亚裔细分法简介 —— 从加州说起

来源: 2018-03-06 百合, Wennan 美国华人之声

编者按: 最近我们一直在刊登有关“亚裔细分”的文章。 很多读者询问,究竟什么是“亚裔细分”? 这个问题不难回答。 “亚裔细分”,是美国政治游戏的一个“特产”,这就是规定所有的亚裔美国人在填写一些表格中的有关“种族”的问题时,必须按照祖上的原住国填写自己的种族。 例如,如果一个亚裔的祖上是来自越南,这位就必须填写“越南”;如果是柬埔寨,就必须填写“柬埔寨”。 看上去这并不是什么问题,但细究起来问题就大了。 因为美国别的种族不需要这样仔细填写。 例如白人就只须填写“白人”就行了,不必填写自己祖上是来自英国还是俄罗斯,法国还是波兰,等等。  黑人也只须要填写“黑人”。 单独逼迫亚裔填写的这么仔细,这样一来挑起了亚裔内部火拼,互相争夺政府资源(小的族裔需要照顾,大的族裔需要出血。 华裔是美国亚裔最大一族,自然是要当冤大头)。 而且由于细分,美国亚裔的子子孙孙都要被打上祖宗原住国的烙印。 假如一个亚裔去竞选公职,那么人家就会指指戳戳地说:看这个老挝人在竞选市长,那个韩国人在竞选议员,那位中国女生在竞选州长……。 这无形中把美国亚裔变成了永久的外国人,不被美国主流社会所接纳。  更可笑的是,“亚裔细分”甚至把来自于海峡两岸的华人给分成两个不同的民族。 我们知道,来自海峡两岸的华人,同文同种,大部分都是汉族,文化和生活习俗都是一样的,怎么一细分就成了两个民族呢?

本期我们邀请两位对于亚裔细分颇有研究的维权人士给我们仔细讲解亚裔细分的来龙去脉。

Wennan: 加州的亚裔细分法的出笼经过

加州细分亚裔为8个至16个子类的若干法案经过自1989年以来的长达22年的失败后,最终于2011年通过,形成州法GC-8310.5及GC-8310.7条款。此时的加州及全美华人还在昏睡。

于是此州法在近年开始被加州教育厅引用,执行把亚裔细分为8个子类的其中的一个条款GC-8310.5(虽然我们认为是错误地引用,斗争正在进行中),并在最近几年开始在加州教育厅管辖下的小学、初中、高中(加州教育厅对加州的高校无管辖权)开始施行亚裔细分表,如最近学区的入学注册表,尤其是最近开始的电子表格,取消了”Asian”这个Race选项,并不允许填表者拒绝填选亚裔族裔细分的选项。

2016年1月,加州的亚裔细分法AB-1726在将只占加州总人口14%左右的亚裔细分为16个族裔的基础上,明确指出要将此应用于加州的高等教育领域,如加州的高校等必须执行,来为加州高校某种程度上已在进行的按族裔进行的录取配额行为建立法理基础。法案差点再次悄悄通过,但有良知的加州共和党议员们将此法案告知了华人社区。此法案立即遭到了加州及全美醒过来的华人朋友们的反弹。因此从2016年3月份左右开始,在亚裔和华裔中开始正确解读亚裔细分法的本质和危害性。由于该提案的策略是温水煮青蛙,采取分化的手段,具体表现为具有非常大的迷惑性和麻痹性,因此聚集反对此提案的力量的过程十分漫长而艰难。然而,在加州和全美华人长达半年多时间的持续和坚决的反对和阻击下,在加州共和党议员们的支持下,终于迫使提案方取消了高等教育部分,且余留的医疗部分也名存实亡。

一言蔽之,亚裔细分法发端于加州,正如很多朋友们做了大量研究以后都会发现,这是民主党花了十几年左右的时间来设计和推进的一个agenda,并最早于2011年成州法,且在2017年左右有在某些州和联邦层面不知不觉中推广的意图。其中的意味,想必大家不难体会。

百合: @Wennan 正解!看下面这个图:

百合: 看上表,1989 皇军Floyd第一次尝试亚裔细分,没出门就被灭了。 2006年伪军刘云平来了,2011年刘升官当了参议员,和另一个伪军伍国庆(伍是赵美心老公),两人联手打造了亚裔细分基石。外面以讹传讹,说2016年开始的,其实2016被我们拼了老命拔掉了一颗毒牙,但是毒蛇是2011年被放出来的…

Identity politics (身份政治——编者译)。相信这个的人们是民主党坚定不移的票仓,昨日、今日,将来?D’Souza在Hillary’s America里面引经据典、用统计数据表明当初KKK党是民主党中坚,这些中坚在所谓1960年主党和和党大换血时,只有百分之一、二去了共和党,剩下都留在主党,名人包括变暖教教主Al Gore的老爸Al Gore Senior。当时权倾民主党朝野,曾经带领主党filibuster against 黑人的Civil Rights。”It was June 1964, less than five months before the elder Gore was to face Tennessee voters. Southern Democrats, representing the powerful segregationist wing of the party, were in the midst of a 57-day filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting on the Civil Rights Act.” 另一个名人是Robert Byrd,希拉里称他是自己的导师。Byrd曾经带了100个KKK进去主党。是民主党永远的痛。我个人觉得任何党派搞identity politics都是咱们少数民族的敌人,如果有朝一日共和党转成搞identity politics为党的首要任务(当时Bonta在2016亚裔细分法听证会上公开说搞亚裔细分是全国主党的首要任务、没有回旋余地)我也一样会扁共和党 。

D’Souza还揭露了一点,南北战争时期的南军将士大多是平民,并非拥有黑奴的(想想可靠性很高,农场主哪里会大批去送死,他们连做事情都不亲自动手了)。为何主党你能够调动这些白人呢?因为他们被拉进了一个套路:虽然赤贫,可他们自己觉得是上等人。人为的种族隔离,使他们自我感觉良好。所以会为理想舍生。反观现在白左极端分子宁愿政府关门也要支持非法移民的做派,是否惊人类似?我见到的最让我受不了的种族份子是那些在川普上台后,见到我就拉着我手说,“不要怕,别伤心,我们和你们在一起…” 意思是我们和非法移民没啥区别,属于异类。

再多啰嗦几句,在美国的黑人被少数领袖代表了,本来黑人是非常有能力有创造性的民族,被豢养起来之后反而一蹶不振,被来自世界各地的其他黑人看不上眼,他们自己群体里也有很多精英,不少是和党的坚定信徒,包括联邦大法官Clarence Thomas和加州Prop 209的创始人之一当时加州大学摄政Ward Connerly。他们这些黑人精英认为主党的愚民政策导致了在美黑人的社会经济地位普遍偏低。D’Souza更是讥讽主党把种植园从农庄搬到了都市中心,仍然起到了隔离黑人的作用。现在明白为何民主党要抵制charter school了吧?有了这种混合入学的方式,黑人下一代就不那么好糊弄了。所以你看,黑人也好,华人也好,都是会被伪军带沟里的

How America’s identity politics went from inclusion to division

source: 3/1/2018 The Guardian

Political tribalism has reached a new peak, writes Amy Chua in her new book, and it leaves the US in a new perilous situation

We are at an unprecedented moment in America.

For the first time in US history, white Americans are faced with the prospect of becoming a minority in their “own country.” While many in our multicultural cities may well celebrate the “browning of America” as a welcome step away from “white supremacy”, it’s safe to say that large numbers of American whites are more anxious about this phenomenon, whether they admit it or not. Tellingly, a 2012 study showed that more than half of white Americans believe that “whites have replaced blacks as the ‘primary victims of discrimination’.”

Meanwhile, the coming demographic shift has done little to allay minority concerns about discrimination. A recent survey found that 43% of black Americans do not believe America will ever make the changes necessary to give blacks equal rights. Most disconcertingly, hate crimes have increased 20% in the wake of the 2016 election.

When groups feel threatened, they retreat into tribalism. When groups feel mistreated and disrespected, they close ranks and become more insular, more defensive, more punitive, more us-versus-them.

In America today, every group feels this way to some extent. Whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, straight people and gay people, liberals and conservatives – all feel their groups are being attacked, bullied, persecuted, discriminated against.

Of course, one group’s claims to feeling threatened and voiceless are often met by another group’s derision because it discounts their own feelings of persecution – but such is political tribalism.

This – combined with record levels of inequality – is why we now see identity politics on both sides of the political spectrum. And it leaves the United States in a perilous new situation: almost no one is standing up for an America without identity politics, for an American identity that transcends and unites all the country’s many subgroups.

This is certainly true of the American left today.

Fifty years ago, the rhetoric of pro–civil rights, Great Society liberals was, in its dominant voices, expressly group transcending, framed in the language of national unity and equal opportunity.

In his most famous speech, Dr Martin Luther King Jr proclaimed: “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men – yes, black men as well as white men – would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

King’s ideals – the ideals of the American Left that captured the imagination and hearts of the public and led to real change – transcended group divides and called for an America in which skin color didn’t matter.

Leading liberal philosophical movements of that era were similarly group blind and universalist in character. John Rawls’s enormously influential A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, called on people to imagine themselves in an “original position”, behind a “veil of ignorance”, in which they could decide on their society’s basic principles without regard to “race, gender, religious affiliation, [or] wealth”.

At roughly the same time, the idea of universal human rights proliferated, advancing the dignity of every individual as the foundation of a just international order.

Thus, although the Left was always concerned with the oppression of minorities and the rights of disadvantaged groups, the dominant ideals in this period tended to be group blind, often cosmopolitan, with many calling for transcending not just ethnic, racial, and gender barriers but national boundaries as well.

Perhaps in reaction to Reaganism, and a growing awareness that “colorblindness” was being used by conservatives to oppose policies intended to redress racial inequities, a new movement began to unfold on the left in the 1980s and 1990s – a movement emphasizing group consciousness, group identity, and group claims.

Many on the left had become acutely aware that color blindness was being used by conservatives to oppose policies intended to redress historical wrongs and persisting racial inequities.

Many also began to notice that the leading liberal figures in America, whether in law, government, or academia, were predominantly white men and that the neutral “group-blind” invisible hand of the market wasn’t doing much to correct long-standing imbalances.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the anti-capitalist economic preoccupations of the old Left began to take a backseat to a new way of understanding oppression: the politics of redistribution was replaced by a “politics of recognition”. Modern identity politics was born.

As Oberlin professor Sonia Kruks writes, “What makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier [movements] is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied: it is qua women, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition … The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of ‘universal humankind’ … nor is it for respect ‘in spite of’ one’s differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different.”

But identity politics, with its group-based rhetoric, did not initially become the mainstream position of the Democratic Party.

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Barack Obama famously declared, “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”

A decade and a half later, we are very far from Obama’s America.

For today’s Left, blindness to group identity is the ultimate sin, because it masks the reality of group hierarchies and oppression in America.

It’s just a fact that whites, and specifically white male Protestants, dominated America for most of its history, often violently, and that this legacy persists. The stubborn persistence of racial inequality in the wake of Barack Obama’s supposedly “post-racial” presidency has left many young progressives disillusioned with the narratives of racial progress that were popular among liberals just a few years ago.

When a grand jury failed to indict a white cop who was videotaped choking a black man to death, black writer Brit Bennett captured this growing mistrust in an essay entitled, “I Don’t Know What to Do with Good White People”:

We all want to believe in progress, in history that marches forward in a neat line, in transcended differences and growing acceptance, in how good the good white people have become … I don’t think Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo set out to kill black men. I’m sure the cops who arrested my father meant well. But what good are your good intentions if they kill us?

For the Left, identity politics has long been a means to “confront rather than obscure the uglier aspects of American history and society”.

But in recent years, whether because of growing strength or growing frustration with the lack of progress, the Left has upped the ante. A shift in tone, rhetoric, and logic has moved identity politics away from inclusion – which had always been the Left’s watchword – toward exclusion and division. As a result, many on the left have turned against universalist rhetoric (for example, All Lives Matter), viewing it as an attempt to erase the specificity of the experience and oppression of historically marginalized minorities.

The new exclusivity is partly epistemological, claiming that out-group members cannot share in the knowledge possessed by in-group members (“You can’t understand X because you are white”; “You can’t understand Y because you’re not a woman”; “You can’t speak about Z because you’re not queer”). The idea of “cultural appropriation” insists, among other things, “These are our group’s symbols, traditions, patrimony, and out-group members have no right to them.”

For much of the Left today, anyone who speaks in favor of group blindness is on the other side, indifferent to or even guilty of oppression. For some, especially on college campuses, anyone who doesn’t swallow the anti-oppression orthodoxy hook, line, and sinker – anyone who doesn’t acknowledge “white supremacy” in America – is a racist.

When liberal icon Bernie Sanders told supporters, “It’s not good enough for somebody to say, ‘Hey, I’m a Latina, vote for me,’ ” Quentin James, a leader of Hillary Clinton’s outreach efforts to people of color, retorted that Sanders’s “comments regarding identity politics suggest he may be a white supremacist, too”.

Once identity politics gains momentum, it inevitably subdivides, giving rise to ever-proliferating group identities demanding recognition.

Today, there is an ever-expanding vocabulary of identity on the left. Facebook now lists more than fifty gender designations from which users can choose, from genderqueer to intersex to pangender.

Or take the acronym LGBTQ. Originally LGB, variants over the years have ranged from GLBT to LGBTI to LGBTQQIAAP as preferred terminology shifted and identity groups quarreled about who should be included and who come first.

Because the Left is always trying to outleft the last Left, the result can be a zero-sum competition over which group is the least privileged, an “Oppression Olympics” often fragmenting progressives and setting them against each other.

Although inclusivity is presumably still the ultimate goal, the contemporary Left is pointedly exclusionary.

During a Black Lives Matter protest at the DNC held in Philadelphia in July 2016, a protest leader announced that “this is a black and brown resistance march”, asking white allies to “appropriately take [their] place in the back of this march”.

The war on “cultural appropriation” is rooted in the belief that groups have exclusive rights to their own histories, symbols, and traditions. Thus, many on the left today would consider it an offensive act of privilege for, say, a straight white man to write a novel featuring a gay Latina as the main character.

Transgressions are called out daily on social media; no one is immune. Beyoncé was criticized for wearing what looked like a traditional Indian bridal outfit; Amy Schumer, in turn, was criticized for making a parody of Beyoncé’s Formation, a song about the black female experience. Students at Oberlin complained of a vendor’s “history of blurring the line between culinary diversity and cultural appropriation by modifying the recipes without respect for certain Asian countries’ cuisines”. And a student op-ed at Louisiana State University claimed that white women styling their eyebrows to look thicker – like “a lot of ethnic women” –was “a prime example of the cultural appropriation in this country”.

Not everyone on the Left is happy with the direction that identity politics has taken. Many are dismayed by the focus on cultural appropriation. As a progressive Mexican American law student put it, “If we allowed ourselves to be hurt by a costume, how could we manage the trauma of an eviction notice?”

He added: “Liberals have cried wolf too many times. If everything is racist and sexist, nothing is. When Trump, the real wolf, came along, no one listened.”

As a candidate, Donald Trump famously called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”, described illegal Mexican immigrants as “rapists”, and referred disparagingly to an Indiana-born federal judge as “Mexican”, accusing the judge of having “an inherent conflict of interest” rendering him unfit to preside over a suit against Trump.

Making the argument that Trump used identity politics to win the White House is like shooting fish in a barrel. But us-versus-them, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant sentiments were bread and butter for most conservatives on the 2016 campaign trail. Senator Marco Rubio compared the war with Islam to America’s “war with Nazis”, and even moderate Republicans like Jeb Bush advocated for a religious test to allow Christian refugees to enter the country preferentially.

We are also seeing on the right – particularly the alt-right – political tribalism directed against minorities perceived as “too successful”. For example, Steve Bannon, Trump’s former White House chief strategist, has complained that America’s “engineering schools are all full of people from South Asia and East Asia … They’ve come in here to take these jobs” while Americans “can’t get engineering degrees … [and] can’t get a job”.

This brings us to the most striking feature of today’s right-wing political tribalism: the white identity politics that has mobilized around the idea of whites as an endangered, discriminated-against group.

In part this development carries forward a long tradition of white tribalism in America. But white identity politics has also gotten a tremendous recent boost from the Left, whose relentless berating, shaming, and bullying might have done more damage than good.

One Trump voter claimed that “maybe I’m just so sick of being called a bigot that my anger at the authoritarian left has pushed me to support this seriously flawed man.” “The Democratic party,” said Bill Maher, “made the white working man feel like your problems aren’t real because you’re ‘mansplaining’ and check your privilege. You know, if your life sucks, your problems are real.” When blacks blame today’s whites for slavery or ask for reparations, many white Americans feel as though they are being attacked for the sins of other generations.

Or consider this blog post in the American Conservative, worth quoting at length because of the light it sheds:

I’m a white guy. I’m a well-educated intellectual who enjoys small arthouse movies, coffeehouses and classic blues. If you didn’t know any better, you’d probably mistake me for a lefty urban hipster.

And yet. I find some of the alt-right stuff exerts a pull even on me. Even though I’m smart and informed enough to see through it. It’s seductive because I am not a person with any power or privilege, and yet I am constantly bombarded with messages telling me that I’m a cancer, I’m a problem, everything is my fault.

I am very lower middle class. I’ve never owned a new car, and do my own home repairs as much as I can to save money. I cut my own grass, wash my own dishes, buy my clothes from Walmart. I have no clue how I will ever be able to retire. But oh, brother, to hear the media tell it, I am just drowning in unearned power and privilege, and America will be a much brighter, more loving, more peaceful nation when I finally just keel over and die.

Trust me: After all that, some of the alt-right stuff feels like a warm, soothing bath. A “safe space,” if you will. I recoil from the uglier stuff, but some of it— the “hey, white guys are actually okay, you know! Be proud of yourself, white man!” stuff is really VERY seductive, and it is only with some intellectual effort that I can resist the pull … If it’s a struggle for someone like me to resist the pull, I imagine it’s probably impossible for someone with less education or cultural exposure.

Just as the Left’s exclusionary identity politics is ironic in light of the Left’s ostensible demands for inclusivity, so too is the emergence of a “white” identity politics on the right.

For decades, the Right has claimed to be a bastion of individualism, a place where those who rejected the divisive identity politics of the Left found a home.

For this reason, conservatives typically paint the emergence of white identity as having been forced on them by the tactics of the Left. As one political commentator puts it, “feeling as though they are under perpetual attack for the color of their skin, many on the right have become defiant of their whiteness, allowing it into their individual politics in ways they have not for generations”.

At its core, the problem is simple but fundamental. While black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, and many others are allowed – indeed, encouraged – to feel solidarity and take pride in their racial or ethnic identity, white Americans have for the last several decades been told they must never, ever do so.

People want to see their own tribe as exceptional, as something to be deeply proud of; that’s what the tribal instinct is all about. For decades now, nonwhites in the United States have been encouraged to indulge their tribal instincts in just this way, but, at least publicly, American whites have not.

On the contrary, if anything, they have been told that their white identity is something no one should take pride in. “I get it,” says Christian Lander, creator of the popular satirical blog Stuff White People Like, “as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth.”

But the tribal instinct is not so easy to suppress. As Vassar professor Hua Hsu put it in an Atlantic essay called “The End of White America?” the “result is a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead.”

In combination with the profound demographic transformation now taking place in America, this suppressed urge on the part of many white Americans – to feel solidarity and pride in their group identity, as others are allowed to do – has created an especially fraught set of tribal dynamics in the United States today.

Just after the 2016 election, a former Never Trumper explained his change of heart in the Atlantic: “My college-age daughter constantly hears talk of white privilege and racial identity, of separate dorms for separate races (somewhere in heaven Martin Luther King Jr is hanging his head and crying) … I hate identity politics, [but] when everything is about identity politics, is the left really surprised that on Tuesday millions of white Americans … voted as ‘white’? If you want identity politics, identity politics is what you will get.”

From Political Tribes by Amy Chua. Published by arrangement with Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2018 by Amy Chua.

As I See It: Stop Massachusetts from creating an unconstitutional ‘Asian Registry’

A controversial Massachusetts bill, the Asian Data Disaggregation Act (H.3361), is under consideration by the state legislature. If enacted, it would require “all state agencies, quasi-state agencies, entities created by state statute and sub-divisions of state agencies” to identify Asian American, and only Asian American, people based on their country of origin or ancestry.

The bill is a senseless approach to a sensitive issue. In fact, it will essentially create an Asian Registry and has many unintended consequences.

H.3361 is a form of racial profiling because it singles out Asian Americans, down to their nationality even if they are born in the United States. Disaggregation means separating something into its component parts. No matter the intent, the outcome is obvious. Not only the first generation of immigrants, born in a foreign country, need to identify themselves by their country of origin, but also their children who were born in the U.S. and their children’s children by the country of origin of their ancestors. Theoretically, there’s no end to the generations this could affect.

First, let’s look no further than America’s own history. The hyphenated American was a commonly used term from 1890 to 1920 to disparage Americans of foreign heritage. President Theodore Roosevelt was an outspoken anti-hyphenate. And he said “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.” And he continued, “The one absolute certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” Under the proposed bill, there will be many hyphenated Americans with Asian heritage, boxes for Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, Indian-Americans, Cambodian-Americans and Korean-Americans, etc.

Second, to be perfectly clear, H.3361 is not a form of census because the U.S. Census requires all races and ethnicities to be classified and surveyed, not just Asian American. Moreover, the U.S. census is granted by Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and administered by the U.S. Census Bureau, under very strict data collection, data security and privacy rules and regulations. More important, H.3361 is not a scientific method of collecting data. Census data is gathered by one federal agency at one given time through a single standard census form. It’s a snapshot of the entire population at a point in time. But under H.3361, the racial, ethnic or ancestry data would be collected by many different agencies at many times using many different data entry points, which will result in redundant effort, data overlap, double counting, as well as vast data tabulation, normalization, correlation, reconciliation, consolidation and cleansing issues. It is an unscientific as well as imprudent way of collecting sensitive personal data.

Potentially, the disparate datasets from different agencies could be unreliable, inaccurate and unusable for policymaking due to its flawed data collection method. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money, and a waste of the state funding and resources.

Third, the mental and psychological impact on hundreds of thousands of Asian immigrants and their children can’t be underestimated. Many Asian Americans are keenly aware of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the long suspected hidden Asian quota in many top American colleges and universities which echoes the Jewish quota of 1920s, not to mention the Nazi concentration camps as well as the Jewish Registry created by Nazi Germany from 1939 ethnic data collection and which led to the identification, prosecution and ethnic cleansing of Jews. Since H.3361 was introduced, racial tensions, angers, resentments, anxieties, and fears among Asian communities have been running high. There were half a dozen protests and demonstrations held in the last 6 months by various Asian organizations and groups.

The bill also reinforces a perpetual foreigner mindset and stereotype. It would alienate many patriotic Asian Americans by reminding them of an Asian Registry. It would solidify discrimination and racism against Asian Americans, many of whom were born in this country. It’s a wrong approach. If we disaggregate Asian Americans, by the same logic, should we disaggregate European Americans into German American, Irish American, Italian American, Jewish American, or Scandinavian American, for instance? Should we disaggregate African Americans into Somalian American, Ethiopian American, Egyptian American, or Ghanaian American?

And what about people with parents from different countries, different racial or ethnic lines? How many boxes do they have to check? This is dividing, not uniting, our country.

The U.S. has racially and culturally progressed faster than some of our lawmakers’ abilities to comprehend. Interracial marriages and multiracial kids are quite common nowadays even if some lawmakers are still stuck in last century.

Ironically, the bill is sponsored by State Rep. Tackey Chan, D-Quincy. He and his supporters argue that having disaggregated data on Asian Americans could improve awareness of the needs of the different Asian populations, help target local and state funding and resources for underserved Asian minority subgroups. Some also claim that data collected on specific Asian American subgroups means distinctive medical and disease conditions can be identified, leading to appropriate and better diagnoses and treatments.

But H.3361 isn’t the solution. The better alternative is to provide social, financial, or language education assistance to anyone, especially the first generation of immigrants, based on an individual’s economic or linguistic needs regardless of one’s race or country of origin. There are socioeconomically disadvantaged families and kids across racial and ethnic lines from any country, all of whom need help. Fundamentally, such assistance should be need-based according to income level and language proficiency, not race or ethnicity.

As to the demographic data for research and diagnosis, many medical experts dismiss the notion that the differences between Asian subgroups are more statistically significant than the differences between European or African subgroups on a biological or genetic basis. The decennial U.S. Census data and estimates in-between provide better datasets for research and analysis. And there will be a fresh U.S. Census dataset in 2020, including statistics on all racial and ethnic groups.

Finally, the cost of H.3361 clearly outweighs any potential benefit. Selectively collecting data on racial and ethnic minority groups is culturally insensitive, morally objectionable and legally contentious. It’s unconstitutional. Why single out Asians? Can we do this to the Jews or Arabs? Where does this end? This kind of legislation continues the unfortunate path of identity politics, a losing cause for any individual or any group, and especially for this great state and our nation. Racial profiling or any form of identity politics does a disservice to our humanity. H.3361 needs to be stopped.

George Shen, of Newton, was born in China and is a naturalized citizen of the United States who has lived in Massachusetts more than 20 years. He is an associate partner at IBM, Cambridge, specializing in data analytics & Watson solutions. His technical papers on data management include “Big Data, Analytics and Elections” in Analytics Magazine, and the cover story,“Unplugged – The Disconnect of Intelligence and Analytics,” in Information Management Magazine.

好大一盘棋:SCA5,亚裔细分法,2020人口统计

来源:2017-06-16 硅谷华人 北美华人之声

亚裔细分法死灰未灭,不死心的种族主义者们又借欧巴马遗毒准备在2020年国家统计局人口统计上做文章,很多大腕都出手撰文支持各种细分。然后我们发现原来国家人口统计局长辞职了,继任他的会是谁呢?会是那个气象局副局长?去年底她刚刚调到人口统计局。大家惊栗地意识到她乃是迫害华裔科学家陈霞芬Sherry Chen的第一人。严重关注!

亚裔细分,在1988年,由民主党白人议员Floyd发起,但此后17年没有进展。直到刘云平2005年当上加州众议员之后,开始突飞猛进。在Ted Lieu(刘云平)Mike Eng(伍国庆)等人坚持不懈的努力下,整个亚裔细分计划,大跨步前进。到2016年的AB1726,差一点点就完成了亚裔细分之大业。

1989年 AB814 (Floyd)

民主党众议员Floyd将亚裔初步细分了11个族裔: Chinese,  Japanese,  Filipino,  Korean,  Vietnamese,  Asian Indian,  Laotian,  Cambodian. Hawaiian,  Guamanian,  Samoan,  此后17年亚裔细分一直没进展,直到刘云平2005年当上加州众议员之后,推动按种族“优惠”政策才有了显著成效。

2006年,AB2420(刘云平,赵美心等)在GC8013.5中, 又添加了Native Hawaiian,  Bangladeshi, Guamanian(Chamorro),Hmong,  Indonesian,  Malaysian,  Pakistani,  Sri Lankan, Taiwanese,  Fijian 10个族裔。即,21个细分亚裔族裔全部在GC8013.5 中。

没过。

2007年,AB295(刘云平,伍国庆等)   备注 *伍国庆是赵美心的老公

亚裔细分被拆到8310.5和8310.7中,并在8210.7内加上了细分用途(包括健康、就业、政府合同,要close the achievement gaps,即按种族AA健康、工作、政府合同等)。

一路过关斩将,最后却被共和党州长施瓦辛格veto了。

2010年,AB1737(伍国庆, 刘云平)

相当于重新提交AB295。此外,在亚裔细分用途上,即8310.7中,偷偷加上了教育, 要close achievement gaps。至此,AB1737,里有全部的亚裔细分和细分用途。即:AB1737=AB1088+AB1726(初稿)

结果,惨,又被搁置。

2011年,AB1088(伍国庆,刘云平)拿掉8310.7中的亚裔细分用途,只留亚裔细分(分别写在了8310.5 +8310.7中)。

2011年,民主党州长Jerry brown终于上任了。所以,此提案一路过关斩将,州长签字,通过了!

至此,亚裔细分计划完成一半,就剩下添加细分用途了。

2015年 AB176(Bonta)2016年 AB1726(Bonta),两次尝试,就是要在8310.7中完成亚裔细分用途的添加。亚裔细分用途,曾经在AB1088中被拿掉,降低了提案被阻挠的机会。

就这样,亚裔细分,在我们不知情的情况下,就快大功告成了。

老话说的好,心急吃不了热豆腐。

2014年,民主党参议员Henandez在加州民主党雄踞绝大多数(>2/3)的大好形势下, 推出了急功近利的SCA5,旨在修改加州宪法,公立大学可以合法的用肤色因素来甄选学生。这下可好,撼动了加州公投的209宪法。

加州共和党向亚裔社区求助,亚裔草根们联合反了SCA5。

一招不成,再来一招,民主党的重要纲领identity politics一定要贯彻执行。

2016年,AB1726要在8310.7中添加亚裔细分的用途。有了SCA5的铺垫,人们对2016年的AB1726开始警觉,联合反对将亚裔细分的族裔信息,用在教育、职场、合同等方面。提案被大幅修改,去掉了细分对教育领域的应用。友情提醒:AB1737=AB1088+AB1726(初稿)

所以,就差那么一点点,亚裔细分以及在教育领域的应用,就这样被偷偷运作成功了。

现在, 不死心的种族主义者们又借欧巴马遗毒准备在2020年国家统计局人口统计上做文章,很多大腕都出手撰文支持各种细分,很多以前推亚裔细分的组织,连署信都没改,直接上传原来支持亚裔细分的信件给国家统计局的征求意见栏,迫切要求登上这艘海盗船细分亚裔。详情请点击下文:

奥巴马遗毒,需要您参与铲除:反对在2020年联邦人口普查中扩大族裔细分!

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/coMsRHoCbsvANhvagfaEFg

下面链接属于政府网站,有所有支持和反对的个人与组织签名和意见信。需要抄到Google去才能看到内容,SVCAF(硅谷华人协会基金会)正式写信强烈抗议任何形式的种族细分。

https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=50&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=OMB-2017-0003

然后我们发现原来国家人口统计局长辞职了,继任他的会是谁呢?会是那个气象局副局长?去年底她刚刚调到人口统计局。大家惊栗地意识到她乃是迫害华裔科学家陈霞芬Sherry Chen的第一人。严重关注!请点击下面的阅读原文或Read More,直接进入链接,写信去联邦参议院与众议院表示抗议与关注。

波士顿,2018,我们赢了!

来源: 2018-02-08 解滨 美国华人之声

您也许已经知道了我们反对亚裔细分取得重大胜利的消息,但您未必知道此时此刻有多少颗难以平静的心。 今天上午就得到了消息,直到现在仍然难以平静。 等了多少天,盼了多少天,奋战了多少天,挫折了多少次,加油了多少回,一直到今天,终于从反亚裔细分的最前线传来了这个振奋人心的大好消息:

这个决议判处了麻州亚裔细分法案H3361的死刑,让它胎死腹中,还没有出oversight committee就被“substituted”了! 麻州议会不可能对此提案进行表决了。 虽然搞了个委员会来探讨对美国所有的种族进行细分的可能性,但您知道,那个难度可能比登上火星还要大! 连一个种族都没法细分,居然打起细分所有种族的歪主意,笑话!

今天,我们全美各地成千上万的战友们和同胞们在奔走相告,在欢呼雀跃,欢庆我们这个来之不易的胜利!  虽然这只是一个州的胜利,但正如我在另一篇文章里所述,麻州这一战,犹如二战中的中途岛战役、斯大林格勒会战、不列颠战役战,将会对整个战争产生决定性的影响。 如果我们打赢了麻州这一战,那么今后的局势将朝着有利于我们的方向扭转,谁要是搞亚裔细分都将深思再三,权衡利弊,担心遇到另一个麻州式的滑铁卢。 如果我们失败了,那么今后反对亚裔细分的战役将越来越艰难。 细分法案会在一个接一个的州落地开花,我们可能疲于奔命也无法阻挡那股恶流。

现在终于可以放心地说一句:麻州这一战,我们打赢了,我们胜利了

是的,我们赢了! 这不是在做梦,也不是在夸大其词,赢了就是赢了!

这个胜利来之不易。

麻州的反亚裔细分有组织的行动最早是从莱克星敦开始的。 去年三月份的时候,莱克星敦的一张地方问卷当中出现了把亚裔进行细分的情况,那里的中国人奋起抵制导致那个问卷被改写,去掉了体现出亚裔细分的问题,初战告捷。 去年7月,罗德岛亚裔细分法案通过,华人同胞再次组织起来、行动反对亚裔细分。 一个由美国各地的反对亚裔细分的联络和协调机制建立了起来。 各地反亚裔细分的同胞们很快对各个州的亚裔细分立法进行了普查,查出了有细分法案的几个州。 麻州的细分法案可能是全世界最短小的立法提案了,也是最简短的亚裔细分提案:

Bill H.3361

SECTION 1. Notwithstanding any General Law or Special Law to the contrary, all state agencies, quasi-state agencies, entities created by state statute and sub-divisions of state agencies shall identify Asian American and Pacific Islanders as defined by the United States Census Bureau in all data collected as part any and all types of data collection, reporting or verification; provided further that, the five largest Asian American and Pacific Islander ethnic groups residing in the Commonwealth shall have individually reported data as part of the total Asian American Pacific Islander reporting.

那个微型法案在那之前就已经被华人知道,但由于一直没有动静,也就没有进行大的反对行动。 但是谁也没有想到,为了让这小小的一段文字成为废纸,麻州的华人同胞不知道花费了多少心血、勇气、努力和付出!

当罗德岛的反亚裔细分的行动开始之后,下面一个目标就是麻州。

2017年7月29日,麻州的反亚裔细分的勇士们在州首府门口举行了第一次反亚裔细分机会

几天后,全国各州的立法会议在波士顿召开三天的会议,勇士们抓住这个机会,去会场进行了连续三天的反对亚裔细分抗议示威行动:

2017年8月27日,麻州的反亚裔细分勇士们举行了声势最为浩大的反对亚裔细分抗议示威和游行。 印度裔著名社会活动家、科学家Shiva 参加了这次行动并带领众人游行:

8月27日大游行之后,麻州的反亚裔细分行动进入了持久战、攻坚战和拉锯战的状态。 勇士们不辞辛苦,搜集了8000多个反对亚裔细分的签名,约谈了几乎所有的跟该提案有关联的议员。 无数个电话,无数个email,无数封信,把一份又一份反对亚裔细分的信息传达给议员们。

一转眼进入了2018年,终于H3361进入新立法提案审核委员会(Oversight Committee)的听证程序。  于是,那一天,公元2018年1月30日,麻州的反亚裔细分勇士们创造了美国华人前所未有的历史记录: 上千人涌向波士顿,600人的省府听证会大厅里,几乎被华人坐满了!

从听证会出来后,同胞们几乎是马不停蹄地继续向议员们表达我们的心声。 就在今天早晨,电话和email还在不停地涌向州议会。 就在上个星期六(2月3日,他们还在示威游行,两百多位勇士再一次冲上前线:

终于,hard working, dedication, and courage paid off, 我们赢了!

当胜利的消息传来后,我们很多人流出了激动的眼泪!

马萨诸塞州的反亚裔细分是全美反亚裔细分打的最艰苦、最惨烈的一个州。 虽然惨烈,但勇士们没有倒下,而是战斗到赢! 麻州这一场胜利,不但是反对亚裔细分的一个巨大的胜利,也将是我们在美国的华人维护自己权益的运动的分水岭。 在这之前,谁想弄个狗屁法案来讹我们一笔,我们要么忍气吞声地受着要么有气无力地反抗一点。 从今以后,麻州或任何一个州的政客们如果想要再把华人当作软柿子捏,他们就要三思了。我们会毫不犹豫地打回去!

麻州的反亚裔细分的勇士们用他们的行动和胜利告诉我们:我们在美国的华人从今以后真正地站起来了! 我们将不再接受任何欺辱我们的政策或立法提案。 我们将主宰我们的命运。 我们将和美国大地上每一个族裔一样被平等对待。

2016年2月,美国华人在30个城市举行了声势浩大的挺梁大游行,把梁案扳过来了。 创造了历史!

2019年2月,麻州的华人硬是把亚裔细分法案给撅了,再一次创造了历史!

有所不同的是,挺梁是一场全国大游行。 而麻州反亚裔细分则是十几场大大小小的游行。 这场战役一开始是守卫战,渐渐转变成为拉锯战、后来战争局势越来越明朗,终于转化为攻坚战,以及1月30日的战略大反击,最后迎来今天的胜利!

麻州的反细分战役,锻炼和造就出来一批参政议政的先锋和领军人物,以及一大批战士。 这些人通过这一年的苦战,获得了宝贵的实战经验,知道了美国政治斗争的各个环节是如何打通的。从组织游行到征集请愿书签名,从游说政客到发表演讲,从分组合作到社交舆论,从推特到脸书,每个环节他们都做得有声有色。 这个抗争的力度强度以及深度都是美国华人政治参与中前所未有的。 这是一出生龙活虎的大戏,越来越精彩。

麻州的经验将被载入史册,也将被在美国各个有华人居住的州推广。

虽然这一战已经告捷,但麻州的勇士们并没有打算就此停手。 他们将把这一场胜利当作新的起点,广泛参政议政,积极参与当地的事物,踊跃投票。 他们将设法彻底堵住歧视华裔的所有途径。 他们将有新的起飞! 美国的华人被动挨打,只会反抗的日子很快就要结束了。 我们将变被动为主动,把握局势,掌握我们自己的命运!

华人赢了!回顾历史,麻省反细分令人感动;再看未来,任重道远,亚裔细分需全美阻截

来源: 2018-02-08 谢小编 北美华人之声

今天,一则信息让全美华人振奋。我们华人的反亚裔细分,在麻省取得了标志性的胜利!

下图是相关委员会主席的声明,该声明表示,原亚裔细分法案H3361将被新的提案取代。

从2016年3月份开始,亚裔细分从加州向全美蔓延。来自加州、罗德岛、麻省等地的同胞们陷入苦战,各地华人纷纷声援。然而,成功真的很难。

在加州,虽然华人从2016年的3月[1]奋战到9月[2],依然不能阻挡细分法案的通过,虽然教育部分被从原法案中拿掉。

在罗德岛,2017年7月,南加州的狼崽战友授权“北美华人之声”发布了雄文[3],大家才知道原来细分法案已经在该州两院通过,州长签字在即。时不我待,我们北加州抗击细分法案的战友们突出奇招,从无到有,生生建立起了罗德岛反亚裔细分群,引来“真正的”罗德岛当地华人朋友,就此拉开了罗德岛抗击反亚裔细分的序幕。

在麻省,在2017年3月,麻省朋友们突然发现了Lexington小镇的调查表格惊现亚裔细分[4],于是,大家开始纷纷行动[5]。没想到,这一战,就打到了几乎整整一年,到今天,2018年2月7号!用一位积极义工的话说,从春走到夏,从夏走到冬!这里面,可歌可泣的事迹实在是太多[6,7,8,9,10,11,12]。

就在刚才,很多朋友还在拼命地给相关委员会的议员们打电话,告诉他们我们华人对亚裔细分的反对,告诉他们我们华人的呼声!捷报传来的时候,一位麻省朋友赶紧提醒小编,让大家不要再打电话了。

11个月啊,这一刻,有多少麻省朋友哭了,有多少外州朋友也为之感动。谢小编和战友们一起全程见证了这11个月,真的很明白麻省这些战友们的不容易。

2017年7月份罗德岛华人的抗击让亚裔细分法案进入更多外州朋友的视线。几大州之外的朋友们纷纷建立形形色色的反细分群,主战场的朋友们则积极主动地在各外州民众为主的反细分群分享信息,呼唤支援。

今天真是一个非常大喜的日子。那么多的付出,那么多的辛劳,看看我们已经发布过的文章数目你就可以知道[13]。阅读一下本文最后我们提供的那些参考文献你就可以知道。

就这次胜利,麻省当地的华人朋友Swann兴奋地这样说:

“还在等官方声明,但大局看来,麻州反细分是大获全胜了!感谢各方面长期坚定的战友们:跟议员谈话劝说,跟对方的“御用”学者们理论,接受媒体采访,抗议,理论研究,策略研究,还有很重要的:社交媒体的宣传战的胜利对于取胜非常关键。揭下细分高大上的画皮,揭露出里面的黑暗不堪和反移民效果,让他们再也不好意思高歌猛进,光芒万丈地通过亚裔细分!社交媒体是民主的基石!有几位特别坚定,投入无穷时间,精力,一直在各个方面网上网下孜孜不倦反细分的战友,特别感谢你们!You know who you are!谢谢各个群鼓励支持我们的声音。麻州的经验将被传到外州,帮他们反细分”。

“我们有个比较 ambitious 的梦想就是给阴暗邪恶强大的亚裔细分势力一个重挫!这个梦想鼓舞我们一心一意地坚持了下来!谢谢外州朋友一直的鼓气加油!”。

然而,高兴之余,我们必须看到依然严峻的现实,反对亚裔细分依然任重道远,需要大家继续努力,我们要在全美堵截亚裔细分。我们就先从委员会主席的声明来看。虽然这个声明没有加州肤色法案SCA-5被无限期搁置时一些人扬言要卷土重来那样的赤裸,但细细品读,实在无法令人安心。

首先,声明并没有明确否决亚裔细分,而是说要成立一个新的Commission来调查研究细分数据收集的可行性和影响。也就是说,新的细分法案极可能卷土重来,我们不能掉以轻心。

然后,该声明居然在最后出现这样的内容:对包括他本人以及Tacky Chan和Timilty主席受到反对者的恶毒攻击感到失望。对于是否有人对他们进行恶意的攻击,小编并不能确定,然而,小编能确定的是,支持亚裔细分的群体,公开对反对亚裔细分的群体进行了诽谤,甚至蔑称一些反对者是拿了钱才去抗议和出席听证会的。作为职业政客,这个Benson主席没有公平地对待法案的正反两方,令人遗憾。一位北加州网友在一个名为“全美反对亚裔细分”的群说得好,“这句话是她偏见、双重标准、不宽容、不成熟、不职业的佐证”。

从这两点,我们就必须认识到,哪怕在麻省,我们目前的胜利,也只是阶段性的,后面的路还很长,我们要有打持久战的准备。而在全美诸多地方,哪怕压根没有亚裔细分法案,在学校医院等提供的表格中,都纷纷出现了对亚裔的细分[14,15,16,17,18]。而在所谓已经在细分法案去掉教育的加州,各学区也纷纷推出细分亚裔的表格。法案上去掉了教育,实践中还是要搞教育。司马昭之心,我们怎么可以不知呢,怎么可以不警惕呢?

所以,广大华人朋友们,我们必须继续坚决狙击亚裔细分,这是一场持久战。

我们要继续向我们过去所没有联系过的其他议员以及民众们提及亚裔细分的事情,告诉他们美国居然还有这种荒谬事情的存在。我们要通过社交媒体,继续不停歇地进行反亚裔细分的宣传。我们要用选票让积极推动亚裔细分的政客们得到教训。我们要深挖推动亚裔细分的深层次原因。我们要继续睁大我们的眼睛,一旦发现在学校入学、医院就诊等地方出现细分表格,请一定联系我们,把信息传出去,大家一起同心协力,阻击细分!

面对着胜利,喜悦还在继续着,麻省的反亚裔细分积极义工laohu就已经在发起新的号召了,他说:

“我们刚刚得到关于 bill H3361 的官方声明. 我们胜利了! 为了继续显示我们的力量,给对方以震慑,让我们再一次掀起电话email感谢信的浪潮吧。 请大家有礼貌的给committee member打电话 请在周一至周五 9AM- 4PM之间,给committee打电话 (chair最重要,member也尽量多打!)”。

看来大家的斗志依然昂扬,大家的理智依然清晰,大家的智慧更是不凡。所以,相信后面大家的努力,也一定会卓有成效地继续进行下去。

然而,与其总是被动,为何不主动出击?康州华人已经通过议员提案,要立法禁止亚裔细分。我建议其他各州华人朋友们跟进,联系各层级的议员们,分析利弊,要他们提案禁止亚裔细分乃至一切形形色色的细分。

时间匆匆,从2016年3月,到2018年2月,眨眼几乎两年,在这两年中,太多的朋友,付出了太多。在这里,谢小编向所有朋友们表达最衷心的敬意,特别是奋战在第一线的加州、罗德岛和麻省朋友们!

今天,让我们欢呼麻省朋友们的胜利,未来,让我们见证各种针对族群进行细分的做法的最终湮灭。

参考阅读

[1] 紧急:请立即行动,分化亚裔,为推行种族法案埋伏笔的立法又来了!(谢小编等)!

[2] 我们该怎么办?亚裔细分法案AB1726被正式批准!(谢小编)!

[3] 罗德岛细分亚裔不遗余力,民主党到底意欲何为(狼崽)

[4] 亚裔细分惊现麻省,某华人协会是否充当急先锋引发争议(谢小编)

[5] 紧急,今夜,不要让莱克星顿的枪声变成黑枪,朋友们,反对亚裔细分,请行动!(谢小编)

[6] 反对亚裔细分,直击麻省华人的奋斗记录(Michael King, 李楠, 安平) 

[7] 10天之内3次集会抗议,波士顿华人民众创造奇迹

[8] 昏睡百年,华人渐已醒:波士顿华人朋友,今天我们再次为大家感到骄傲!(含海量图片)(谢小编)

[9] 这些华人比特朗普还令人震撼:迎风雪,战细分,坚持10多个小时,斗智斗勇,他们究竟在干吗?(谢小编)

[10] 波士顿华人再创历史,激情照亮华人参与大道:体制内途径寻求改变(谢小编)

[11] 别让我的身影太孤单:1月30日,即使我有一百个理由不去(blue iris友情提供)

[12] 2018年1月30日,麻省华人共创历史,宝贵经验在哪里?请听组织者的来信(laohu)

[13] 细分阴影笼罩全美,相关文章历史汇总,最完整,最齐全,从2016年3月第一篇开始!

[14] 亚裔细分呼啸而来,遭遇表格,我们要如何应对(波士顿妈妈)

[15] 加州一纸表格掀巨浪,台山人也被拉来档子弹,亚裔细分触目惊心(谢小编)

[16] 亚裔细分病毒式蔓延,加州、纽约、西雅图,一一沦陷!(谢小编)

[17] 北卡惊现亚裔细分文档,黑手伸向入学儿童(谢小编)

[18] 亚裔细分,为了孩子,我们得行动!尔湾家长会议记录(含信件模板)

Asian-American Data Collection Proposal Roils Massachusetts Residents

source: February 6, 2018 Evan Lips

BOSTON — Massachusetts lawmakers considering a bill that would direct state agencies to demand more specific nation-of-origin information from Asian-Americans will be running afoul of the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection clause, opponents of the proposal tell New Boston Post.

State Representative Tackey Chan’s (D-Quincy) legislation calls for “all state agencies, quasi-state agencies, entities created by state statute and sub-divisions of state agencies” to “identify Asian-American and Pacific Islanders as defined by the United States Census Bureau in all data collected,” in addition to gathering personal data on “the five largest Asian-American and Pacific Islander ethnic groups residing in the commonwealth.”

“I’m not a lawyer but I understand the Constitution,” George Shen, a Newton resident who specializes in data and analytics for IBM, said in an interview Monday. “The bill selectively collects data from racial group, one minority group, and you can’t just single out us Asians.”

Lei Zhao, a Newton-based attorney originally from China who has lived in the United States since 1994, said the proposal could lead to Fair Housing Act anti-discrimination complaints. She pointed to a Massachusetts Appeals Court decision that upheld a Superior Court ruling awarding a Venezuelan couple a lofty settlement after they filed a complaint with the Boston Fair Housing Commission after a real estate broker asked about the couple’s country-of-origin.

“This bill even calls for quasi-state agencies to collect that data,” she said. “That scares me.”

Chan, in testimony delivered to the State Administration and Regulatory Oversight Committee last week, was quoted by State House News Service saying that Asians “should be able to identify ourselves to you as who we are, as opposed to having other people identify for us.”

“I promise you — not an Asian person, not a Chinese person, not a Japanese person — no one created the concept of Asian, it was kind of like created around us. I never heard it before in my childhood and into adulthood,” Chan said.

Backers of Chan’s bill have argued that census-style individualized boxes where Asians are separated, such as Chinese-Americans from Indian-Americans, would provide improved data sets. At last week’s hearing, which drew large crowds to the State House, Dr. Elisa Choi of Harvard Medical School  testified that breaking down the data by country would improve the health screening process.

Shen, however, argued that new disparate sets of data — collected by multiple state and quasi-state agencies — will lead to chaos.

“The U.S. Census Bureau gathers data under one agency, at one given time, and once every ten years,” he said. “They use one data entry point.

“If all these agencies start collecting data from many entry points it will result in a data overlap — triple-counting, tabulation problems — this is an unscientific and imprudent way of collecting very sensitive data.”

Swan Lee of Brookline agrees, and in an interview she added that the proposal could also create a “Southeast Asia versus East Asia narrative” in addition to fueling other divisions.
“What they [supporters of Chan’s legislation] really want is data with no privacy protection,” she added.

Shin said the proposal also serves as a reminder of old wounds, such as World War II-era Japanese internment camps and efforts to limit Chinese immigration.

Angie Tso of Acton told New Boston Post that while the bill “may have good intentions, it is still unconstitutional.”

“It treats one party different from the other parties,” she added. “That’s the very definition of discrimination.

“If I am Latino, or any other non-Asian-American, how would I feel if this were happening to me?”

According to the State House News Service account of last week’s packed hearing inside Gardner Auditorium, opponents of Chan’s legislation, toting signs denouncing the bill, vastly outnumbered supporters. The report noted that opponents teamed up to conduct loud coughing fits while Chan was testifying.

The bill has yet to receive a recommendation from the committee.

Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II

source: JR Minkel on March 30, 2007

Government documents show that the agency handed over names and addresses to the Secret Service

Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II

Despite decades of denials, government records confirm that the U.S. Census Bureau provided the U.S. Secret Service with names and addresses of Japanese-Americans during World War II.The Census Bureau surveys the population every decade with detailed questionnaires but is barred by law from revealing data that could be linked to specific individuals. The Second War Powers Act of 1942 temporarily repealed that protection to assist in the roundup of Japanese-Americans for imprisonment in internment camps in California and six other states during the war. The Bureau previously has acknowledged that it provided neighborhood information on Japanese-Americans for that purpose, but it has maintained that it never provided “microdata,” meaning names and specific information about them, to other agencies.

A new study of U.S. Department of Commerce documents now shows that the Census Bureau complied with an August 4, 1943, request by Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau for the names and locations of all people of Japanese ancestry in the Washington, D.C., area, according to historian Margo Anderson of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and statistician William Seltzer of Fordham University in New York City. The records, however, do not indicate that the Bureau was asked for or divulged such information for Japanese-Americans in other parts of the country.

Anderson and Seltzer discovered in 2000 that the Census Bureau released block-by-block data during WW II that alerted officials to neighborhoods in California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho and Arkansas where Japanese-Americans were living. “We had suggestive but not very conclusive evidence that they had also provided microdata for surveillance,” Anderson says.

The Census Bureau had no records of such action, so the researchers turned to the records of the chief clerk of the Commerce Department, which received and had the authority to authorize interagency requests for census data under the Second War Powers Act. Anderson and Seltzer discovered copies of a memo from the secretary of the treasury (of which the Secret Service is part) to the secretary of commerce (who oversees the Census Bureau) requesting the data, and memos documenting that the Bureau had provided it [see image below].

The memos from the Bureau bear the initials “JC,” which the researchers identified as those of then-director, J.C. Capt.

“What it suggests is that the statistical information was used at the microlevel for surveillance of civilian populations,” Anderson says. She adds that she and Seltzer are reviewing Secret Service records to try to determine whether anyone on the list was actually under surveillance, which is still unclear.

“The [new] evidence is convincing,” says Kenneth Prewitt, Census Bureau director from 1998 to 2000 and now a professor of public policy at Columbia University, who issued a public apology in 2000 for the Bureau’s release of neighborhood data during the war. “At the time, available evidence (and Bureau lore) held that there had been no … release of microdata,” he says. “That can no longer be said.”

The newly revealed documents show that census officials released the information just seven days after it was requested. Given the red tape for which bureaucracies are famous, “it leads us to believe this was a well-established path,” Seltzer says, meaning such disclosure may have occurred repeatedly between March 1942, when legal protection of confidentiality was suspended, and the August 1943 request.

Anderson says that microdata would have been useful for what officials called the “mopping up” of potential Japanese-Americans who had eluded internment.

The researchers turned up references to five subsequent disclosure requests made by law enforcement or surveillance agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, none of which dealt with Japanese-Americans.

Lawmakers restored the confidentiality of census data in 1947.

Officially, Seltzer notes, the Secret Service made the 1943 request based on concerns of presidential safety stemming from an alleged March 1942 incident during which an American man of Japanese ancestry, while on a train from Los Angeles to the Manzanar internment camp in Owens Valley, Calif., told another passenger that they should have the “guts” to kill President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The incident occurred 17 months before the Secret Service request, during which time the man was hospitalized for schizophrenia and was therefore not an imminent threat, Seltzer says.

The disclosure, while legal at the time, was ethically dubious and may have implications for the 2010 census, the researchers write in a paper presented today at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America held in New York City. The U.S. has separate agencies for collecting statistical information about what people and businesses do, and for so-called administrative functions—taxation, regulation and investigation of those activities.

“There has to be a firewall in some sense between those systems,” Anderson says. If a company submits information ostensibly for documenting national economic growth but the data ends up in the antitrust division, “the next time that census comes they’re not going to get that information,” she says.

Census data is routinely used to enforce the National Voting Rights Act and other policies, but not in a form that could be used to identify a particular person’s race, sex, age, address or other information, says former director Prewitt. The legal confidentiality of census information dates to 1910, and in 1954 it became part of Title 13 of the U.S. Code, which specifies the scope and frequency of censuses.

“The law is very different today” than it was in 1943, says Christa Jones, chief of the Census Bureau’s Office of Analysis and Executive Support. “Anything that we release to any federal agency or any organization … all of those data are reviewed,” she says, to prevent disclosures of individual information.

The Census Bureau provided neighborhood data on Arab-Americans to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2002, but the information was already publicly available, Jones says. A provision in the controversial Patriot Act—passed after the 9/11 attacks and derided by critics as an erosion of privacy—gives agencies access to individualized survey data collected by colleges, including flight training programs.

The Census Bureau has improved its confidentiality practices considerably in the last six decades, former director Prewitt says. He notes that census data is an increasingly poor source of surveillance data compared with more detailed information available from credit card companies and even electronic tollbooths.

Nevertheless, he says, “I think the Census Bureau has to bend over backwards to maintain the confidence and the trust of the public.” Public suspicion—well-founded or not—could undermine the collection accurate census data, which is used by sociologists, economists and public health researchers, he says.

“I’m sad to learn it,” he says of the new discovery. “It would be sadder yet to continue to deny that it happened, if, as now seems clear, it did happen. You cannot learn from and correct past mistakes unless you know about them.”

Trump Administration Strikes a Blow Against Identity Politics

source: Mike Gonzalez / /

Americans who are sick of identity politics and yearn for a return to the unifying notion of “e pluribus unum” will cheer the Census Bureau’s recent move to reject changes to the decennial survey that were proposed by the Obama administration.

Briefly put, the Obama administration had proposed artificially creating yet another pan-ethnic grouping, for Americans of Middle East and North African descent. The administration also proposed reducing the choices of Americans of Latin American or Caribbean descent (the bureaucratically invented pan-ethnic group the census calls “Hispanics”) to identify themselves by a real race (such as black or white).

The Obama administration made this proposal in late September 2016, no doubt fully expecting an incoming Clinton administration to rubber-stamp it (pasted below is the balkanizing census question that was proposed). Then history got in the way.

The decision, announced last Friday by the bureau, to stop this further slide into becoming a fractured republic is welcome, if only because not doing a very bad thing is itself a very good thing.

But now the Trump administration needs to go much further to rid the country of the identitarian fever currently sweeping into all corners of society.

It must start with the decisive step of getting rid of many of the silly ethnic boxes that since 1980 have found their way into the constitutionally mandated census. It must also break once and for all the lock that progressive organizations currently enjoy, through advisory bodies, on the formulation of the census.

These steps will no doubt require political courage, but the administration prides itself both in its boldness and on understanding the centrality of the nation’s identity.

The breakup of the country into government-created ethnic categories has been a negative byproduct of the civil rights era, and the opposite of the equality the 1964 Civil Rights Act itself set out to create. As one of the foremost historians of the period, University of California, San Diego professor John Skrentny, put in his book “The Minority Rights Revolution,” policymakers and bureaucrats:

carved out and gave official sanction to a new category of Americans: the minorities. Without much thought given to what they were doing, they created and legitimized for civil society a new discourse of race, group differences and rights. This new discourse mirrored racist talk by reinforcing the racial differences of certain ethnic groups.

Our current racial and ethnic dispensation is more akin to apartheid-era South Africa than to anything the Founders intended, but it is strictly policed by special-interest ethnic organizations.

The outsized sway of these organizations is increasingly the subject of academic attention. As Alice Robbin of Indiana University describes it, “They can be influential beyond their numbers in the public policy process” and have now made America into an “interest group society.”

This actually understates the problem: there can be compromises, say, between labor and capital, but there cannot be compromises where identity, not money, is at stake (just witness the contradictory mess that is “intersectionality”).

The administration has shown it understands how liberal groups have insinuated themselves into policymaking over the past decades in other areas and has moved to limit their influence. The census deserves at least the same attention.

The census “both creates the image and provides a mirror of that image for a nation’s self-reflection” is how Harvard professors Jennifer L. Hochschild and Brenna M. Powell put it.

Does President Donald Trump want to leave office knowing it has left progressive outfits such La Raza, NALEO, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Census Project, the Arab American Institute, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and many others in charge of determining who America is?

The success of these special-interest organizations depends on brainwashing individual Americans into sorting themselves out by ethnic and racial categories, and seeing themselves as members of victimized and alienated minorities who need government protection from a supposedly cruel and irredeemably racist society. Even with the best of intentions, the incentives are all wrong.

The Census Bureau itself tells you that “The information the census collects helps determine how more than $400 billion of federal funding each year are spent on infrastructure, programs, and services.”

In other words: “come and get it.”

These groups are now so used to mau mauing census officials that when the Census Bureau made its announcement last Friday they complained almost in unison, and promised to take their case to the U.S. Congress.

But the interest of any administration, right or left, should be to encourage Americans to see themselves as empowered citizens with agency and the ability to thrive in a country that, despite its faults, provides opportunities for those willing to take advantage of them. The goal for all Americans, especially for the left, should be social solidarity, a concept this president has emphasized, but that many in the left are now also understanding.

This is why all Americans, liberal or conservative, should welcome the census news, and ask for further steps.

亚裔细分表之争:北加州南湾华人家长与学区见面会实录

来源: 2018-01-29 Wennan 美国风云

2018年1月26日周五上午11点,Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) 学区的主要负责人士,应学区和华人家长们的要求,在学区办公室召开了一个家长会,讨论学区华人家长们关心的含有亚裔细分选项的注册表。FUHSD学区的网上注册表中含有的族裔分类本来如(图一)所示。但此表格由于含有亚裔细分内容且有强制填写的意味,因此遭到了学区华人家长们的反对。学区在收到家长们的若干Email和电话质询后,在48小时内作出了Email答复,对表格做出了如(图二)所示的修改,增加了“Other Asian”的选项,并做出说明:凡是不愿披露亚裔细分族裔身份的学生均可选择“Other Asian”这一项。但这一修改显然有误导填表者撒谎的实效,因此依然遭到了学区华人家长们的反对。学区在22日周一起收到家长们的质疑邮件后,继续研究解决方案,并决定在26日周五上午召开上述会议,以向家长们做解释说明,并提供学区关于表格的进一步修改方案。

(图一)FUHSD学区今年最初的网上注册表

(图二)增加了”Other Asian”选项的表格

华人家长们在几位热心的家长义工的带动下,自发组织了起来。大家10:30am提前到了学区办公室,互相认识,交换信息,再次初步统一了一些意见和分享了一些应该提出的问题。11点左右,会场已经坐满了家长和两位小朋友,总共来了约38位华人朋友。在这里首先要向这些为我们的下一代争取公平权利的华人朋友们点个赞!

(图三)会场里的部分家长和小朋友

学区对此事也很重视,安排了8位学区的相关负责人在前排就坐答疑,其中6位是白人(4位女性2位男性,4位女性中2位年长2位年轻,2位男性中1位年长1位年轻),2位是亚裔(2位女性,1位年长1位年轻)。另外,学区还请来了学区的法律顾问律师,1位年轻的拉丁裔男性。

(图四)学区请来的法律顾问在发言
(图五)站着答疑的学区法律顾问和前排就坐的8位学区负责人

学区的法律顾问律师首先发言,先以自身拉丁裔的身份感同身受地演讲了一番关乎种族歧视、少数族裔权益方面的一些大家耳熟能详的大道理。在谈到具体问题,即注册表中的亚裔细分选项时,他代表的学区的意见是:学区依法规必须这样罗列亚裔细分族裔,但填表者不必回答学区所罗列的亚裔细分选项。这也基本是本次会议学区和华人家长们双方所各自坚守的诉求,或者说是本次会议的基调。

学区的一位负责人,年长的白人女性,在交流中指出,亚裔细分的要求其实是之前亚裔自己提出并立法的,同时她也理解随着时间的变化,人的诉求也会变化,人们现在的想法不同于以前的想法,这很正常。她介绍了学区和政府之间的运作关系,讲到了学区权限的局限性,寻求家长们的理解。她指出,对加州已有的州法、州教育厅的规定等,最有影响力做出改变的是加州的州长、州议员、加州教育委员会 (State Board of Education),但对他们归根到底最有影响力的是在坐的各位选民。

同时,学区的负责人指出学区也有学区的需求。比如,根据族裔的比例和学生diversity情况,学区得到州州教育厅的重视和拨款不同。但在家长的追问下,随后学区的其他负责人又否认了州州教育厅根据族裔比例以及diversity情况不同而拨款不同的这句话。不过大家已经意识到了族裔政策的根本动力和背后的利益所在。也正如学区的这位拉丁裔法律顾问最后所承认的,所有的涉及种族的政策都关乎政治和利益。另外,学区也希望这样族裔分类收集的数据可以展现学区的特点。最后,学区按州教育厅要求进行族裔分类收集数据的工作的好坏,是工作绩效的一部分,会受到州教育厅的评估。

(图六)在提问和倾听的家长们
(图七)在发言和倾听的家长们

家长们首先向学区负责人表示,在座的家长中有各个方面的专业人士,是学区的资源,可以帮助学区解决诸如亚裔细分表这样的问题,另外可在具体涉及的IT技术细节等方面提供咨询。在会议中参与提问和发言的家长有十几位之多,大家非常踊跃,对问题准备得很充分,问答由浅入深,基本覆盖讨论了本次会议议题的主要方面包括学区关于注册表格的解决方案。在对话中,家长们也对学区与会的人员们和他们的付出表达了尊重和感谢。

会议在友好和高效的氛围中结束。最后会议的总结是:(1)学区认为必须遵守美国联邦教育部、加州的州政府法规GC-8310.5、加州教育厅的学生数据库CALPADS的族裔编码分配的规定,(2)学区根据州法和州教育厅的文件必须要在表格中对亚裔进行细分;(3)但学生可以对亚裔细分选项不作回答,学区在表格中提供“Intentionally left blank”的选项,当天晚上可完成更新表格;(4)学区针对教育部的规定,承诺在表格中增加“Asian”的选项,但需要稍长一点的时间;(5)学区会通知今年已填表的学生上述的改变并允许学生自愿修改;(6)往年填表的学生如果需要,可以向学区负责注册的职员进行修改。

(图八)预期的注册表中族裔选项的示意图

会议12:15pm左右结束,家长们起立鼓掌,向与会的FUHSD学区的负责人和工作人员们表示感谢,对他们在会议中的展现出的尊重、诚恳、专业、和高效表示了赞赏。

随后,学区在下午3:48pm左右即给与会的家长们发了会议总结的Email,认为这是一次非常正面积极的会议,并详细解释了学区的具体解决方案和步骤,详见附录五。家长们对Email中有疑惑的地方,也纷纷立即再次给学区去信询问,相信下周会有比较清楚的答复。

至此,我们再次对FUHSD学区的负责人和工作人员们,以及与会的38位华人朋友们和在幕后关注和出力的华人朋友们点赞!

附录①:详解学区必须遵守的法规详解学区认为必须遵守的美国联邦教育部的政策规定、加州的州政府法规GC-8310.5、加州教育厅的学生数据库CALPADS的族裔编码分配的规定。

  • 美国联邦教育部Department of Education (DOE) 的政策规定族裔分为如下7大类,小学生和初高中学生须如实填写,否则将采用观察法:

American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, and Two or More Races

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rschstat/guid/raceethnicity/index.html

  • 加州的州政府法规 Government Code GC-8310.5如下的规定中将Asian亚裔细分为了8个子类

(a) A state agency, board, or commission that directly or by contract collects demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians shall use separate collection categories and tabulations for the following:

(1) Each major Asian group, including, but not limited to, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Laotian, and Cambodian.

(2) Each major Pacific Islander group, including, but not limited to, Hawaiian, Guamanian, and Samoan.

(b) The data collected pursuant to the different collection categories and tabulations described in subdivision (a) shall be included in every demographic report on ancestry or ethnic origins of Californians by the state agency, board, or commission published or released on or after July 1, 2012. The data shall be made available to the public in accordance with state and federal law, except for personal identifying information, which shall be deemed confidential.

(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 689, Sec. 2. (AB 1088) Effective January 1, 2012.)

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=8310.5.

  • 加州教育厅California Department of Education (CDE) 的学生数据库CALPADS给亚裔细分族裔分配了专门的编码,其中Asian亚裔细分为了9个子类并分别分配了编码,但却没有给Asian分配编码,也没有给没有被细分的Hispanic/Latino分配编码。

California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) is a longitudinal data system used to maintain individual-level data including student demographics, course data, discipline, assessments, staff assignments, and other data for state and federal reporting.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sp/cl/

CALPADS Code Sets, Version # – 9.3, December 19, 2017

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sp/cl/documents/codesetsv93-20171219.xls

(图九)CALPADS Code Sets for Race Categories

附录②:家长发给学区的第一封Email模板
Polly Bove, Superintendent of Schools, Polly_Bove@fuhsd.orgJason Crutchfield, Director of Business Services, Jason_Crutchfield@fuhsd.org

Dear Ms. Bove and Mr. Crutchfield:

On the new student registration form of FUHSD, I notice in the “race” section, Parents/guardians are required to choose one country/area, otherwise it is impossible to go to the next step to complete the registration; however I do not believe the law actually mandates parent/guardian to disclose detailed racial/ethnic information as the form required.

There are two sources of legal authority for the race/ethnicity question in the enrollment form, one from the federal government and one from our state law (Gov. Code 8310.5).  In my case, the federal requirement limits racial/ethnic information to the “Asian” level and does not require any further details.  It is true that the federal guidelines state that a third-party can “identify non-respondents by observation”, but such third-party identification via observation will be obviously limited to the “Asian” granularity and cannot go beyond it.

The California requirement, under Gov. Code 8310.5, is not mandatory in nature. The code says “A state agency, board, or commission … shall use separate collection categories and tabulations for the following [ethnic groups].”  Literally and clearly, the “shall” language is with respect to “use separate collection categories”; it does not in any way demand that the data collection be mandatory in nature.  In other words, it would be perfectly fine that a state agency uses multiple separate collection categories and make the corresponding data collection optional/discretional (i.e., not mandatory), while still satisfying Gov. Code 8310.5.  Equivalently, in my case, a parent should have a “decline to state” option for racial/ethnic categories beyond the “Asian” level.

The CDE’s FAQ website is defective and misleading in the sense that it commingles the federal requirement and its guidelines with the state law.  There is no direct connection between the two.  And there is no legal authority for a state agency to adopt any “third-party observer” when implementing Gov. Code 8310.5.

As such, I refuse to provide for my kid any racial/ethnic information beyond “Asian”, which satisfies the federal requirement. To be clear, I do not believe Gov. Code 8310.5 mandates me to fill in any racial/ethnic information beyond “Asian” and I will refuse to do so.  I wonder if in such a case my kid cannot be enrolled in our home school.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

(Your name)

附录③:学区回复的第一封Email
Dear *,Thank you for your email regarding the collection of demographic information.  The Fremont Union High School District takes your concerns seriously, and we truly respect your decision not to self-identify further than the information you have already provided.  We are fully aware of the legal references you shared, but we want you to know that the District is required by state and federal law to ask for this information in this particular way and we respect your decision to not fully participate in the collection of this information. Personal information, such as race, can raise sensitive issues, and the District is fully committed to maintaining this information as confidential pursuant to state and federal law.

The information requested is used by the state and local educational groups in their data analysis efforts, aimed at improving the educational system for all students in the State of California.  The District had no intention of offending you with this line of questioning, which is issued statewide to all public school students. On behalf of our entire team I apologize for distressing you, and regret if our intentions were misunderstood.

To address your concerns about reporting a students’ race, the district is making the following changes:

• Since over 2,500 parents have already started or completed their On-Line Registration (OLR) to date, the District has made adjustments to the system that will not affect other in-progress or submitted records. The instructions for the section on student race now states: “If you identify as “Asian” and do not wish to indicate specific race categories, please select “Other Asian.” This short-term solution allows parents who do not wish to indicate anything further than “Asian” to do so without impacting the data that has already been entered and submitted.

• If you have already submitted your OLR and would like to revise the information given this option, please contact Julie Darwish, Manager of Enrollment and Residency (julie_darwish@fuhsd.org; (408) 522-2266, to request that your record be re-opened for revision and resubmission.

• Once the bulk of our enrollment is completed for this year, the District will be able to make more substantial changes to the OLR system to further address concerns about the information collected related to student race and ethnicity.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or additional concerns.

Sincerely,

Coordinator of Communications

Fremont Union High School District

589 W. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA  94087

附录④:家长发个学区的第二封Email模板
Mon 1/22/2018Polly Bove, Superintendent of Schools, Polly_Bove@fuhsd.org

Jason Crutchfield, Director of Business Services, Jason_Crutchfield@fuhsd.org

Dear Superintendent Bove, Director Crutchfield:

Thank you for your reply to our question regarding the FUHSD online registration form and the clarification you made in the “Ethnicity and Race” section. We appreciate your timely efforts in response to the outcry from our Asian community.

However, a large group of impacted FUHSD parents researched and further consulted legal and education professionals on relevant federal and state laws. We concluded that a better alternative in compliance to the law would be to make “Asian” an option on its own, and provide “Decline to disclose” as another option in addition to “other Asian.” We strongly believe that parents should be allowed to make their own decisions whether to disclose optional and sensitive ethnic information to self-identify each individual student.

The bottom line is, we believe no current law, federal or state, would force a parent to make certain uncomfortable choices. We look forward to your further response and refinement to the FUHSD online form.

Thank you!

(name)

附录⑤:学区回复的第二封Email
Subject: Follow up from parent meeting regarding concerns about collection of demographic informationFri 1/26/2018 3:49 PM

Dear FUHSD parents,

Thank you again for expressing your concerns about the collection of demographic information in our enrollment process. We greatly appreciate the positive response to the parent meeting we organized this morning and the opportunity to have an open and positive dialogue with members of our community. As promised, we would like to provide a summary of that meeting, along with information on next steps for parents.

During this morning’s meeting, the District’s legal counsel provided an overview of the obligations of all school districts to comply with both State and Federal reporting requirements. Legal counsel clarified that while school districts are required to ask for this particular demographic information in this particular way, parents are not required to self-identify for State reporting purposes. As a school District, we respect the decision of our parents not to self-identify by choosing specific race categories. No parents or families will be forced to self-identify in this manner.

District staff provided some background on the systems that are used by the State for student information, including CALPADs, or the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System, which has been created to comply with both State and Federal regulations. Staff also shared that the information collected during our enrollment and registration processes, should parents choose to provide it, is not shared with outside entities, including any colleges or universities.

As staff stated during the meeting, school districts do not have the power to create or determine their own categories or options for demographic information. However, the State does have an option to report a category of “Intentionally Left Blank.” The District will be adding this category into our On-Line Registration system this evening, so that parents will have the ability to choose this option moving forward.

Please follow the instructions below according to where you are in the On-Line Registration (OLR) process if you wish to make a change:

• If you have already completed the OLR process, please use the following link https://goo.gl/forms/OybyIJClqCEx9uk22 and provide your student’s name and information and your contact information so that FUHSD staff can make the desired change. You will receive an email notification once the desired change has been made. Please allow a week from the request for completion.

• If you have not yet completed and submitted your OLR, you can login to the system and check the “Intentionally Left Blank” category under the Race/Ethnicity section, which has been added to the form.

• If you have older students already in our school district, please contact your school’s main office after Feb. 5 and ask for the registrar or data technician to request that your records be reopened and revised.

The District is still required to report demographic information separately to the Federal government, and it will take some additional time for the On-Line Registration system to be updated to include a separate section for this information. Once the District has updated this section, staff will individually contact parents and families to follow up on how they would like to self-identify for Federal reporting purposes.

Please do not hesitate to contact Assistant Superintendent Trudy Gross at trudy_gross@fuhsd.org should you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Coordinator of Communications

Fremont Union High School District

589 W. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA  94087