Friday, June 24, 2016

Words from Strongly Dissenting Justices

Discouraged or Enraged? Hope it’s the Latter.

How the Supreme Court Has Ruled

   "The Court's affirmance of the University's admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement," the court wrote in its majority opinion.
Refinement?  Hear the Words of Dissenting Justices

   Supreme Court Justice J. Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas joined, dissented by stating (pp 22-27):

   "... But UT's plan discriminates against Asian American students...including racial discrimination that undeniably harms Asian Ams ... the court's willingness to allow this "discrimination against individuals of Asian descent is particularly troubling, in light of the long history of discrimination against Asian Americans, especially in education ... In particular, the Fifth Circuit's willful blindness to Asian-American students is absolutely shameless."

   Listen!  Even our Supreme Court Justices clearly described the treatment of AsAm students as DISCRIMINATION Why didn't the other Justices see it? My conjecture is that they saw it too, but chose to focus on the diversity issue and give Asian Americans the "willful blindness." 

   Our responsibility to our future generations is to force the other Justices to come out of their "willful blindness."  That'll take another lawsuit.

80-20 will lead, IF you will do your share

   80-20 ponders filing a very different lawsuit.  Our lawsuit will NOT get into the issue of diversity involving Hispanic and black students.  Instead, our lawsuit will focus sharply on the various discriminations against AsAm students, raised by the 3 Supreme Court Justices.

   We'll uphold Affirmative Action but ask "Is Affirmative Action's intent for minorities to give advantage to the majority or the other way around?"  

   As Justice Alito stated, "…the court's willingness to allow this "discrimination against individuals of Asian descent is particularly troubling, in light of the long history of discrimination against Asian Americans, especially in education."

   80-20 will fight, if you will.

The litmus test for 80-20 to step in

   There is nothing we can't achieve, if we are united.  Will we?
   80-20 may start a petition site aiming to get 1,000,000 AsAms to sign. Signers will appeal to those AsAms who have donated to Ivy Leagues schools to STOP donating but instead donate to build up the war chest for this lawsuit. All signers will donate $10 or more.

   Will that be enough?  Yes.  Here are the names of AsAms who have given so generously to the very universities which discriminate against AsAms, in the clear words of 3 Supreme court justices:

                   Lei Zhang:  $8.8 million to Yale,
                   Elaine Chao family: $40 million to Harvard, and
                   Gerald Chan: $350 million to Harvard, 
   When they gave, did they at least ask the universities not to discriminate against AsAms?  Will they donate as generously to help fight against the discrimination against our children, now that the case is made so clearly by the 3 dissenting Supreme Court Justices?

   Reply to this e-newsletter.  Do your share please.  If we get 1,000 supportive emails within 3 days, 80-20 will take another step toward filing a lawsuit.  80-20 plans methodically, and usually wins.  

Discouraged or Enraged?

S. B. Woo 

President and a volunteer for the past 18 years
80-20 Initiative, Inc.

To know more about 80-20, view these videos :  (Ignore the last 35 secs.  80-20's candidate has won.) (Ignore the appeal for funds.  SELF has succeeded.)
Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter