A closer look at the complaint vs. Ivy League colleges

Most Asian/Americans support affirmative action

ARE ASIAN/AMERICANS being discriminated against by some Ivy League colleges? As a person of color, I just assume discrimination, bigotry, racial bias and stereotyping as just a part of life.here in the United States of America. So - yeah - I believe some Asian/Americans are being victimized by the admissions process employed at some colleges.

But acknowledging bias towards Asian/American students is not the same as being against the practice of affirmative action.

RELATED: Complaint alleges anti-Asian bias in Ivy League

A recent complaint filed with the Department of Education by some Asian/American organizations against Brown University, Dartmouth College and Yale University, implies that Asian/Americans students are being denied admission despite scoring higher on their SATs, better GPA's and more impressive extracurriculars.

It's an old argument that white students employ when they are denied admission to the college of their choice. In fact, a case the Supreme Court will issue a decision soon, Fisher v. University of Texas, uses that argument: affirmative action allowed less qualified students were admitted to the University of Texas while turning away this one white student.

            RELATED: Asians and Affirmative Action
            AAPI groups support affirmative action

The Wall Street Journal jumped on the Ivy League story and other publications followed suit. The stories made it look as if Asian/Americans were against affirmative action. (Full disclosure: I am a beneficiary of affirmative action.)

However, when 160 Asian/American organizations supported the University of Texas affirmative action policy and AAPI legal organizations filed friends of the court briefs in the Fisher case, nary a word from mainstream media and certainly not from the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal.

Frankly speaking, there are people and groups who would like to do away with affirmative action and they don't care a whit about AAPI admissions. By pitting the "model minority" against other minorities (you've heard about the strategy of divide and conquer?) Asian/Americans are being used to discredit a policy that has helped those who — otherwise — would not have the opportunity to even be considered for admission.

Whenever Euro/Americans attack affirmative action, (and they are the ones who usually do the complaining) it's hard for them to not look like racists. However, if they can pit Asian/Americans against African/Americans and Latinos, they can wash their hands of the debate and still accomplish their goal of dismantling affirmative action.

The bigger story,  (I don't believe any of the mainstream media have done this story), is the apparent divide between new immigrants and the those AAPI who have been here for a generation or more.

Many of the groups behind the complaint are comprised of newly arrived immigrants whereas many of the groups that support affirmative action policies are of second, third and fourth generation.

“Most of the groups who filed the federal complaint are newer organizations comprising foreign-born immigrants, largely from China," writes David Noriega of BuzzFeed. "The groups who led the opposition to the complaint tend to be older civil rights groups with American-born leaders and long-standing relationships with black and Latino activist groups. ‘From a sociological standpoint, that makes sense,’ C.N. Le, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, told BuzzFeed News. More recent immigrants, he said, ‘are coming from an idealized image of American society as a meritocracy where everybody should have an equal chance … So, from that point of view, they see affirmative action as this mechanism that discriminates against Asian/Americans.'”

“Efforts to dismantle race-conscious admissions programs are short-sighted. They ignore the historical context for such programs and also serve to marginalize currently underserved communities, including many Asian/Americans and Pacific Islanders,” said Stewart Kwoh, executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles. “We oppose quotas on any racial or ethnic groups, which already are prohibited by law. The truth is that affirmative action does not constitute quotas -- it simply takes into account whether an applicant has overcome significant obstacles and institutional barriers, such as racial and ethnic discrimination. We strongly support admissions policies that are inclusive of all underrepresented communities.”

To counter the impression that the AAPI community is against affirmative action, last May 22 an open letter of support for affirmative action as signed by 150+ AAPI organizations and several hundred AAPI individuals. Again, no major media picked it up even though the organizations included some of the oldest, most stable and most active AAPI civil rights organizations.

***

The letter states:

We stand together as organizations across the United States representing Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, in strong support of race sensitive affirmative action policies in higher education.

We believe that equal opportunity is a cherished principle in American society that must be protected, and that our universities should reflect our diverse democracy and expand opportunities for students who have overcome significant barriers. Rather than letting ourselves be divided, we must come together to ensure increased opportunities and success for all students in our nation.

Affirmative action is a holistic approach that promotes diverse educational learning environments essential in our multiracial society. Affirmative action should be firmly upheld in our nation’s institutions of learning, including in Ivy League universities such as Brown, Dartmouth, and Yale.

Affirmative action does not constitute quotas

Unfortunately, there continue to be attempts by some to engage in divisive wedge politics by using misguided, misleading tactics to attack equal opportunity by calling for an end to race sensitive admissions policies at educational institutions such as Brown, Dartmouth, and Yale, as well as Harvard University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Opponents of affirmative action have wrongfully and disingenuously equated affirmative action with quotas.

The truth is that affirmative action does not constitute quotas.

Affirmative action does not exclude or limit the admission of students from any specific racial or ethnic background. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court long ago prohibited quotas in the higher education admissions process, including banning limits on the admission or enrollment of any racial or ethnic group.

To be clear, we oppose quotas, discrimination, and bias against any racial or ethnic group

Affirmative action promotes equal opportunity for all

We support affirmative action which, as noted above, does not constitute quotas, discrimination, or bias against Asian Americans.

Currently, affirmative action at universities consists of race sensitive holistic admissions policies. These policies promote equal opportunity in a society where racism still exists and racial barriers continue to unfairly limit educational opportunities for students of color. For example, our schools are more segregated today than they were in the late 1960s. Students of color, particularly African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Southeast Asians, are much more likely to attend under-resourced K-12 schools. Implicit bias and stereotyping also further impact and harm the educational learning environments and opportunities of students of color. Universities should consider these factors when reviewing applications for admissions.

All students – including Asian Americans – benefit from the racially and ethnically diverse learning environments fostered by race sensitive holistic admissions processes, including the benefits of increased cross-racial understanding, reduction of stereotyping and isolation of minority students, and training for a diverse workforce and society.

Affirmative action simply takes into account whether an applicant has overcome significant obstacles and institutional barriers, such as racial and ethnic discrimination

Affirmative action simply takes into account whether an applicant has overcome racial and ethnic adversity as one of several factors in a holistic review of an applicant’s qualifications, leadership, and potential. Holistic admissions processes also consider, for example, whether an applicant has endured poverty or is the first in her family to attend college.

Moreover, in the context of college admissions, “merit” cannot be quantified by grade point average, SAT scores, or number of activities alone. Instead, life experiences such as overcoming racial and ethnic adversity are critical factors in a student’s leadership and potential contribution to the university and to our society. In addition, numbers, like grade point averages and standardized test scores, are not colorblind and often reflect and magnify K-12 educational inequities.

Equal opportunity strengthens our democracy

Affirmative action policies help to level the playing field and promote diverse university learning environments that are essential in our multiracial and multicultural society. Our democracy benefits from a diverse and educated populace and workforce.

Those who are truly committed to equal educational opportunity should demonstrate real leadership and reinvest in higher education throughout the nation to expand access, affordability, equity, and student success. Decades of disinvestment in higher education across the country have made college less accessible for all students, especially students of color. We call for unity in standing up for the future of our diverse youth and realizing the promise of equal opportunity for all in the United States.

We also call upon our leaders in higher education institutions to uphold race sensitive affirmative action policies in their admissions processes. Especially at this pivotal time of national discourse about the need to fulfill the promise of our democratic ideals for communities of color, it is imperative that universities carry out their important role of advancing inclusion, equity, and educational opportunities for all students in our multiracial democracy.***

This time the Wall Street Journal did mention the letter ... kind of. This is what it reported:

"Support among Asian-Americans isn't monolithic. A group calling itself Asian Americans Advancing Justice issued a statement on Monday saying it fully supports affirmative action in higher education." 

The phrase, "A group calling itself ...?" putting the question into the minds of the readers that the AAAJ was not a legitimate organization. There was not even a mention of the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) or the Organization of Chinese Associations (OCA), two of the oldest civil rights organization in the AAPI community, who also signed the letter. Maybe the problem lies with the Wall Street Journal's view of the world that would do away with government and let the free market reign even if it means creating an oligarchic society where the very few rules over the vast poor masses.

The different viewpoints between recent immigrants and the more established AAPI groups became evident in the case of former NYPD officer Peter Liang and the fatal shooting of Akai Gurley. 

The more recent immigrants wanted justice for Liang, who they felt was the sacrificial lamb  
for all the abuses committed by police.

The AAPI groups and individuals who sided with Gurley's family and their supporters were the more established organization that had long working relationships with African/American justice groups, including Black Lives Matter.

In a book published last summer, "The Asian American Achievement Paradox," Jennifer Lee, a sociology professor at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), and Min Zhou, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), suggest Asian/Americans shouldn't blame affirmative action for perceived injuries, but instead embrace the policy.

"They think it's in their self-interest to fight affirmative action," Lee told NBC News. "But (it is) only in a very narrow way, without thinking of their broader life course. We need affirmative action because we don't have the institutional advantages we think we do.

"The better question (isn't self-interest, but) whether Asian Americans are willing to recognize our ethnic and class diversity," Lee said. "Not all Asian ethnic groups are highly educated and high-achieving; in fact, most aren't. For those who face ethnic and class disadvantages, including Cambodian-, Laotian-, and Hmong-Americans, affirmative action policies will help. It will also help high-achieving groups like Chinese-, Indian-, and Korean-Americans to experience racial and ethnic diversity and better prepare them to work in diverse workplaces." 

The divide between recent immigrants and AAPI who've been in this country for a generation or more is a more complex story that needs to explored, but don't expect the Wall Street Journal to write about it.

###

No jail time for Peter Liang

Shirley Ng

Supporters of Peter Liang waited outside the courthouse for the verdict.

By Shirley N Lew
Reprinted from AsAmNews

JUDGE DANNY CHUN sentenced ex-NYPD officer Peter Liang yesterday (April 19) to a reduced charge of criminally negligent homicide from second degree manslaughter.

With the reduced charge, Chun’s sentenced Liang to five years probation and 800 hours of community service. The judge removed the recommended six months of house arrest, but increased the community hours from 500 as originally recommended by the Brooklyn DA, Ken Thompson.

Liang was facing up to 15 years of manslaughter for an accidental shooting of Akai Gurley in the Pink Houses during a vertical patrol in 2014.

Chun felt Liang would be more productive if he was not just sitting at home under house arrest and also acknowledged the over 40,000 form letters he received in support of Liang.

“I am compelled to modify and reduce the sentence to criminal negligent homicide. The people needed to prove that substantial and unreasonable risk would occur. There is no evidence that the defendant was aware of Gurley’s presence. Shooting that gun and killing somebody was the last thing on his mind,” the judge said.

RELATED: Justice is not just a black and white issue

Sobs were heard from Gurley’s family and supporters in the courtroom as the judge read Liang’s sentence.

“It’s still a conviction even-though it’s a criminal negligent homicide,” said community activist and Director of Free Masons, Karlin Chan. “It’s a relief to get rid of the manslaughter charge. Like I’ve said, I’ve sat in on so many trials and the verdict reached by jury was unsupported by testimony and evidence presented at the trial, and that it was more an emotional verdict to hold police accountable. The judge looked at the evidence, he did the right thing. He stood by the letter of the law and he made the right decision. “

Supporters of Gurley believed that Liang never called for help. Complicating the matter the night of the incident is that Liang and his partner Shaun Landau did not know immediately that a man was shot. When they did, they both were not able to perform CPR, they said because of inadequate training.

Landau testified in the trial and was then fired from the NYPD. He was never charged.

When asked if the Liang’s legal team will still appeal, Chan replied, “We will discuss that even though it is now a Class E felony. We still try to clear his name totally.”

Just before the judge read Liang’s sentence, Liang read his statement, ”I always treated people fairly and with respect.”

Outside the courthouse, demonstrator Marquis Jenkins said, “For decade and centuries, the criminal justice system has been holding people of color hostage. We are yet again disappointed, but not surprised by today’s verdict. We will continue to advocate, immobilize and organize for justice. We can not allow another person of color to fall, to die in the hand of the system that was designed to protect us.”

Before the sentencing, about a hundred Liang supporters already formed across the street. They held signs in English and Chinese that read “Stand up to justice,” and “Tragic accident does not equal manslaughter.”

The probation department will determine when the sentencing will begin and the type of service Liang will be performing in the community.

###

Judge: No mistrial in Peter Liang case, sentencing set for April 19

Peter Liang and his defense team will wait until April 19 for sentencing.

THE JUDGE in the case of former NYPD officer Peter Liang ruled today (April 14) that his defense team failed to prove that a juror's withholding of information was grounds for a mistrial.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Earlier versions of this post was written before the judge's decision today. It has been updated to reflect the changing situation.

That means that the Liang's conviction stands and the sentencing, which was supposed to happen yesterday (April 13) will go ahead on Tuesday, April 19, said Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun. 

While waiting for the original sentencing date, it was discovered that Juror Michael Vargas, 62, failed to mention during jury questioning his dad served prison time for accidentally killing someone.

Vargas was questioned April 13 by Liang’s attorney Paul Shectman in the New York courtroom of Judge Danny Chun.

The juror said he was estranged from his father, didn’t really have a relationship with him and didn’t know for certain that he served time.

RELATED: Liang case: Justice is not a black-and-white issue

Vargas countered with a Facebook post from Vargas in January of a picture of him as a child with his father.

The defense also shared numerous antipolice posts on Vargas' Facebook, such as “America, wake up” or “Are the police a legal gang?”


Liang faces up to 15 years in prison for fatally shooting the unarmed Akai Gurley in a New York project's stairwell in 2014. Last month, Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson recommended he be sentenced to five years’s probation, including six months’ house arrest.

The case has pitted the Asian/American supporters of Liang against the Black Lives Matters activists who demanded justice for Gurley. It has also divided members of the AAPI community between Liang sympathizers who feel he was being scapegoated by the justice system, and others who agree with Gurley's family and supporters demanding justice and Liang's conviction.

###

For more news about Asian/Americans and Pacific Islanders, read AsAm News.

The Peter Liang case demonstrates that justice is not simply a black-and-white issue

The banner pretty much sums up the situation.

Editor's Note: When a New York police officer Peter Liang shot at Akai Gurley resulting in Gurley's death, activists in the African/American community, led by Black Lives Matter, rose up demanding justice. When the NYC District Attorney brought charges against Liang resulting in a conviction, Asian/Americans across the country rose up in protest because they believe Liang, because he is Asian, is being made a scapegoat. They argue other police officers (who are white) in similar circumstances have not been charged. 

Other Asian/American groups sided with Black Lives Matter, in solidarity with the African American community, sought justice for what they see as unjustified police violence against African/Americans.

What has happened is an apparent schism between the African/American and Asian/American communities, both with sound arguments for their positions; two minority groups seeking justice in a judicial system that sometimes seem stacked against both of them.

Since Liang's conviction, the D.A. said his office would not seek a jail sentence for him.

Following is a commentary from one Asian/American who decided to take the stance on behalf of Liang.

By J.L. Chan

Reprinted from AsAm News

I WAS AMONGthe tens of thousands rallying in support of Officer Peter Liang at Cadman Plaza in Brooklyn on Feb 20 2016. While I had mixed emotions about attending the protest which I found out about on Facebook, I felt compelled to do my part to speak out against the persecution of a man whose mistakes do not rise to the level of criminality, but must bear the wrongs of a nation and the anger of many.

As an Asian American, I am not supporting Peter Liang on the basis of our shared ethnicity or that I too, grew up in New York City’s Chinatown as an immigrant to this country over four decades ago. I am supporting him because the facts of the case do not add up to that of the manslaughter charge levied against him. Even prior precedents have yielded no conviction for accidental deaths under less clear cut circumstances. His conviction was unfair and unjust, selective prosecution, as many protest signs read.

There was clearly a different and harsher standard applied to Liang. Even setting aside standard and precedents, the specific set of circumstances in Liang’s case on its own merit is more akin to accidental death than manslaughter. There was no conscious intentional recklessness involved. In fact, it should have been settled as a civil case and not that of a criminal case. There should not have been an indictment in the first place. It was a tragic accident, not a crime.

Peter Liang was found guilty.

I was at the protest with some college friends. None of us have participated in prior demonstrations before but felt the Liang case was so egregious that we simply could not turn the other cheek. I met a couple from New Jersey there with their two young sons, and another couple where the Caucasian husband had insisted that his Asian wife attend. We all shared the same sentiment that Liang’s conviction was a blatant miscarriage of justice. It was inspiring and a powerful experience seeing so many Asian Americans in a show of solidarity in support of justice for Liang. It was about standing up for what is right.
When I first heard about the accidental discharge from Liang’s gun and the subsequent death of Akai Gurley, I knew then that Liang’s fate was sealed and written. The incident took place within a politically and racially charged climate of anti-police brutality and no indictments for Black lives lost at the hands of police officers. Never mind that Liang was an odd choice as the poster boy for police brutality, there was a hunger to convict a cop at all costs and Liang was Asian American, an easy target. It would be the perfect storm.

This is where I say that the overzealous prosecution got it wrong. And the jury got it wrong. The unique circumstances of this case are different from the others where Black lives were lost. There was no direct shooting at a victim, no conscious intention to kill, only that of an accidental discharge and the blind ricocheting of the bullet. It was an accident. Peter Liang is not a criminal and should not have been prosecuted as one.

As many were quick to offer their condemnations, some facts of the case became muddled with people passing judgment based on misinformation maliciously leaked to bolster the case to hang Liang.

On Nov 20 2014, Liang and his partner Shaun Landau, both rookie NYPD police officers, were conducting vertical patrols in the city’s housing projects of the Louis H. Pink Houses in East New York, Brooklyn, known to be a dangerous place, where the lights have been in disrepair for months and the stairwell was pitch black. Liang and his partner were on the 8th floor when he was startled by a loud noise and his gun went off. Incredulously, the discharged bullet hit the wall and then ricocheted in a downward trajectory piercing Akai Gurley’s heart, who was entering into the darkened stairwell one floor below on the 7th floor. While the mathematical probability of this fluke accident happening is probably close to an infinitesimal zero, it happened, and Gurley died from the ricocheted bullet. It was plain and obvious that Liang had never intended to fire at Gurley. Liang did not even know that Gurley was at the lower level of the stairwell when his gun went off.

Immediately after the shot went off, Liang and his partner returned to the hallway, where they debated who would call their supervisor. It was in the hallway that Liang worried about his job due to the accidental discharge, all the while not knowing that the bullet had hit someone. It was only after Liang then went back into the stairwell to look for the bullet did he hear Gurley’s girlfriend. It wasn’t until Liang went down the stairs did he realized a man had been hit.

Fliedner, the lead prosecutor in the case, said in court that a report by the Daily News — which claimed Liang texted his union representative right after the shooting — was FALSE.

“We don’t believe [Liang] intended to kill Mr. Gurley,” Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson told reporters, “but he had his finger on the trigger.

While it is easy for the prosecutor to say that Liang should not have had his finger on the trigger, it is not unreasonable to expect when an officer is on high alert, he or she may have the discretion to be ready to fire at an imminent or unexpected threat in a dangerous environment. As a painful reminder of the constant dangers police officers face day-in, day-out, and especially so while patrolling in the city’s most dangerous, gun-ridden housing projects, two NYPD police officers were gunned down at point-blank range at a Bronx housing project on Feb 4 while on vertical patrol. The officers were doing the same type of vertical patrol at the Melrose Houses on E. 156th Street as Liang was doing at the Pink Houses. One of the officers was seriously wounded. The perpetrator, who was recently released from prison for armed robbery, ran to a friend’s apartment and then killed himself. The incident took place in a well-lit stairwell; Liang was facing a dark stairwell which was even more dangerous.

Studies have shown that 20% of law enforcement officers habitually put their finger on the trigger of their weapons when under stress without even realizing it. It is in recognition of police officers often being in the line of fire, and may make unintended mistakes in a dangerous situation, that our legal system has mostly not pursued criminal prosecution for similar to or worse offenses than Liang’s.

The prosecution had each juror handle a firearm similar to Liang’s in the courtroom to gauge the pressure needed to pull the trigger. That was nothing but a dog and pony show. There is no comparison between someone calmly pulling a trigger in a secure controlled environment versus having to react instantly on high alert in a dangerous environment.

The prosecution also accused Liang of being reckless in not providing immediate medical help to Gurley right after the incident causing his death. That is not exactly true. Liang and his partner did not know that Gurley was hit by the ricocheted bullet until quite a while later. And when they finally did, Gurley’s girlfriend was already applying CPR under the instruction of a 911 operator. And the real help did arrive within a few minutes after Liang and his partner found that Gurley was shot. Another point the prosecutor neglected to tell the jury is that the ricocheted bullet had pierced through Gurley’s heart, a fatal shot that no amount of CPR could have saved Gurley, not even if a surgeon was there at the scene.

As to Liang and his partner not offering to take over administering CPR, they both felt that they were not qualified to do a better job than that already being done due to inadequate training. A 6-year-old-girl died a few years earlier when a police officer refused to administer CPR because he was not properly trained and the officer was not charged. You can blame the system for that failure, as evidenced by the recent disciplinary action taken against the CPR instructor who taught Liang’s class for lapses in CPR instruction.

Peter Liang has been nothing but remorseful and apologetic. He was in shock after the accidental shooting. He broke down and cried by Gurley’s body and as a senior Officer at the scene confirmed, Liang wished the bullet had ricocheted and hit him instead. The first words spoken by Liang’s mother at the protest were apologies and condolences to the Gurley family before she was unable to utter another word through her sobs. It was one tragedy, two victims, as the protest signs read.

Peter Liang is not a callous individual. He decided to become a police officer to protect people because his mom was robbed. He was sent to the Pink Houses to protect the residents, including Akai Gurley, while innocent at the time he was accidentally shot, was a known drug dealer to the police with 24 prior arrests. I bring this up not to blame the victim but to point out the dangerous elements associated with patrolling of the Pink Houses.

While Liang the rookie police officer is made to shoulder all the blame, one must ask where are his superiors? The same people who put him into this unforgiving situation. The NYPD should take accountability as should the NYCHA for broken lights and unsafe housing and stairwell.

If Liang was a bad person, thousands would not be out there protesting and continuing to support him. He is not a criminal or a threat to society. He is entitled to fair treatment and equal justice under the law. In fact, true justice would be the rightful setting aside of his wrongful conviction, as his lawyers are currently appealing. Liang does not deserve to be incarcerated. Any jail time sentenced would be an atrocity.

In the latest turn of events, and in a small gesture of fairness, Brooklyn DA Thompson has recommended no jail time for Liang. It is now incumbent upon Judge Danny Chun to also rule fairly with no jail time so as not to further compound the injustice befallen upon Peter Liang.

###