Monday, July 30, 2018

Mission Accomplished THIS time

Think long-term.   Do your share please.

WeChat account ID is: 8020ef.  Please scan our QR code, 
shown below, & on 80-20 EF's WeChat site. For a Chinese 
version of this e-newsletter, click on
                 Sec. 1283 of the House Version of NDAA Unconstitutionally    
                               Endangered an estimated 100,000 AsAms

    On May 24 of this year, H.R. 5515, entitled Nat'l Defense Authorization Act of 2019, or NDAA, passed.  Its Section 1283, entitled "Certification and Authority to Terminate Funding for Academic Research Relating To Foreign Talent Programs", stated:

"that such funds shall not be made available to any individual who has participated in or is currently participating in a foreign talent or expert recruitment program of a country listed in subsection (d)." (emphasis added)
Subsection (d) : The People's Republic of China, N. Korea, Russia & Iran.

                         What It Meant.  NOTE that It's Unconstitutional!

     It would mean that anyone having spent a portion of one's sabbatical or vacation in a visiting program on the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong or Macau, may NOT be be eligible for grants/contracts that contain Dept. of Defense money.  

     We estimate that tens of thousands of Americans and  AsAms, especially professors and professionals in private industries would be adversely  affected.  

     The 4 words shown in red in Sec 1283 made it unconstitutional, since 
the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3  prohibits retroactive   
legislation punishing individuals for events that were legal and occurred before the new judicial and/or legislative decision.

          Working behind the scenes to keep the language of Sec. 1283 
                                     out of the Senate version

      Knowing the potential harm to our community, EF president S. B. Woo contacted the political leaders he knows, documenting for them the unconstitutional nature of Sec. 1283.  

      His message was met with sympathetic hearings.  The senate version,
passed on 6/19, kept the language of Sec. 1283 out. 

           Working behind the scenes to keep the language of Sec. 1283 

                                     out of the FINAL version

    However, the two versions of the NDAA were to go into a Senate-House Conference Committee to settle their differences. Only delegates to this committee would have a say in the final version. Senator Tom Carper of Delaware again provided the critical help. He asked two Democratic senators who were delegates to the conference to keep an eye out for us and to try and keep the language of Sec. 1283 out.

     At the Conf. Comm., as a compromise, Republicans senators Cornyn and Cotton made an amendment entitled: "Initiative to support protection of national security academic researchers from undue influence and other security threats." Please note the drastic differences in the titles of 1286 and the earlier 1283.

       Sec 1286 took out the unconstitutional language in Sec 1283 of the House version and also deleted the names of the 4 nations, for now at least.. It asked the Defense Department to consult the academic community beforeenacting rules to disqualify "offenders" from DOD contracts. Click here to view the compromise version, passed a few days ago. Go to pages 1116 to 1120.                                 

      Mission Accomplished THIS time. Will EF be as successful the next time or every time? My guess is "NO !!!", unless each of us will do our share to forge unity within the AsAm community, before it is too late. Things will likely get tougher.

                         Post your views here.      Donate 

S B Woo, President & a volunteer for the past 20 years,
80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc. - a 501 c-3 org.
Lieutenant Governor of Delaware (1985-89)

PS: Please go read a great NYT article which just came out today, entitled "'Lopping,' 'Tips' and the 'Z-List': Bias Lawsuit Explores Harvard's Admissions Secrets" by clicking here.

To know more about 80-20, view these videos :  (Ignore the last 35 secs.)

Monday, July 23, 2018

Beyond a Doubt - Harvard discriminates (4)

Giving Harvard every benefit of the doubt

WeChat account ID is: 8020ef.  Please scan our QR code, 
shown below, & on 80-20 EF's WeChat site. For a Chinese 
version of this e-newsletter, click on

   If you didn't read "Beyond A doubt - Harvard Discriminates (1), (2) & (3)", please click here: (1)(2) & (3).
The Most Ugly Last Defense of AsAm Apologist for Harvard

     These folks will say, "AsAms are only 6% of our nation's  population, while being (17 +/- 3)% of Harvard's student body.  That is enough."  I would respect such an argument, if these apologists didn't know the following 
Jewish Americans comprise only % of the national population, 
while being 25% of Harvard's student body, as reported by The 
Jerusalem Post in 2015.
     It is mind boggling how Harvard could reject its discriminatory practice, adopted in the 1920's, against Jewish Americans and then decided to adopt a new deceptive discriminatory practice against the weak AsAms, almost 75 years later. What was the leadership at the Harvard Corporation thinking?

     In adopting this discriminatory admissions policy, Harvard has gone against everything its faculty, staff and students believe in -- equal opportunity, justice, honesty, and transparency.

     A new Harvard president, Lawrence S. Bacow, has come in, since June 30. Hopefully, he'll make a clear turn against his very ugly past.

      To post on the Poster Board, click here.  Please go read the substantive comments on (2).   To join SFFA, click here.  To see the huge amount of legal evidence gathered by SFFA lawyers against Harvard, click here
                                                    DONATE and 
      FORWARD this e-newsletter to members of the Harvard Community.

S. B. Woo 

President and a volunteer for the past 20 years
80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization,
Lieutenant Governor of Delaware (1985-89)

PSClick here to read a Boston Globe article on the SFFA vs. Harvard lawsuit.  I think its title is misleading.  It quotes me accurately.  However, it makes a distinction between discrimination against AmAms, and Affirmative Action, which bears paying attention.  A local paper may have a more sensitive hand measuring the pulse of the Boston District Court.

To know more about 80-20, view these videos :  (Ignore the last 35 secs. The election is over.)