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

Comparing Jewish Ams. with Asian Ams (Part II)

   This is part II of "Our Rich & Powerful."

                       Asian Americans Are the New Jews

   Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Daniel Golden called Asians "the new Jews, inheriting the mantle of the most disenfranchised group in college admissions." Golden observed, "Average SAT scores for Asian Americans admitted to the Ivy Leagues are substantially above those for any other group, including whites . . . ."

                       To the Jewish Ams, Charity Begins At Home

   They help themselves. In 2010, the Jewish community spent at least $28 per Jewish Am. to protect their rights and advance their rightful interests. See FOOTNOTE 1.
   In contrast, 80-20 PAC and Educational Foundation can only spend $0.007 per Asian Am. See FOOTNOTE 2.

  Asian American "Rich & Powerful" Don't Help Their Own People

   In 2000, Lulu and Anthony Wang gave $25 million to Wellesley College. In 2002, Charles B. Wang donated $52 million to SUNY. In 2007, Jerry Yang and his wife Akiko Yamazaki pledged $75 million to Stanford. In 2008, Oscar L. Tang gave $25 million to Philips Academy Andover. In 2012, the Chao family, including former Sec. of Labor Elaine Chao, donated $40 million to Harvard Business School. The sum is $217 million over 12 years, averaging $18 million per year. While we appreciate these wonderful individuals' good deeds for our nation, we like to call to their attention the following contrast.
   In comparison, to the best of our knowledge, not a single Asian Am has given more than $3 million to an Asian Am cause in the history of America.

           Asian Ams Are the Most Discriminated Against in the USA

   As the mainstream media have increasingly noted:
      (a) Our children face the tallest barrier in applying to elite colleges, &
      (b) Our adults face the lowest glass ceiling in workplaces.
   God helps those who help themselves. We must help ourselves first. Forward this newsletter to those who ID with us. To comment, click http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp


Sincerely,

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

                                          Announcement

  S. B. Woo will be a panelist and the keynote speaker at Asian Pacific Am. Law Students 2nd Annual Meeting at Columbia University on April 6, 2013 (Sat.), from 2 to 8;30 p.m. AsAm Lawyers are particularly welcome. For details, click http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/apalsaconference/ . For the registration
page, http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/apalsaconference/registration/

   FOOTNOTE 1 - Annual budget of 3 Jewish Am. orgs in 2010

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee): $67 million. Go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee#Membership
ADL (Anti-Defamation League): $60 million in 2005, likely more now. Go
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01146.html
AJC (American Jewish Committee): $42 million. Go
http://www.guidestar.org/PartnerReport.aspx?partner=justgivews&ein=13-5563393

   FOOTNOTE 2 -- In 2010, annual budget of 80-20 PAC and EF combined is about $100,000.
  

Are our "rich & powerful" doing their share to help? (I)

   "To those whom much is given, much is expected." --
                                                                          John F Kennedy

   Are our "rich & powerful" doing their due shares to help Asian Americans become equal citizens of the USA?

   This is such a sensitive topic that few will dare to touch with a 10-Foot-pole. However, for the sake of our community, 80-20 EF believes that we must together examine this issue and let truth be known.

   Frankly, most Asian Americans believe that our elites, on the average, have not done their share. Their collective records are not good.

   (a) Donation Record of Our RICH: Many Asian Ams have donated tens of millions to good causes in the mainstream society. We thank them for that. However, our rich has been STINGY toward its own community. Personally, I don't know of a single Asian Am. who has donated more than $3 million to an Asian Am. cause.

   (b) Performance Record of Our POWERFUL: Our so called "powerful" have truly been TIMID to fight against inequities committed against its own people. Examples of serious injustices committed against Asian Ams are:

     i) Extreme paucity in life-tenured Asian Am. federal judges;

     ii) Irrefutable statistical evidence that Asian Ams have the lowest manager-to-worker ratio in private industries, universities and the federal government when compared to all other races/ethnics.

    iii) Asian Am students face the highest college admission bars, higher than that for white applicants! It is blatantly ANTI-Asian-Am. but disguised as an affirmative program.

   Did any of our elected Asian Am. officials or former cabinet and sub-cabinet member, or university trustees and presidents or ethnic media CEOs & editors, or president & executive director of our national civic organizations fight for us on these issues? NO!

   Was it because such inequities were unsolvable? NO! 80-20 Initiative has tackled all 3 issues, with reasonable success.

                80-20 Educational Foundation's Belief
   Before Asian Americans become EQUAL citizens, our elite must do their share to help. Our rich must NOT BE STINGY. Our powerful must NOT BE TIMID.

                          What We Can All Do!

   Please (a) forward this e-newsletter far and wide. Hopefully, it will reach some of our "rich and powerful" and their children, for our elite to reflect on their obligations. (b) Post your comment, and help correct any inaccuracy that I might have made in this article, especially regarding the donation record of our rich. We need to know the truth before we may cost effectively advance our own causes. There will be parts 2 and 3 discussing obligations of our "rich & powerful" BEFORE we reach our equal citizenship.

   Please go post your comments NOW at: 
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp .

   It takes a village, friends. We must each do our part.


Sincerely,
S. B. Woo, a volunteer president
80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc.
http://www.80-20EF.org

   80-20 gratefully acknowledges the generosity of
1) Chia-Lin Pao Tao Trust, Tucson AZ:                 $500.00
2) Shen Wu Family Trust, San Diego, CA:           $250.00

     ANNOUNCEMENT! Are you an employee of the following companies? They "gift-match" for your donation to 80-20 EF.

    i) Boeing      ii) Adobe      iii) ATT      iv) Microsoft
           v) TE Connectivity                 vi) Verizon
                        vii) Amylin Pharmaceuticals
  

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