and perhaps in Boston's District Court. TALK UP this issue in the next few weeks.Please do YOUR share to fight for our children's equal educational opportunity! Thank you.