OCA's Non-reply Reply & Your Choice

   80-20 asked Tom Hayashi, OCA's Exec. Director, 3 straight-forward questions, whose answers should be public information to begin with. See a summary of the questions, shown 4 paragraphs below. To see the original questions, click on Questions for Tom Hayashi of OCA.

   No answer. WHY? Instead, he sent me the following legalistic non-reply reply.

"Dear Mr. Woo:
Following our internal protocol, I will be forwarding your request for response by the Executive Council. We also will be consulting our general counsel for review and possible response.

Moreover, we request in any public communique that is sent through 80/20 that may contain any citation of our institutional message or language that you do not add your own emphasis (even with notation to that effect), direct citation would only be proper since the context may be misconstrued.   Sincerely,   Tom Hayashi"

   Why didn't Hayashi answer? Since OCA "embraces" our "hopes and aspirations," wouldn't OCA want to find out what our hopes and aspirations on "race-conscious" college admissions are by doing a poll? Shouldn't information on OCA's membership list and number of its real chapters be public information to begin with? Will the truth hurt?

   80-20 has great respect for OCA for its past contributions. Indeed, I was its National President in 1991. But we are puzzled by OCA's support for "race-conscious college admissions" under Mr. Hayashi. Is OCA still a real and truthful organization aiming to fight for "the hopes and aspirations of Asian Ams"?

   E-mail Tom Hayashi THayashi@ocanational.org . Ask him to answer these questions. If you are or were an OCA member and/or Chapter/national officer, please identify yourself as such. That will add weight to your statement. Copy me in if you like.

   Send your email, if you want your children to win.

   FORWARD this e-newsletter to your friends. Post your comments on 80-20's Poster Board.


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


     80-20's Message Picked Up by Some Mainstream Media

" . . . Case in point. When the NAACP sues to increase black and Latino admissions at specialized public high schools that are majority Asian, the top Asian advocacy organizations *always* endorse the suits despite that the redistribution of seats would take seats away from Asian students. Of course local Asian families never support the suits, but that doesn't matter to the Asian advocacy organizations because they don't answer to Asian families. Yet the media always cites the non-representative Asian advocacy organizations as the authoritative voice of the Asian community. . . ."

http://glpiggy.net/2013/07/17/where-i-speculate-on-how-the-george-zimmerman-tip-line-will-be-used/

QUESTIONS for Tom Hayashi of OCA

   80-20 deeply respects OCA's earlier service to the Chinese Am. community. However, owing to a recent OCA stand in college admissions that is contrary to the rightful interests of the Asian Am community, our community begins to QUESTION OCA'S INTEGRITY.

   Tom Hayashi, OCA's Exc. Director, CLAIMED in the first paragraph of his bio that OCA is
 
      " a premiere pan-Asian membership driven civil rights organization with a national network of 80 chapters & affiliates . . "

   We like to believe that the above are facts, not fabrications. Hence, we faxed and emailed the following QUESTIONS to Tom Hayashi, to get answers.

Question (1) Given that OCA is a membership-driven org., why isn't an OCA National MEMBERSHIP LIST shown anywhere to the public?
 
Has anyone EVER seen an OCA national membership list in recent year? (See 80-20's membership list here .)

Question (2) Given that Mr. Hayashi claimed having Delaware as one of OCA's 80 (50?) chapters (see his claim here ), we wonder if one single member, namely me, becomes an OCA chapter? Who are OCA's OTHER 2013 dues- paying members in Delaware? (In comparison, 80-20 requires 25 persons paying both national & chapters dues to become a chapter. Click here .)

Question (3) Since OCA embraces "the hopes and aspirations of AsAms," will you DO A POLL of your own on AsAm's view on "race-conscious" college admissions?

(80-20's survey showed that 98% of AsAms prefer race-neutral college admissions. Are you afraid, some people think, that the result of your own poll will limit your ability to follow other organizations with contrary preferences?)

   80-20's questions are NOT intended to embarrass Mr. Hayashi. If the claims are wrong, just say so. 80-20 & I have made honest &/or real mistakes before. But we owe up to it -- honesty with our own community is a MUST!

   80-20 just wants to make sure that we are dealing with HONORABLE people. If so, we like to think we can resolve our differences in college admissions in the best interests of our community.

   FORWARD this e-newsletter to your friends. Post your comments on 80-20's Poster Board .

   WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM MR. HAYASHI.


S.B. Woo, a volunteer
President, 80-20 National Asian Am Educational Foundation
Also the National President of OCA in 1991
 

Don't let our children feel ashamed of our heritage

   Nothing is more dangerous to us than having our own civil rights organizations (CROs) taking positions contrary to our rightful interests.

   Has that happened? You be the judge!

   98% of the Asian Ams preferred "race-neutral" admissions. Indeed, AsAm students sensing discrimination against them in college admissions, often refused to check the "Asian" box under race on their application. See USA Today article, "Some Asians' college strategy: Don't check 'Asian'". The Supreme Court apparently agrees with us and instructed the lower court to apply "strict scrutiny" to see if "race-neutral" college admissions can be accomplished while also achieving diversity.

   Yet, Tom Hayashi, Executive Director of OCA (Org. of Ch-Ams), issued a press release against our rightful interests, stating:

       "We ardently hope that the Court of Appeals will uphold the University of Texas' admission policy. Race-conscious admission policies create a more equitable educational landscape for APA students, . . .(emphasis added)"

   Now is the time for a FRANK discussion of how such a weird and sad situation could have happened. Don't be so quick to blame OCA. 
 
Understand the cause first!

   (1) We Don't Invest In Ourselves! Our community has never been willing to financially support our own CROs such as OCA, JACL, AAJA AALDEF, & APALC. Consequently, they mostly obtain their financial needs from outside of our community, namely Fortune 500 corporations and liberal foundations.

   Fortune 500 corporations spend money supporting the civil rights INDUSTRY (yes by now it is no longer a movement but an INDUSTRY) with at least one pragmatic, non-altruistic, aim -- to get NAACP on their side, if possible, since NAACP is the icon of civil rights. At the least, each of the corporate "Diversity Managers" in charge of dispensing money to the civil rights industry wants to make sure that the financial support of OCA & other AsAm CROs does NOT get the NAACP mad at his/her corporation, which would endanger his/her job. Under such an atmosphere, will AsAm CROs want to support an admissions policy which NAACP strongly opposes?

   MONEY TALKS! We are not willing to provide the money. So other people's money is talking!

   (2) We Lack Political Wisdom! We want good people to work for our CROs. Good people want good careers. Where can young, ambitious AsAm civil rights workers' CAREER advance to? AsAm CROs are small and few. So smart AsAm CAREER CR workers from day one know that they'll eventually work for either black or Hispanic CROs or for agencies of Democratic Administrations. That requires AsAm civil rights workers to always get along with NAACP.

   As a result, on a rare issue like college admissions, when the interests of the Asian Am community are in conflict with those of NAACP, they'll support NAACP.

   Don't blame OCA or NAACP! Wise up, FIRST!

   80-20 wants to be 100% loyal to AsAm's rightful interests. Hence we accept only AsAm money, resulting in a shoe-string operation for the last 15 years. Our volunteers and staff often work more than 60 hours /week.

   How to remedy this SAD, SHAMEFUL & DANGEROUS situation?

   80-20 loves to work with all Asian Ams, including the Committee of 100, and public-minded, wealthy AsAm individuals, OCA and the other AsAm CROs, former government officials to together protect our community's rightful interests. Step up & act! Don't let our children feel ashamed of their heritage.

   As a community, we are BELOW PAR IN INVESTING IN OURSELVES.

   FORWARD this e-newsletter to your friends. Post your comments on 80-20's Poster Board .



S.B. Woo, a volunteer
President, 80-20 National Asian Am Educational Foundation
Also the National President of OCA in 1991

The Supreme Court Decision on College Admissions

   The Supreme Court issued its decision on college admissions yesterday. In a 7 to 1 decision, it referred the case back to the Court of Appeals with the following key instructions.

(1)  The Supreme Court made it clear that race-conscious admissions should NOT be used unless there is "no workable race-neutral alternatives (that) would produce the educational benefits of diversity (emphasis added)". 80-20 advocates a race-neutral college admissions policy. We are also for diversity. However, diversity should be achieved WITHOUT discriminating against Asian American college applicants, e.g. by replacing "race" with "class". We are delighted that the Supreme Court seems to agree with both key points that 80-20 has advocated.

   Nevertheless, given that the case is referred back to the Court of Appeals, no final conclusion should be drawn except one -- we are better off today than a year ago.

(2)  The SC also asked the lower court to apply "strict scrutiny" in determining whether "race-conscious" in college admissions is called for.
   Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority stated, "Strict scrutiny does NOT permit a court to ACCEPT a school's assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way WITHOUT CLOSELY EXAMINING how the process works in practice.(emphasis added)"

  80-20 hopes that the so-called Asian Am. civil rights organizations such as      

         AALDEF of New York,

         OCA of Washington D.C.,

         AAJC of Washington D.C. and

         APALC of Los Angeles

will take Justice Kennedy's statement above to heart. They should apply "strict scrutiny" before accepting NAACP's and universities' assertion that the current "admissions process uses race in a permissible way."  Now is their time to join 98% of the Asian Americans who prefer "race-neutral" college admissions.

   80-20 is proud to have helped Asian American students get a step closer to enjoying equal opportunity to enter elite colleges. We shall continue to battle until Asian American adults and children enjoy equal opportunities fully.

   FORWARD this email to your friends. To post a comment, click on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp .


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

LA Times Op Ed on 80-20 & College Admissions

   In a few days, the Supreme Court will announce its decision on "race-conscious" college admission. See what our nation's most prestigious papers are saying recent days:

   NY Times, a liberal paper, didn't mention 80-20. But it predicted a result that 80-20 has fought for. "I've come to think there may be a better way to accomplish diversity: namely, by shifting attention from race to class." The author was the executive editor of NYT until September 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/opinion/keller-affirmative-reaction.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130610

   LA Times mentioned 80-20 in its first paragraph:

   "Any day now, the Supreme Court will announce its decision in the Fisher vs. University of Texas case, which could invalidate the use of race-conscious policies in college admissions. Some Asian American groups, such as the 80-20 Education Foundation, have been among the most vocal and visible in opposing what's broadly termed affirmative action. They believe getting rid of race considerations will work to the advantage of Asian Americans, who on average have held more extracurricular leadership positions and have higher test scores and grade-point averages than whites, yet have the lowest acceptance rate to elite private universities."

   "They are not wrong to worry about Asian admissions. The circumstantial evidence for a "bamboo" ceiling on Asian admissions is mounting. According to a 2009 study by sociologists Thomas Espenshade and
Alexandria Radford, Asian Americans must score 140 points higher on the SAT to have the same chance at admission to private colleges as whites. College enrollment trends show that the percentage of Asian Americans in many Ivies has stayed flat — between 15% and 18% — in the last 20 years, even though the college-age population of Asian Americans has doubled."

   "Still, affirmative action is a red herring for those who are truly concerned about discrimination against Asians in higher education. . . "
 
Click on http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chen-fisher-asian-affirmative-action-20130613,0,6358807.story

   CAN YOU IMAGINE that almost ALL the so called Asian American "CIVIL RIGHTS" orgs actually OPPOSED this good result? They actually filed amicus brief and issued press releases to STRONGLY support "race-conscious" college admissions.

   Please think on that one!!! How could such a weird situation come about? Will it happen again? Do you feel safe with these "CIVIL RIGHTS" orgs protecting you? They are:

       OCA, based in Washington D.C.,
       AALDE, based in NY City,
       APALC, based in Los Angeles,
       AAJC, based in Washington D.C. and many smaller ones.

   We hope that these orgs. will make amends and begin helping our college-aged youngsters. If they do that, the past can be forgiven. Otherwise? What should be done with them? You tell us. Pls comment on
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp.

Thanks.


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

S.B's First Quarterly Report to You

Dear Big Donors,

   May we have a heart-to heart talk? I'll be frank and truthful.

   Can you imagine our community WITHOUT 80-20 Initiative???

   WITHOUT 80-20, would Obama STILL have doubled the number of Asian Am life-tenured federal judges AND raised the no. of AsAm Appeals Court judges from 0 to 3?

   WITHOUT 80-20, would the US Labor Dept. STILL have promised in writing to enforce affirmative action laws for us in workplaces, which an Asian Am former Labor Sec., Elaine Chou, refused to do for you?

   WITHOUT 80-20, would the quota on Asian Am students by colleges STILL have been challenged by 80-20 in the Supreme Court, while many AsAm "civil rights" orgs actually filled on the other side?

   REMEMBER, none of the AsAm past and present elected officials have said a word, much less take actions, about these big issues! Indeed, the bigger the issues, the quieter our "civil rights" orgs and elected officials become!!!

   That was WHY 80-20 WAS ESTABLISHED. That was why I gave 14 years of my life to DEMONSTRATE that Asian Ams can fight for ourselves.

   But now 80-20 is dying. Why?

Reason 1: When 80-20 has demonstrated that it is politically effective, 99.99999% of the 15 million Asian Ams didn't pour out their support to make it a powerful and permanent weapon in our possession. 80-20 still operated on a shoe-string.

Reason 2: I'll soon be 76. The lack of a proper community response deters others from willing to take my (thankless) job. Our community fails to understand or care about its own BIG interests.

   That is why 80-20 is dying.

   As a result, I am forced to speak frankly to SIGNIFICANT PERSON(s) like you to ask for help. Unless people like you are willing to take a LARGER burden to help, 80-20 will die.

   Could a good organization emerge later? Maybe, but what is its odds?

   80-20 needs to be infused with millions of dollars for it to live and serve you, your children and the children of your children effectively.

   I admit my grievous faults. I failed to find a good leader to take over. What if we both keep on trying till 2016?

   We'll do our best. The three IEC elected members, Charles Zhang, Kathleen To & I have each donated $5,000 to PAC this month. Will YOU also try to raise some REAL money for us? WHY? The only way 80-20 can be kept alive is a well-paid staff and Executive Director. That's how the Jewish community does!

   In the short-term, 80-20 still shines. The pending Supreme Court decision in June will likely favor us. But the long-term picture is still dark.

   When significant people like you step forth to help, odds change. We at 80-20 have sacrificed for many years, YOU NEED TO HELP NOW.  NOBLESSE OBLIGE! I'd love to hear from you please. :-)

Looking to your great help,

S. B. Woo, who will irreversibly retire on 12/31/2016
President, 80-20 National Asian Am PAC, Inc.
  

Columbia U. AsAm Debate on College Admissions

   S. B. Woo was a panelist at Columbia Law School participating in a debate on "Fisher vs. U. of TX", organized by Columbia Asian Pacific American law students. His opponent was Khin Mai Aung of AALDEF.

   S.B.'s opening statement, which was limited to 4 minutes, is shown below:

   "When Affirmative Action was first proposed, minorities loved it. After all, Affirmative Action means: Owing to the historic wrongs done by the majority, minorities will have some advantage in (1) workplace hiring & promotion, (2) government contracts, & (3) college & school admissions.

   HOWEVER, BAD implementation of the affirmative college admission program has ACTUALLY made it ANTI-affirmative. I'll submit to you 2 powerful statistical facts.

   Fact 1: Princeton professor Thomas Espenshade found that in order for AsAm students to gain equal access to elite colleges, their AVERAGE score must be 140 pts. higher than whites; 270 pts. higher than Hispanics, and 450 pts. higher than blacks. Think! Why should AsAm applicants score higher than whites? Isn't that ANTI-affirmative? Isn't that blatant discrimination against us?

   Fact 2: UCLA & Purdue professors have found that even black and Hispanic students admitted through a strong racial preference suffered from "ACADEMIC MIS-Match." Professors teach to the middle of the class. Students whose ACADEMIC training is way below the average, can't follow. So such students mostly either switched out of their chosen major in Law and STEM disciplines or failed to graduate. AGAIN, isn't that ANTI-affirmative?

   Ms. Aung mentioned the advantages of diversity. No argument. But must diversity be achieved at the expense of Asian Am. students? Isn't the 14th amendment for the equal protection of all Americans a more important consideration than diversity?

   Ms. Aung CLAIMED that Hmong students might have benefited from the program. If so, for every Hmong student to benefit, a HUGE number of other AsAm students must suffer a disadvantage. BECAUSE only under such an extremely distorted ratio of beneficiaries vs. those who were damaged could the AVERAGE score, I repeat the AVERAGE score, for AsAm students still be 140 pts. higher than whites.

   Finally, let's get a historic perspective. The Am's Revolution for independence was opposed by some American colonists. Women's suffrage was strongly opposed by many society women of that period. Field-slaves' plans to escape were often betrayed by house- slaves. Strange! How a people's struggle for equal opportunity and freedom is often opposed by some of its own members. It's strange indeed. END!"

   Asian Am. orgs' EARLIER support for an "affirmative college admission" policy was UNDERSTANDABLE. Their CONTINUED support of the same is UNCONSCIONABLE, after the policy's anti-Asian Am. practices and its damaging effect of academic mismatch were known. The following larger AsAm orgs. still filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court to support the current admission plan:

    AALDEF http://aaldef.org/contact-us/
    APALC http://apalc.org/contact
    AAJC information@advancingequality.org

UNCONSCIONABLE ! Speak up! Tell them to stop and that they don't represent you. You must protect yourself from such "Asian Am" orgs.

   FORWARD this e-newsletter to your friends. To comment, click
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp


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