Ivy Schools set an Asian Am. quota

                                  17% +/- 2% but "Not a Quota"?

Dear Fellow Asian Americans and Friends,

   When it looks like a DUCK, swims like a DUCK, and quacks like a DUCK, it is a DUCK!

  Ron Unz's summary on an "AsAm Quota" and his much longer "meritocracy" article generated ferocious debates from all sides regarding race-conscious college admissions, yet conspicuously missing is any challenge to his key finding that all Ivy Leagues converge to a 17% +/- 2% AsAm "quota" despite strong demographic and academic performance trends otherwise. In the absence of contradicting data, such a convergence is not explainable other than suggesting A HIDDEN QUOTA.


  THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING.
   When will the civil right community, including many of the AsAm organizations, seriously evaluate this data convergence and benchmark it against the basic American value of fairness? Since when does the high ideal of "Equal Opportunity" become synonymous to "Equal Outcome"?

   Just insisting there is "no AsAm quota" is of no merit unless backed by data. Such a claim also has a bad track record: No university ever admitted to having a Jewish quota during 1920-1950, even though it is now an universally accepted fact. Authored by: A Guest Writer

   FORWARD this e-newsletter to all Asian Am Ivy students. Ask them to spread these FACTUAL INFO all over their campuses. When the people with power e.g. Ivy administrators are DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US BY LYING AND PRACTICING ILLEGAL POLICIES (quota is illegal), RIDICULE THEM !!

   Ron Unz's summary on an "AsAm Quota" was published by The National Review. It was cited by SCOTUSblog (Supreme court of the US blog) which may hopefully have an impact on the Supreme Court decision. The article also summarized S. B. Woo's piece in NY Times' Room for Debate.

   Post your comments at: 
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp .


Sincerely,
S. B. Woo, President, a volunteer
80-20 National Asian Am. Educational Foundation
http://www.80-20EF.org
  

The Power of One - a salute to 80-20 supporters

   The following illustrates THE POWER OF ONE!

   80-20 is the ONE. Most other Asian Am national organizations are lined up on the other side on the college admission issue.

   Without 80-20, which opposes ALL those so called "civil rights" Asian Am. orgs., these articles in prestigious publications, shown below, would NOT have been written! With 80-20 speaking up for Asian American parents and children, the tide has changed! 7 articles in 4 weeks! These prestigious mainstream print media are speaking out in increasingly more firm condemnation of discrimination against us! See the titles of the 3 latest articles, shown in red!

1) The American Conservative, 11/28/2012. Read Ron Unz's article!
2) Forbes, 11/30/2012, which strongly supported Unz' article
3) NY Times "Room for Debate", 12/19/2012, SB Woo was a participant
4) NY Times Op Ed, 12/20/2012, by Carolyn Chen
5) Business Insider, 12/20/12, "Ivies Discriminate Against Asians"
6) The Atlantic, 12/21/2012, "Ivies Fair to Asian Americans? "
7) Washington Monthly, 12/22/12, "Discrimination Against AsAm in Ivies"

   The power of one. 80-20 is the one!

   Almost all the articles compared the discrimination against Asian Ams to how the Ivies used to discriminate against Jewish Am students. That was the CENTRAL theme of 80-20's amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

   What are the lessons for us?
      i) "One man (or organization) in the right is a majority," and
      ii) God helps those who help themselves. Asian Ams DON'T HELP OURSELVES ENOUGH! So many Asian Am. "civil rights" orgs are for the the race-conscious college admission policy. Ridiculous? Scary?!

   Does 80-20 really enjoy the power of ONE? NO! 80-20 would much rather be just one org. in an UNITED Asian Am. community fighting for equal opportunity of Asian Am. adults and children and help make America a "more perfect Union." We urge our sister organizations to re 44d -think their past and work together.

   Which Asian Am civil rights orgs are still supporting the race conscious college admission? They are OCA, JACL, Asian Am. Legal Center of Los Angles, AAJC of Washington D.C. AALDEF of NY.

   80-20 has repeatedly reached out to them & requested joint examination of issues and UNITED action. We've NOT succeeded yet. 

 
YOU CAN HELP. Talk to people in those organizations!

Sincerely yours,

S. B. Woo, a volunteer,
President. 80-20 National Asian Am. Educational Foundation,Inc.
http://www.80-20EF.org
  

PS We gratefully acknowledge the generous donation of

1. David & Helen Yao, Yorktown Heights, NY:      $1,000
2. Stephen Ko MD, Mendham, NJ:          $1,000

GOOD NEWS. Students Oppose Race-conscious admission

                                      Announcements

(1) 80-20 is eligible for GIFT-MATCHING with the following companies.

1) Boeing    2) Adobe    3) ATT    4) Microsoft and 5) TE Connectivity

    If you work for another company with a GIFT-MATCHING program, please apply for 80-20 EF to be eligible for it. An Asian Am employee of Verizon just did. We thank this person.

                   (2) Please forward this email to Asian Am. students.

        Students Oppose "Race-Conscious" College Admission

(1) Brown Univ.
   The Brown Daily Herald reported Nov. 29 the surprising results of a poll that found "more than 58 percent of students oppose the University's consideration of race in student admissions decisions, while over 34 percent of students said they supported the policy."
http://www.browndailyherald.com/poll-most-students-opposed-to-use-of-race-in-admissions-1.2798318#.UMDCaY4WclJ

(2) Univ. of Texas
   In a NY Times article which quoted 80-20's amicus brief to the Supreme Court, it also reported the following. The 8 Asian Am. students, shown below, who are attending the Univ. of Texas all disagree with their instructor in a political identity class. The students oppose using race as a preference for admission which the U. of TX practices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian- americans.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#

(3) About a Great Book - MISMATCH by Richard Sander & Stuart Taylor, Jr.
   "Great review of a great book -- and of course that's what you would expect from Thomas Sowell, a national treasure. He's correct in his praise and in his one criticism, namely the failure of Mismatch to call for an outright end to racial preferences." -- Roger Clegg, who is President & General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. To see the book review itself, click on http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.2035/article_detail.asp#

(4) NPR, Nat'l Public Ratio, quotes 80-20 on college admission
   A November 21 NPR article quotes S. B. Woo speaking out against "race-conscious" college admission.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/21/165654268/as-talk-of-affirmative-action-heats-up-asians-contemplate-their-position
   A few months ago, when 80-20 EF decided to fight against "race-conscious" college admission, did you think that it would be noticed by so many mainstream media? Did you thick we could exerted such influence?

   Support 80-20. It has greatly expanded YOUR GROUP political clout.

   Post your comments at: 
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp .

Sincerely yours,
S. B. Woo, a volunteer,
President. 80-20 National Asian Am. Educational Foundation, Inc.

PS We gratefully acknowledge the generous donation of
1. Choong & Hsia Foundation, Los Altos, CA:      $1,000
2. The Baltimore Family Fund, Pasadena, CA:      $1,000

NY Times Quotes 80-20's Amicus Brief

[A] Good News
   NY Times published a long article entitled "Asian-Americans in the Argument" It quotes a paragraph from 80-20's amicus brief!. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#

   The article starts with the picture of 8 U. of TX students. They all disagreed with their instructor who supported the "race-conscious" college admission.



   Alright, you guys!!!!!!!!

   Think hard now!

   Which Asian American organization has the ability to put YOU in the argument on big issues?

   In the SUPREME COURT, 80-20 EF's amicus brief advocating a "race-neutral" college admission has placed YOU in the argument!

   In the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 80-20 PAC's advocacy for an Asian Am. bloc vote placed YOU in the argument, as reported in LA Times, CNN, Politico, and all other major TV channels for a delivered 74% bloc vote.

   Who BUT the 80-20 Initiative has the ability to PLACE YOU IN THE ARGUMENT i.e. MAKING YOU RELEVANT IN AMERICA!

[B] Bad News
   In the military court of INjustice, Sgt. Jeffery Hurst, who not only permitted his subordinates to racially and physically abuse Danny Chen, but also led in such abuses, was acquitted of all serious charges except for dereliction of duties. According to a news release from Fort Bragg:

   "Hurst was sentenced to reduction in rank to E4 and hard labor without confinement for 45 days by a panel of eight officer and enlisted members. The military judge for the Hurst court-martial was Col. David Robertson. The prosecution team consisted of Maj. Joshua Toman and Maj. Stephen Hernandez, and the defense team was civilian counsel Haytham Faraj and Capt. Jamie Gurtov."

   Asian Ams who STILL want to join the US Army are clearly placing their lives at risk, because those who want to abuse them can do so without due repercussion. What a shame for the US military!

   There are two more trials. 80-20 EF is contemplating further action when those two "trials" are done. What a shame!

[C] What Do You Want?
   Results like those described in [A] or [B]?

   For results in [B] just sit back, relax and continue to suck it up. For results in [A], you need to think about what YOU are willing to do to help make 80-20 stronger? For donating to EF, a tax exempt organization, click on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/donate/donate.asp

   You make your own destiny.

   Post your comments at: 
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp.

Sincerely yours,
S. B. Woo, a volunteer,
President. 80-20 National Asian Am. Educational Foundation, Inc.

A Must Read. Replacing 80-20 with 90-10?

   Blacks voted 93 to 7 for Obama twice, and had voted 90 to 10 for the Democratic presidential candidate for decades. However, it has a weakness - can't SWING.

   A 90-10 bloc vote is 33% more powerful than an 80-20 bloc vote. That is because a 80-20 bloc vote yields a (80% - 20%) or 60% margin of victory to the endorsed candidate, but a 90-10 bloc vote yields a (90%-10%) or an 80% margin of victory. This is a 20% point increase over the 60 points. Hence, it is a 20/60 or 33% increase in power in helping the endorsed candidate win.

   The following numerical examples illustrate the huge power of a 90-10 bloc vote.

Example 1: POWER of casting a 80-20 bloc vote
Two candidates run against each other in a political division, which for simplicity is assumed to have two constituent groups only. One group has 1 million votes (6.7%) and the other has 14 million votes (93.3%). Candidate A, a novice, courts the larger group. When the ballots are open, candidate A wins the larger community by the ratio of 52/48. The margin of difference is 4%. Since the larger group has 14 million votes, 4% of 14 million votes provides a winning margin of 560,000 votes to candidate A. His opponent, candidate B, is a seasoned politician. She courts the smaller group and wins that community by a ratio of 80 to 20. The difference between 80% and 20% is 60%. 60% of 1 million votes is 600,000 votes. As a result, candidate B wins the election by (600,000 – 560,000) or 40,000 votes. Astounding? Yes.

Example 2: THE INCREDIBLE POWER of a 90-10 bloc vote!
[Same basic story as above, except the smaller group now votes 90-10, and the size of the larger group is increased to 19 million votes.]

Two candidates run against each other in a political division, which for simplicity is assumed to have two constituent groups only. One group has 1 million votes (5% of total) and the other has 19 million votes (95%). Candidate A, a novice, courts the larger group. When the ballots are open, candidate A wins the larger community by the ratio of 52/48. The margin of difference is 4%. Since the larger group has 19 millions votes, 4% of 19 million votes provides a winning margin of 760,000 votes to candidate A. His opponent, candidate B, is a seasoned politician. She courts the smaller group and wins that community by a ratio of 90 to 10. The difference between 90% and 10% is 80%. 80% of 1 million votes is 800,000 votes. As a result, candidate B wins the election by (800,000 – 760,000) or 40,000 votes.

   Incredible?! A small minority of 5%* can be the kingmaker by voting 90-10!! Leading you to the water is 80-20's job.    :-) :-)

   If you want both parties to COMPETE to share our rightful concerns, FOLLOW 80-20. Support us back.

   Post your comments at: http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp .

   I thank Phil Choong of LA, a PAC Life Member, for suggesting the possibility of creating a 90-10 SWING bloc vote!

Sincerely,

S. B. Woo, a volunteer
President, 80-20 Nat'l Asian Am. Educational Foundation
http://www.80-20EducationalFoundation.org/

*5% is 1.7 % smaller than the 6.7% required by an 80-20 bloc vote, and is
0.33 of 5% or 33% more powerful!

 

AsAm vote too SMALL to count in battle-gd. states?

          Is our vote too small to count in battleground states (BGSs)?

         Most people think so!

   THINK AGAIN! Here is what happened in some battleground states in the 2000 election.

Names of States    Margins of Victory    % AsAm Voters (Population)
  Florida                     0.0092%                        1.2% (2.4%)
  New Mexico              0.06%                            0.7% (1.4%)
  Wisconsin                 0.22%                            1.1% (2.3%)
  Iowa                        0.31%                            0.8% (1.7%)
  Oregon                    0.44%                            1.8% (3.7%)

Go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000  for margins of victory. For % of AsAm population, click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

   Note that the % of Asian American voters is normally about HALF that of our population. This is because only about 58% of the Asian Americans are citizens. In addition, ours is a young population & has a larger than normal % of people under 18 years of age, who cannot vote.

   Compare the columns of margins of victory versus the % of AsAm voters. In every case, our voter % is at least 2.5 TIMES larger than the margin of victory.

   Imagine when the two major parties know that they can count on Asian Ams to deliver a bloc vote, if & when 80-20 endorses its presidential candidate.

   Do you think that our adults will STILL face the lowest  glass ceiling in workplaces, AND our children STILL face the highest admission bars in applying to elite colleges? No way!

   80-20 Educational Foundation can lead you to the water, but we can't force you to drink it. We can provide you with the knowledge and how to make yourselves equal citizens. YOU must decide whether you want it.

   80-20 PAC (not EF) has endorsed Obama for the 2012 election. 

Forward this email far & wide! Counting on you. :-)

Sincerely,

S.B. Woo, a volunteer
President, 80-20 National Asian Am Educational Foundation, Inc.
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/

   Post your comments at:

http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp .

Demand Justice for Danny Chen

       Did we forget Danny Chen's tragic death? NO!!

Danny Chen was American by birth AND by choice. He defied his 
parents' objection to join the Army. But he was RACIALLY & physically brutalized
to committing suicide by 8 of his superiors in his Company.

   Sgt Jeffrey T. Hurst will be tried from Nov. 5th to 9th. He is largely responsible for the suicide of Danny Chen. Our government's charge transcription states, "Hurst . . unlawfully killed . . Danny Chen . . by hazing and maltreating and negligently allowed (subordinates) to haze and maltreat .." 

   o Hurst, a sergeant, could have stopped his subordinates like Spc. Offut (6 months in jail & kicked out of the army) and Spc. Curtis (3 months in jail and reduction by 3 ranks from E-4 to E1) from abusing Danny.
   o Hurst not only didn't stop the E-4s from racially and physically abusing Danny Chen, he led both abuses. It is dereliction of duty, reckless endangerment, maltreatment of a subordinate, violation of of lawful general regulation, and negligent HOMICIDE.
   o Hurst led racial abuse by calling Danny "racially disparaging terms including "dragon lady," zipperhead," and "fortune cookie" or words to that effect." He also "negligently failed to prevent …Spc. Offutt and...Curtis from using ..terms including "Jackie Chen," "Fortune Cookie,"  . . "Soy Sauce," and "Dragon Lady," . . as it was his duty to do."
   o Hurst led the hazing of Danny Chen. He "unlawfully tied a sandbag to the wrist, or arm of … Danny Chen . . ." The above quoted paragraph was in the government's original charge sheet, but was dropped on April 23, 2012. However, the charge that "Hurst hazed Danny" still stands, except that it is not longer so explicit.

   o Quoting the government's charge sheet, "HURST . . negligently caused Private (E-2)Danny Chen to take his own life with a firearm, . . ." and "conduct likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to Private (E-2) Danny Chen, . . "

   LOGIC & JUSTICE DEMAND that Hurst be penalized more than Spc. Offutt.

Hurst is higher in rank. He failed to stop the racial and physical tormenting of Danny Chen by Offutt and others. Indeed, Hurst led!

   Demand Justice! Our national se 4ce curity depends on a just court in the military system. Stay focused! Two more trials will be coming soon.

   Post your comments at: 

http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp .


Sincerely,
S. B. Woo. A volunteer
President, 80-20 National Asian Am. Educational Foundation, Inc.