Newsletter - #59 Stand Up, Speak Out, Take Action In 05/15 National "Unity Against Hate" Rallies #59 Stand Up, Speak Out, Take Action In 05/15 National "Unity Against Hate" Rallies Back View PDF May 13, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #329 5/5 Meeting; William Tong; Hanfan Lin; China Initiative; Harvard Push Back; Uprising + #329 5/5 Meeting; William Tong; Hanfan Lin; China Initiative; Harvard Push Back; Uprising + In This Issue #329 · 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · William Tong: Connecticut Attorney General · Haifan Lin: President of Federation of Asian Professor Associations · Long Shadow of the "China Initiative" · University Leaders Stand Up to Trump Administration Threats · NYT Opinion : "America Needs an Uprising That Is Not Normal" · News and Activities for the Communities 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held via Zoom on Monday, May 5, 2025, starting at 1:55 pm ET. In addition to updates by Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Joanna YangQing Derman , Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC, and Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), invited speakers are: · William Tong 湯偉麟 , Attorney General, State of Connecticut · Robert L. Santos , Former Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Former President, American Statistical Association · Haifan Lin 林海帆 , President, Federation of Asian Professor Associations (FAPA); Professor, Yale University · Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆 , Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Steven Pei 白先慎 , Vincent Wang 王文奎 , and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . William Tong: Connecticut Attorney General William Tong 湯偉麟 is the 25th Attorney General (AG) to serve Connecticut since the office was established by the state constitution in 1897. He first took office in 2019 and is currently serving his second term. Born in Hartford, he is the first Asian American elected to any state office in Connecticut history, and the first Chinese American to be elected Attorney General nationwide. AG Tong was elected to serve as the President-elect of the National Association of Attorneys General. The vote was unanimous. His term begins in 2026.AG Tong has accepted our invitation to speak at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025.Since taking office in 2019, he has been a leading voice in defending civil rights and challenging federal overreach. He and fellow state attorneys general have filed at least eight lawsuits against the Trump administration, including efforts to oppose attempts to end birthright citizenship, prevent the freezing of federal funds critical to states, and overturn the planned $11 billion cut in the federal public health grants. AG Tong's advocacy underscores his commitment to upholding constitutional protections and ensuring equitable treatment for all communities. · 2025/04/02 CTpost: Connecticut sues Trump administration, Kennedy over health cuts, $120 million to state at risk · 2025/03/06 Attorney General Tong Secures Court Order Blocking Trump Administration from Freezing Federal Funds · 2024/12/29 NBC News: 'The first to sue': Opposing Trump's desire to end birthright citizenship is personal for this attorney general Haifan Lin: President of Federation of Asian Professor Associations Dr. Haifan Lin 林海帆 , President of the Federation of Asian Professor Associations (FAPA), is an invited speaker at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025.FAPA is a national coalition dedicated to uniting Asian and Asian American faculty across U.S. institutions. Established in 2024, FAPA aims to foster collaboration, amplify advocacy, and promote shared initiatives among Asian faculty organizations nationwide. Its mission encompasses advancing academic freedom, equity, and representation, particularly in response to challenges such as racial profiling and underrepresentation in leadership roles.Dr. Lin is the Eugene Higgins Professor of Cell Biology at Yale University and the founding director of the Yale Stem Cell Center. Renowned for his pioneering work in stem cell biology, Dr. Lin is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. On April 12, 2025, FAPA issued a public statement on the case of Indiana University Professor Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 and sent an open letter to Dr. Pamela Whitten , President of Indiana University, to condemn the abrupt dismissal of Dr. Wang, citing a lack of due process and growing racial profiling of Chinese American scientists. FAPA urges the university to reverse the decision, warning that such actions undermine academic freedom and set a dangerous precedent. Long Shadow of the "China Initiative" On April 25, 2025, the Committee of 100 annual conference will kick off with a session on " The Evolving National Security Landscape and Its Impact on Civil Rights ." This panel will examine what has replaced the China Initiative, who is being targeted now, and what comes next. Panelists will explore the broader implications of national security-driven discrimination, including the erosion of due process rights, racial profiling in espionage cases, and restrictions on cross-border collaboration. They will also discuss strategies for resisting policies that reinforce systemic inequality and advocate for civil liberties in an era of rising geopolitical tensions. Speakers for the panel are: · Gang Chen 陈刚 , Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) · Seth DuCharme , Chair, National Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice, Bracewell LLP; Former United States Attorney · Gary Locke 骆家辉 , Former U.S. Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China · Brian Sun 孙自华 , Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright US 1. The Case of Dr. Chee-Kung Wang Dr. Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆 , currently a retired professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, was indicted in 2021 for 10 counts of visa and wire fraud. Prosecutors claimed he facilitated a scheme that brought Chinese nationals to the U. S. on J-1 visiting scholar visa to work at a private telecommunications firm instead of at the University. In April 2025, all charges were dismissed at the pretrial stage due to lack of evidence and not meeting fundamental principles of law. His case is widely seen as another example of racial profiling and prosecutorial overreach under now-defunct "China Initiative." He was represented by attorneys Robert Fisher and Brian Kelly , who also defended MIT Professor Gang Chen in a separate case under "China Initiative." Dr. Gee-Kung Chang and Mr. Robert Fisher will speak at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025. 2. China Initiative 2.0? The Case of Dr. Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 On March 28, 2025, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security executed search warrants at Indiana University (IU) Professor Xiaofeng Wang 's 王晓峰 residences in Bloomington and Carmel, Indiana. Simultaneously, IU terminated Professor Wang's employment via email without any formal reason. His wife, Nianli Ma , also affiliated with IU, was dismissed four days earlier without explanation. At the April 14, 2025 State of Play Town Hall, Nianli Ma shared her family's profound sense of betrayal and emotional distress over IU's unexplained dismissals, vowing to fight for justice and support the broader research community.On April 1, 2025, Stanford University legal scholar Riana Pfefferkorn filed a motion (1:25-mc-00022) to unseal the warrants, emphasizing the public's right to transparency. The U.S. Attorney's Office has argued to keep them sealed.Professor Wang's termination reportedly involved an undisclosed research grant from China in 2017-2018. Joining the protest on April 17, 2025, Day of Action for Higher Ed, IU computer science chair Yuzhen Ye said Professor Wang was not even aware of the grant when university officials asked him about it. “So apparently a researcher in China applied for this grant without his knowledge," she said "So (Wang) explained and also he provided a supporting documentation to IU. I truly believe this really could have unfolded in a very different way if IU administration had chosen to trust its own faculty or give them a fair chance to respond,” Professor Ye said. Read the continuing development of Professor Wang's case: https://bit.ly/42tbPVR 3. The Unsolved Suicide of Dr. Nongjian Tao According to an exclusive report by the South China Morning Post on April 14, 2025, Nongjian Tao 陶农建 , a renowned Chinese American scientist and pioneer in nanotechnology, was found dead in March 2020 outside a parking garage at Arizona State University (ASU), where he led the Center for Bioelectronics and Biosensors. A police report later concluded that Tao died by suicide amid significant "work-related stress." His sudden death at age 57 shocked colleagues, as he had been actively engaged in professional activities shortly before his passing. Tao was celebrated for his invention of the scanning tunneling microscopy break junction technique, which advanced the study of single molecules and contributed to the field of nanoscience. He also founded two biotech startups and secured over $10 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Stuart Lindsay , a Regents Professor at ASU and Professor Tao’s PhD adviser in the 1980s, called him “the brightest and hardest working student” he had ever had.In 2021, the American Chemical Society published the first-ever special issue of ACS Sensors dedicated to the memory of Professor Tao, recognizing him as "a person that made an incredible impact on our lives and those of many others." He was named an honorary fellow by the Chinese Chemical Society in 2012. In April 2020, The obituary in Nature Nanotechnology honors Professor Tao (1963–2020) as a pioneering nanoscientist. Professor Tao's death occurred during the era of the "China Initiative," which aimed to counter alleged economic espionage but shifted to racial profiling against Chinese researchers. Five years later, questions about Professor Tao’s death remain – including whether some of that stress was the result of possible inquiries by NIH.The cause of Professor Tao’s death may never be known. University Leaders Stand Up to Trump Administration Threats According to Harvard Crimson on April 22, 2025, Harvard University President Alan Garber joined over 180 university leaders (which has since grown to more than 220) in signing a public statement denouncing government overreach and political interference in higher education. Issued by the American Association of Colleges and Universities , the statement calls for constructive engagement with the White House while opposing undue intrusion on campuses. It follows Harvard’s lawsuit challenging a $2.2 billion funding cut and marks the first time the university has directly co-led opposition to the Trump administration. The statement also criticized threats of deportation, emphasizing the importance of academic freedom and open inquiry.On April 21, 2025, Harvard filed a lawsuit to halt a federal freeze on more than $2.2 billion in grants: President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services (1:25-cv-11048) On April 14, 2025, Harvard publicly rejected a series of sweeping demands from the Trump administration, which included overhauling its admissions, hiring, and diversity programs, and submitting to federal oversight. “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” the Harvard President Garber wrote. On April 18, 2025, the New York Times reported that some administration officials claimed the initial letter on April 11 was sent in error. According to the Washington Post on April 19, 2025, Harvard pushed back on the assertion that the letter was sent in error, pointing out that the Trump administration had “doubled down” on its threats. After Harvard refused to comply with the letter’s demands, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal funding to the university without proof of violatons and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. NYT Opinion: "America Needs an Uprising That Is Not Normal" In an essay published by the New York Times on April 17, 2025, Columnist David Brooks opined that " What's Happening Is Not Normal. America Needs an Uprising That Is Not Normal. " According to the opinion, Trumpism is not normal politics — it is a systematic, multifront assault on the foundational institutions of modern civilization. As the opinion explains, "Trumpism is about ego, appetite and acquisitiveness," and it actively seeks to dismantle the safeguards that make society humane and just — from universities and law firms to NATO and the rule of law. The usual compartmentalized responses have failed; treating these attacks as separate issues is a "disastrous strategy" that allows Trumpism to divide and conquer. This moment demands recognition that what’s at stake is not a partisan struggle, but “an assault on the fundamental institutions of our civic life.”What is urgently needed is not passive defense, but an “abnormal uprising” — a coordinated, national civic movement that unites all sectors of society: law, academia, science, media, business, and civil service. Drawing from historic examples in Why Civil Resistance Works , such movements start small but grow through strategic nonviolence — lawsuits, boycotts, mass rallies — eventually shifting the momentum and narrative. As the opinion argues, “Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he is confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.” This is a call not just to resist, but to reform, heal, and rebuild. “We have nothing to lose but our chains,” the opinion concludes.Read the New York Times opinion by David Brooks: https://bit.ly/4ivpDUL News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar 2025/04/24-26 Committee of 100 Annual Conference and Gala2025/04/24 CHINA Town Hall: The First 100 Days: President Trump's China Policy2025/04/24 Federal Employees: Know your Legal Rights2025/04/24 Stop AAPI Hate Community Town Hall - Trump’s Travel Ban: How to Prepare and Push Back2025/04/28 California AANHPI Advocacy Day2025/04/30 Beyond the China Initiative: Civil Rights, National Security, and the Future of AAPI Communities2025/05/04 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2025/05/06 Asian American Careers - How to Build Your Personal Network, including Through Strategic Allies2025/05/12-14 APAICS Annual Summit and GalaVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF April 24, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #85 UTK's Catch-22; New Studies on EEA Released; SFCAUSE; Anti-Asian Hate/Racial Profiling #85 UTK's Catch-22; New Studies on EEA Released; SFCAUSE; Anti-Asian Hate/Racial Profiling Back View PDF September 23, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

National Media Network Item One Change the text to include your own content. Adjust the font, size or scale to customize the style. Item Two Change the text to include your own content. Adjust the font, size or scale to customize the style. Item Four Change the text to include your own content. Adjust the font, size or scale to customize the style. Item Five Change the text to include your own content. Adjust the font, size or scale to customize the style. During the APA Justice monthly meeting on April 3, 2023, Paula Madison, businesswoman and retired executive from NBCUniversal, proposed a proactive and assertive national media alert network for the Asian American community. The idea was prompted by the challenge of Texas Senate Bill 147 (SB147) and the revival of discriminatory alien land bills. While this bill was introduced in Texas, the implications nationally and globally were huge. It was decided that a roundtable will be convened to further discuss the development and implementation of the concept and strategies for the near term and the longer term. 2023 Monthly Meeting Apr. 2023 Meeting Paula Madison speaks at APA Justice Monthly Meeting - Apr. 3rd 2023 Inaugural Rountable Following a discussion with the Asian American Journalists Association on April 10, 2023, the virtual Inaugural Roundtable was hosted by APA Justice on April 17, 2023. The Inaugural Roundtable has two stated purposes: Assertively address immediate xenophobic challenges to our freedoms Consider longer-term proactive actions to ensure fairness and justice for all, including the AAPI and immigrant communities It is recognized that the Asian American and immigrant communities are in turbulent times again, facing enormous cross-cutting challenges, including but not limited to Legalizing discrimination at the state and federal levels, such as Texas Senate Bill 147, DATA Act, RESTRICT Act, etc Return of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, such as the loyalty attacks on Rep. Judy Chu, Gang Chen, and Committee of 100 members Warrantless surveillance such as the loopholes in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that victimized Temple University Professor Xiaoxing Xi and others Mini "China Initiative" conducted by the National Institutes of Health that damaged or ruined the careers of hundreds of researchers and scientists Cross-border profiling, interrogation, harassment, and denial of entry of Chinese American faculty, students and their families by federal agents Continuing fallout from the now-defunct "China Initiative" including New York Police Department Officer Angwang Collateral damage from the deteriorating U.S.-China relations Anti-Asian hate and violence resulting from xenophobic rhetoric, insinuations, scapegoating, and demonization Members of the Inaugural Roundtable are: APA Justice Task Force API Coalition Asian American Advancing Justice - AAJC Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (CALDA) Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) Committee of 100 (C100) National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA) OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA) The Serica Initiative United Chinese Americans (UCA) The Roundtable is intended to be a diverse and inclusive "big tent" with additional participants and observers to build an organic, focused and structured approach. About 100 organizational representatives and individuals registered, attended, or spoke at the online event. Three questions were asked of each Roundtable member. Discussions were held after the initial rounds of questions before the floor was opened to all participants and observers. The discussions covered a wide variety of issues and perspectives such as the historical and current state for the Asian American and immigrant communities including societal racism and bias; the need to combat stereotypes and to accentuate the contributions with education and sustainable actions; the positive and negative roles of the media in addressing recent events; understanding and exercising our constitutional and civil rights; the fundamental divide between the scientific and law enforcement perspectives; the importance of avoiding silos and building bonds and enduring relationships; the potential actions and use of technology to reach out across generational, racial, and industry boundaries; the establishment of strategies, unity, and readiness to change narratives and address immediate and anticipated issues; training and calling for strike teams and a bureau of well-versed speakers ready for action on short notice; filing lawsuits and taking legal actions to fight injustice. In essence, our communities are lacking in an infrastructure to address issues, and we need to build one that is diverse, sustainable, and ready. The vibrant discussions went beyond the scheduled time of 90 minutes. At the conclusion of the Roundtable, Paula quoted Desmond Tutu, “there is only one way to eat an elephant: one bite at a time” as she summarized her observations and suggested these follow-up actions: Share contact information to stay connected Create a chat group Organize and provide media training Reach out and build allies Create a playbook Identify a group of speakers ready to speak Employ playbook and deploy strike teams

Newsletter - #287 Civic Leadership Forum; Endorse Stanford Letter; Qian Xuesen; MSP Lecture; Election; + #287 Civic Leadership Forum; Endorse Stanford Letter; Qian Xuesen; MSP Lecture; Election; + In This Issue #287 · Civic Leadership Forum Silicon Valley: The U.S. vs. China: A Talent War · Additional Endorsers and Letters Invited to Oppose Revival of China Initiative · McCarthyism and Qian Xuesen 钱学森 · "Threats to Academic Freedom and International Engagement: China and Beyond" · APIAVote: Election Information in Your State · News and Activities for the Communities Civic Leadership Forum Silicon Valley: The U.S. vs. China: A Talent War On October 11, 2024, Civic Leadership Forum Silicon Valley: The U.S. vs. China: A Talent War was held at Ding Ding TV studios. Over 300 people watched the livestream of the event, which covered three topics: · Understanding the implications of losing top talent to China. · Discovering how trade wars and talent loss affect the middle class. · Exploring strategies for fostering collaboration and retaining talent. The expert panel included: · Scott Rozelle : A leading scholar in Chinese economics, Rozelle has recently participated in Track Two diplomacy initiatives between the U.S. and China. · Peter Michelson : A renowned physicist at Stanford University, Michelson has expressed concerns about the impact of the DoJ’s China Initiative on reverse brain drain. · Peter Zeidenberg : A successful lawyer who has defended Americans wrongly accused of espionage-related crimes, including Kansas University Professor Franklin Tao. · Joel Wong : A dedicated advocate for the Asian American Pacific Islander community and a prominent figure in U.S.-China relations. Professor Feng “Franklin” Tao , and his wife Hong attended the event and spoke about their ordeal . Former Congressman Mike Honda led off the Q&A session. Dr. Ken Fong , sponsor of the event, gave closing remarks . Additional Endorsers and Letters Invited to Oppose Revival of China Initiative On October 9, 2024, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that more than 165 Stanford faculty members signed a letter to congressional leaders to “strongly oppose” legislative efforts to reinstate the China Initiative. The U.S. House has passed a measure to bring back the Trump-era initiative, which was ended in February 2022. Lawmakers also included language directing the U.S. Department of Justice to restart the probe in a government-spending bill. Both proposals require Senate approval. Gisela Kusakawa , executive director of the Asian American Scholar Forum, said it was important for professors and researchers to voice their concerns because they see firsthand the importance of international collaboration — and the chilling effect of the initial federal inquiry. She encourages faculty members at other colleges to also weigh in vy endorsing the Stanford letter or write their own letters. “By speaking out, these scholars can help shape policies that safeguard the academic landscape for future generations,” she said, Steven A. Kivelson , a professor of physics who spearheaded the drafting of the Stanford letter with Professor Peter Michelson , said he has worked with “brilliant” graduate students, postdocs, visiting scholars, and longtime research partners from China. “The China Initiative was significantly harmful to such collaborations, without having any clear positive implications for national-security issues,” he wrote in an email to The Chronicle. “There are few policy matters that seem so clear-cut to me as that the China Initiative should not be revived.”Read the Chronicle report: https://bit.ly/3U6ZD8J . Read the Stanford faculty letter: https://bit.ly/4dCVC2P . Endorse the Stanford faculty letter: https://bit.ly/4eXkWBw . The 1990 Institute has joined the White House , CAPAC , a coalition of community organizations , Committee of 100 , and National Asian Pacific American Bar Association in issuing a statement condemning the attempt to revive the China Initiative: https://bit.ly/3U8bLpT .On October 13, 2024, Forbes Breaking News posted a video recording of a hearing by the House Oversight Committee on September 24, 2024, in which Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) slammed the premise of the hearing and questioned witnesses about discrimination against the Chinese community. Watch the video: https://bit.ly/4029aSa (5:23) On October 12, 2024, Fair Observer reported that escalating political tensions between the U.S. and China are hindering scientific collaboration and making it harder for the U.S. to attract and retain talented Chinese scholars, according to a new study co-authored by Wharton professor Britta Glennon . Both countries are increasingly focused on self-sufficiency in science, diverging from long-standing international collaboration trends. This shift towards nationalism, Glennon argues, may have unintended consequences for innovation. The study, titled "Building a Wall around Science," was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Read the Fair Observer report: https://bit.ly/4dKyAa7 . McCarthyism and Qian Xuesen 钱学森 In China, Qian Xuesen 钱学森 is hailed as a national hero—an aerospace engineer who took China into space. Here in America, Qian’s story is a lesson about how McCarthyism and American insecurity made America less secure. Qian Xuesen left the Republic of China in 1935 to study aerospace engineering at MIT, and he later became a professor at CalTech and co-founded NASA’s famous Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He was a welcome guest in the U.S. for more than ten years. In fact, shortly after World War II, the U.S. Government thanked him for his contribution to the war effort, including his service on the U.S. government’s Scientific Advisory Board as an Air Force lieutenant colonel. At the height of McCarthyism in 1950, the FBI accused Qian of being a communist and a threat to national security. He felt betrayed and humiliated, and after trying unsuccessfully to clear his name. The Department of Justice placed him under house arrest and forbade him from leaving for five years from 1950-1955 until the United States finally decided to deport him. Rather than helping the United States land on the moon, the country forced Qian out, and he helped build China’s space program. Still, there is no evidence that Qian ever spied for China or was an intelligence agent when he was in America, and government officials later described his deportation as “the stupidest thing this country ever did.” Qian’s life is recognized as globally pivotal in both Chinese and American history. The BBC wrote: “Qian's life spanned almost a century. In that time China grew from an economic minnow to a superpower on Earth and in space. Qian was part of that transformation. But his story could have been a great American one too - where talent, wherever it is found, could thrive.” Sources: 2020/10/26 BBC : Qian Xuesen: The man the US deported - who then helped China into space National Museum of Nuclear Sciences and History: Qian Xuesen Wikipedia: Qian Xuesen Alex Liang , second year student at Harvard Law School, contributed this report. "Threats to Academic Freedom and International Engagement: China and Beyond" On November 12, 2024, Massachusetts Society of Professors (MSP) at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, will host a lecture on "Threats to International Engagement and Academic Freedom," starting at 4:00 pm ET. The featured speaker is Dr. Yangyang Cheng , Particle Physicist and Research Scholar at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. Across the country, faculty and students are facing impediments to international engagement, and sometimes at significant personal risk, arising from increasingly strict federal regulations. International faculty and students are especially vulnerable, as are Chinese Americans and others with ties to countries experiencing strained US relations.At UMass Amherst, there are strong unions with the power to enforce robust contracts. The MSP event and the conversations it generates will help mobilize the UMass community to win and sustain the strongest possible protections for research and professional lives.The event will be held at UMass Amherst Lederle Graduate Research Center A112. It will also be streamlined by Zoom at https://umass-amherst.zoom.us/j/96950189589 . For more information, visit: https://bit.ly/3Yn2lcH APIAVote: Election Information in Your State November 5, 2024, is Election Day. Voters will elect the next President and Vice President of the United States. All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for election, and 34 seats in the U.S. Senate will be contested. There will also be state and local elections, as well as ballot initiatives or referendums.Every state has different rules for its elections. APIAVote (Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 that promotes civic participation and voter engagement in Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities. It focuses on increasing voter registration, turnout, and advocacy to ensure AAPI voices are represented in the U.S. political process.APIAVote has developed an online map to provide state-by-state election dates, including registration and mail-in deadlines, as well as early voting. It also provides translated mailers to over 1 million AAPI households and online in order to inform them on how, where and when to vote, in their preferred language. To find out specific information about your state, visit: https://bit.ly/4f2qKtB According to NPR on October 14, 2024, in an election race this close, Asian American voters have become a force. The Asian and Pacific Islander Political Alliance (APIPA) is working to mobilize AAPI voters in Pennsylvania ahead of the 2024 election, canvassing daily to support Vice President Kamala Harris and other endorsed candidates. AAPI voters, though a small part of the electorate in this critical swing state, have grown significantly, with their numbers increasing by 55% between 2010 and 2020. The group's efforts reflect the growing importance of the AAPI population in political engagement, particularly in tight races where their votes could be decisive.Outreach to AAPI communities has been a challenge for both major parties, partly due to the cost and labor involved in translating voting materials. However, candidates like Harris have focused on targeted advertising and voter engagement in Asian American media, emphasizing her own immigrant background. While the Donald Trump campaign has done less specific outreach, they have attempted to tap into nostalgia for the economy during Trump's presidency. AAPI voters, once engaged, tend to remain politically active, and their support could prove crucial in several swing states.In other states, like Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia, AAPI voters are also seen as a key demographic, with advocacy groups working to build long-term political engagement. Democratic organizers have noticed a surge in South Asian volunteers and increased outreach from both parties. However, some within the AAPI community still feel politically marginalized, a challenge advocacy groups are working to address by increasing voter outreach and representation in campaigns.Read the NPR report: https://n.pr/3BTAnfO News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events:2024/10/16 Rebuilding Trust in Science2024/10/20 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/10/22 Engage with AAAS: 2024 U.S. Elections2024/10/25-27 Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the American Studies Network2024/10/26 Common Ground and Banquet2024/10/27 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/03 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/10 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/12 Threats to International Engagement and Academic Freedom2024/11/14 Asian American Career Ceiling InitiativesVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. Committee of 100: Asian American Career Ceiling Initiative WHAT : Asian American Career Ceiling Initiative: “An Advice and Networking Event (Financial Services, Investing and Consulting)" WHEN: November 14, 2024, 6:00 pm - 7:15 pm ET WHERE: Webcast HOST: Committee of 100 Moderator: Peter Young , Chair, Committee of 100 Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative DESCRIPTION: This virtual event, the 37th in a series, will enable Asian Americans of all ages to get valuable career advice from experienced and successful Asian Americans in the Financial Services, Investing and Consulting professions. Committee of 100 expects to hold this event for a different clusters of professions in the future. REGISTRATION: https://bit.ly/3A1RUC3 3. APA Justice Newsletter Web Page Moved to New Website As part of its continuing migration to a new website under construction, we have moved the Newsletter webpage to https://www.apajusticetaskforce.org/newsletters . Content of the existing website will remain, but it will no longer be updated. We value your feedback about the new web page. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF October 15, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #193: 7/3 Meeting; Affirmative Action; Florida Law; Pew Study; Rice Names AVPs; More #193: 7/3 Meeting; Affirmative Action; Florida Law; Pew Study; Rice Names AVPs; More In This Issue #193 REMINDER: 2023/07/03 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Affirmative Action in College Admissions: What Have We Won? What Have We Lost? DOJ Says Florida Law is Unconstitutional Relatively Few Asian Americans Say They’re Well-informed About Asian History In The U.S. Rice University Names AVPs for Research Security, Technology Transfer News and Activities for the Communities Back View PDF July 3, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #16 Dr. Zweig's Presentation; Brennan Center Inaugural Webinar; Rep. Meng Resolution #16 Dr. Zweig's Presentation; Brennan Center Inaugural Webinar; Rep. Meng Resolution Back View PDF September 18, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session launched the China Initiative to combat national security threats and economic espionage emanating from the People’s Republic of China. Without a definition of what constitutes a China Initiative case, it drifted to profile and stigmatize Asian Americans and individuals of Asian descent, creating severe damage and a chilling effect on scientific collaboration and harming U.S. leadership in science and technology. November 1, 2018 Table of Contents Overview FBI Director’s Profiling Approach NIH’s Own “China Initiative” Criminalizing China The Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists Links and References Overview On November 1, 2018, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session announced the launch of the China Initiative to combat national security threats and economic espionage emanating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). “This Initiative will identify priority Chinese trade theft cases, ensure that we have enough resources dedicated to them, and make sure that we bring them to an appropriate conclusion quickly and effectively.” Sessions said. President Donald Trump fired Sessions less than a week later, but the China Initiative remained in operation for 1,210 days until it was ended by the Joe Biden Administration on February 23, 2022. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had no definition of what constitutes a China Initiative case. DOJ created an online report on what it considered to be Chinese Initiative cases. The online report was last updated on November 19, 2021, three months before the initiative officially ended. According to MIT Technology Review , there have been 77 known China Initiative cases impacting 162 individuals. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the cases, MIT Technology Review concluded that the initiative had increasingly charged academics with “research integrity” issues. Nearly 90% of the defendants charged were of Chinese heritage, lending credence to wide-spread allegations that scientists and researchers of Chinese origin were racially profiled and targeted under the China Initiative despite denials by the government. The DOJ China Initiative cases included only indictments and prosecutions. It did not include investigations or surveillance by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and other federal law enforcement agencies and grant agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH ran its own China Initiative. By March 23, 2023, a year after the official end of the China Initiative, NIH’s own “China initiative” had upended hundreds of lives and destroyed scores of academic careers. In contrast to the very public criminal prosecutions of academic scientists under the China Initiative, NIH’s version was conducted behind closed doors. FBI Director’s Profiling Approach The first thunder of the New Red Scare came on February 13, 2018, when FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and targeted all students, scholars and scientists of Chinese origin as a national security threat to the United States. Wray responded to a question in the hearing, “I think in this setting I would just say that the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it’s professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country. It’s not just in major cities. It’s in small ones as well. It’s across basically every discipline.” Asian American advocates were outraged by Wray’s presumption that every Chinese professor, scientist, and student was guilty of collecting intelligence for the Chinese government until proven innocent. Conflating the stereotype of “perpetual foreigners” and the loyalty of Asian Americans to the United States, Wray pledged to pursue a “whole-of-society” approach to address the threat of China. His use of the term “non-traditional collectors” for spies parallelled “thousand grains of sand” during the prosecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee and “fifth column” in referral to Japanese Americans during World War II. Qian Xuesen, also known as Hsue-shen Tsien, a founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, became a victim of the Second Red Scare during the Cold War era, facing accusations of “communist sympathies” despite his contributions to American scientific advancement. Fourteen Asian American community organizations wrote to Wray on March 1, 2018, and called for “an opportunity to discuss how well-intentioned public policies might nonetheless lead to troubling issues of potential bias, racial profiling, and wrongful prosecution.” Wray never responded to the letter. References and Links Wikipedia: Qian Xuesen 2020/02/02 The Intercept: The FBI’s China Obsession - The U.S. Government Secretly Spied on Chinese American Scientists, Upending Lives and Paving the Way for Decades of Discrimination 2019/12/31 Bloomberg: As China Anxiety Rises in U.S., Fears of New Red Scare Emerge 2019/07/20 New York Times: A New Red Scare Is Reshaping Washington 2018/03/23 Huffington Post: FBI Director Defends Remarks That Chinese People In U.S. Pose Threats 2018/03/08 Washington Post Opinion: America’s new — and senseless — Red Scare 2018/03/01 14 Coalition Organizations: Coalition letter to FBI Director Wray 2018/03/01 Committee of 100: Community Organizations Call for Meeting with FBI Director Christopher Wray Regarding Profiling of Students, Scholars, and Scientists with Chinese Origins 2018/02/27 Asia Times: FBI director’s grave mistake on targeting Chinese-Americans 2018/02/16 纽约都市新闻网: 华裔议员严厉谴责Rubio和Wray针对中国学生的极端言论 2018/02/15 CAPAC: CAPAC Members on Rubio and Wray’s Remarks Singling Out Chinese Students as National Security Threats 2018/02/14 Inside Higher Ed: The Chinese Student Threat? 2018/02/13 Advancing Justice | AAJC: FBI Director’s Shock Claim: Chinese Students Are a Potential Threat 2018/02/13 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Hearing on Global Threats and National Security 2016/05/25 60 Minutes: Collateral Damage 2015/05/10 New York Times: Accused of Spying for China, Until She Wasn’t 2000/09/14 New York Times: Statement by Judge in Los Alamos Case, With Apology for Abuse of Power . 1999/12/11 Washington Post: China Prefers the Sand to the Moles 1964/02/02 New York Times: F.B.I. Chief Warns of Red China Spies NIH’s Own “China Initiative” According to the Science Magazine, Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sent a missive to more than 10,000 institutions on August 20, 2018, asserting that "threats to the integrity of U.S. biomedical research exist" and highlighted the failure to disclose "substantial resources from other organizations, including foreign governments." Collins wrote that "in the weeks and months ahead you may be hearing from [NIH] regarding … requests about specific … personnel from your institution." Dubbed as NIH’s own “China Initiative,” NIH began sending letters to dozens of major U.S. research universities in March 2019, asking them to provide information about specific faculty members with NIH funding who are believed to have links to foreign governments that NIH did not know about. Universities reportedly scrambled to respond to the unprecedented queries. Some academic administrators worry the exercise could cast a chill over all types of international scientific collaborations. Others fear that the inquiry may become a vehicle to impugn the loyalty of any faculty member—and especially any foreign-born scientists—who maintain overseas ties. At some institutions, every researcher flagged by NIH was Chinese American. The vaguely worded letters did not contain specific accusations, nor did it explain any aspect of the process. By March 23, 2023, a year after the official end of the China Initiative, Science reported that NIH’s “China initiative” has upended hundreds of lives and destroyed scores of academic careers. In contrast to the very public criminal prosecutions of academic scientists under the China Initiative, NIH’s version was conducted behind closed doors. More than one in five of the 246 scientists targeted were banned from applying for new NIH funding for as long as 4 years—a career-ending setback for most academic researchers. And almost two-thirds were removed from existing NIH grants. Some 81% of the scientists cited in the NIH letters identify as Asian, and 91% of the collaborations under scrutiny were with colleagues in China. In only 14 of the 246 cases—a scant 6%—did the institution fail to find any evidence to back up NIH’s suspicions. NIH is by far the largest funder of academic biomedical research in the United States, and some medical centers receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the agency. So when senior administrators heard Michael Lauer, NIH deputy director for extramural research, say a targeted scientist “was not welcome in the NIH ecosystem,” they understood immediately what he meant—and that he was expecting action. “If NIH says there’s a conflict, then there’s a conflict, because NIH is always right,” says David Brenner, who was vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), in November 2018 when the institution received a letter from Lauer asking it to investigate five medical school faculty members, all born in China. “We were told we have a problem and that it was up to us to fix it.” In a panel discussion hosted by the University of Michigan in March 2024, Professor Ann Chih Lin, asserted that NIH made it clear that if they couldn’t resolve concerns regarding a faculty member and a grant, NIH would not only require universities to repay the grant, but also investigate universities’ entire portfolio of NIH grants. Fearing the loss of grant money, universities often approached the implicated professors and encouraged them to resign voluntarily or retire early. This strategy aimed to avoid a public disciplinary hearing or grievance process, which could bring unwanted attention to the case. Professors involved in such investigations typically refrained from discussing their cases to protect both themselves and the universities, often choosing to depart quietly. References and Links 2024/03/29 University of Michigan News: US universities secretly turned their back on Chinese professors under DOJ’s China Initiative 2023/02/23 Science: Pall of Suspicion 2019/03/01 Science: NIH letters asking about undisclosed foreign ties rattle U.S. universities Criminalizing China The name of China Initiative by itself is problematic. "Using 'China' as the glue connecting cases prosecuted under the Initiative's umbrella creates an overinclusive conception of the threat and attaches a criminal taint to entities that possess 'China-ness,' based on PRC nationality, PRC national origin, Chinese ethnicity, or other expressions of connections with 'China.,'" Professor Margaret Lewis wrote in her article "Criminalizing China" in 2020. Her article further contends that, when assessed in light of the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution, it is worrisome that the prosecution and punishment of people and entities rests in part on a connection with “China.” A better path is to discard the “China Initiative” framing, focus on cases’ individual characteristics, and enhance the Department of Justice’s interactions with nongovernmental experts. Margaret K. Lewis, Criminalizing China , 111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 145 (2020). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol111/iss1/3 The Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists On November 19, 2020, The China Project produced a video titled “ The China Initiative: The ethnic targeting of Chinese scientists and the subsequent brain drain .” (7:30) The China Project talked to lawyers, academics, and victims of the China Initiative for their perspective. Many Chinese and Chinese American researchers feel that the program has placed a target on their back, and that they are being unfairly targeted for their Chinese ethnicity. There are also critics who say the Initiative has done little more than drive talent away from the U.S. Jump to: Overview FBI Director’s Profiling Approach NIH’s Own “China Initiative” Criminalizing China Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session launched the China Initiative to combat national security threats and economic espionage emanating from the People’s Republic of China. Without a definition of what constitutes a China Initiative case, it drifted to profile and stigmatize Asian Americans and individuals of Asian descent, creating severe damage and a chilling effect on scientific collaboration and harming U.S. leadership in science and technology. Previous Next 1. DOJ launched China Initiative

Racial Profiling Racial profiling refers to the act of targeting individuals or groups based on their race or ethnicity for law enforcement scrutiny, investigation, or surveillance. Asian Americans have historically been subjected to racial profiling and discrimination, despite being a diverse group with various ethnic backgrounds, cultures, and histories. Court Hearing and A New Movement Emerges This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Lawsuit Against Florida Senate Bill 264 This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Texas House Bill 1075 and Senate Bill 552 This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Campaign to Oppose The Nomination of Casey Arrowood This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. More News Recent developments Issues of focus China Initiative Follow recent news on the China Initiative and its impacted individuals. Politicization of Research Grants Learn about the politicization of the coronavirus research grant funded by the National Institutes of Health. Stereotype An over-generalized belief about a particular category of people Implicit Bias Attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner Social Stigma Disapproval of, or discrimination against, a person based on perceivable social characteristics that serve to distinguish them from other members of a society Prejudice Harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment Discrimination The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things Racial Profiling The use of race, ethnicity or national origin as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offense Read more about Continuing Developments in racial profiling of Asian Americans here. Profiling of Asian Americans The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers beginning in 1882. Subsequent amendments expanded the exclusion to all Asians. It was one of the most explicitly discriminatory laws based on race and national origin in U.S. history. The Chinese Exclusion Act and its amendments were not repealed until 1943. More on the Chinese Exclusion Act. During the Second World War, about 120,000 Japanese were interned under Executive Order 9066, about two thirds of them were native-born American citizens. Most of them were uprooted from their homes in the West Coast and sent to relocation centers for suspicion of disloyalty to the United States. In combination with these historical and stereotypical backgrounds, the current state of profiling of Chinese Americans is further entrenched by: Modern technology such as artifical intelligence and robotics is a major area of international competition for human talent. It also allows convenient collection of large amount of data and massive surveillance beyond the traditional boundaries, eroding civil liberties and privacy of all Americans and helping to target Asian Americans. Economic espionage and trade secrets became part of the expanded scope of national security after the 9/11 attacks. Athough no person of Chinese descent is known to have participated in acts of terrorism, Chinese Americans became subjects of surveillance and profiling as economic spies and insider threats. The rapid rise of China as an economic power in the past decades and its ambitious long-term development programs have become a threat to the U.S., both real and perceived. This threat is further promoted actively by the traditional military-industrial complex and the growing security-industrial complex. Engage China, or Confront it? The national security strategy issued in late 2017 officially declared China to be a competitive rival to the U.S. Implementation of the strategy has followed with intensified information campaigns and additional legislations and regulations that also enable the profiling practice, such as the "whole-of-society" approach advocated by FBI Director Christopher Wray and the Department of Justice China Initiative when anti-immigrant rhetoric are also rising. "Modern federal criminal laws have exploded in number and became impossibly broad and vague," according to criminal defense and civil liberties litigator Harvey Silverglate in his book titled "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent." Without adequate transparency, oversight, and accountability, "prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any innocent individuals, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior." In total or in part, these factors have led innocent Asian Americans to recent persecutions as explicit targets, collateral damage, and scapegoats in the context of national security. Racial profiling is legally and morally wrong. 2. A Growing Pattern Government mistakes in espionage cases are rare. However, prior to Professor Xi's wrongful prosecution against Professor Xi, Sherry Chen, Guiqing Cao and Shuyi Li were also accused of spying for China in two separate cases. Their cases were all dropped within a two-year period. These innocent Chinese American scientists work in the academia, federal government, and private industry. Subsequent to 2015, there have been additional prosecutions of Chinese American scientists that collapsed, such as a former Michigan State University professor and two Tulane University professors. More details here . 3. Failure of Checks and Balances As the pattern of profiling against innocent Chinese American scientists began to emerge and pile up, many began to raise questions to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) whether race, ethnicity and national origin have played a role in their investigations and prosecutions. Those that spoke out include, but are not limited to: 42 members of the U.S. Congress The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Delaware U.S. Senators and Congressman Prominent scientists, engineers and professors Civil rights organizations Despite these and many other appeals being well-documented, the system of checks and balances failed to account for the public concerns. 4. Labels and Misinformation The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) deny that they target Asian Americans based on race, ethnicity or national origin. However, actions such as the use of code names and provocative messages by senior government officials tend to suggest otherwise. On February 13, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in a Senate hearing that Chinese professors, scientists, students across basically every discipline are "nontraditional collectors" spying for China. According to a media report , FBI and intelligence agencies have urged universities to surveil Chinese students and scholars. The Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats declared in a July 2018 public forum: "Don't send your kids here!", "Don't put your people on our labs!", and "You cannot steal our secrets!" In its publicity campaign on "China: The Risk to Academia ," the FBI highlights the "annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets" as $225 - $600 Billion. As the American Physical Society pointed out , the “$225 - $600 Billion” figure "turns out to be primarily based on a generic GDP multiplier that would apply to any country at any time – it has no specific bearing on current circumstances with China or academia, as the title of the document unfortunately suggests." "Thousand Grains of Sand" by FBI official in 1999 "Fifth Column" during World War II "Communist Sympathizer" during the Red Scare Irresponsible code names have been used historically to stigmatize Asian Americans as "perpetual foreigners ," insinuating that they are not to be distrusted and their loyalty is always questioned, no matter how many generations they have lived in the U.S. Prior to FBI Director Wray coining the term "nontraditional collectors ," another FBI official advanced the "thousand grains of sand " and "mosaic " theories about Chinese in America when Dr. Wen Ho Lee was being persecuted about two decades ago. During World War II, Japanese persons in the West Coast were portrayed as the "fifth column ." Dr. Qian Xuesen and others were labeled "communist sympathizers " during the Red Scare in the 1950s. 5. Shifting Grounds and Double Standards In recent years, the FBI shifted its targets to those associated with China's talent recruitment programs, including the Thousand Talent Program. However, government recruitment program is nothing new. Japan has The World Premier International Center Initiative; the United Kingdom has the Earnest Rutherford Fund; Canada has the Canada 150 Research Chairs Program; Singapore has RIE2020; Israel has I-CORE; and France has the "Make Our Planet Great Again" Initiative. Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. As long as the rules are followed, it is perfectly legitimate for academics to pursue opportuntities in the talent recruitment programs. In 2015, the former head of the Beijing office for the National Science Foundation (NSF) said that U.S. scientists can access world-class facilities, uniqiue geographic sites, and expertise in a growing number of fields by coolabroating with Chinese colleagues. In additon, as ties are built with Chinese funding agencies, NSF funding can be leveraged in coordinated partnerships on topics that are of interest to both countries. In 2014, the Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai and quoted Louis Pasteur, "Science knows no country because knowledge belongs to humanity," as the topic of his speech. Indeed, cancer knows no country. Coronavirus knows no country. According to the book titled "The Great Influenza," in the height of World War I and the influenze epidemic, a researcher found an effective way to fight the virus. Both the military officials and the leading scientists supported the decision to publish the research results, even if it would help the enemies, the Germans, on the battlefields. 6. "Researching While Chinese" Some say that some Chinese persons did do something wrong. However, it is not the right question to ask. For example, Sandra Bland , an African American woman, was stopped by a state trooper for signaling while making a traffic turn. Was it improper? It certainly was, but nobody should go to jail and died for it. The same can be said for Samuel DuBose for missing a front license plate. Or Philando Castile for a broken tail light. They all died for offenses they would not have had had they not been African Americans. Similarly, the right question we should ask is whether it is okay for the entire group of Chinese professors, scientists, and students being singled out for targeting as suspected non-traditional collectors for China, or Chinese spies. That is racial profiling. That is wrong. Proud to be a Chinese American Xiaoxing Xi I was jogging on the National Mall and along Pennsylvania Avenue this morning. As the sun came out behind the iconic landmarks, my heart welled up with pride of being a Chinese American. I ran by the Washington Monument. It is the ideal that “all men are created equal” the Founding Father fought for that has attracted me and many others to become an American citizen. I passed by the Lincoln Memorial. Abraham Lincoln gave his life to preserve the Union and abolish a system that treated people differently based on their races. Running past the Capitol Steps, my appreciation became so clear that in this country, people’s voice can be heard through a democratic process. I jogged in front of the FBI building. I commend the men and women who devote themselves to the protection of our country. In my case, however, they have used their might against an innocent citizen. What do these all mean to me? We need to get involved in the democratic process. If we see a bad policy, a bad practice, that hurt our country, we need to speak out and let our voice be heard. That we have the right to do so is what this country is so great about. As a proud citizen, I pledge to do my part. 7. Criminalizing Fundamental Research Threatens U.S. Leadership There is no evidence to support the government's crackdown of open scientific exchanges with China as they are mostly on basic research. The national policy governing federally-funded research has been National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189). Issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, it defines fundamental research as basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community. It states that it is the policy of this administration that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted. If national security requires control, then classify the research. Since the principle of freedom to publish and disseminate results is so fundamental to U.S. universities that many of them do not accept funding that restricts their faculty from publishing and disseminating research results. For example, the Princeton University policy says the University will not, as a matter of policy, accept any contracts or grants for the support of classified research. However, in its publicity campaign document, the FBI says, "Even if the technologies and their applications are not currently classified, they could be in the future." The "thousand grains of sand" and "mosaic" theories are widely held by the intelligence community - a collection of unclassified documents would create a classified document. According to these theories, while the Russians would steal the one classified document, the Chinese steals all the unclassified documents and put them together. So Chinese professors, scientists, and students are suspected of stealing secrets anyway, even when they are conducting fundamental research. On November 18, 2019, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a staff report which makes a number of recommendations. Recommendation 11 says, "The administration should consider updating NSDD-189 and implement additional, limited restrictions on U.S. government funded fundamental research... Federal agencies must not only combat illegal transfers of controlled or classified research, but assess whether openly sharing some types of fundamental research is in the nation's interest." If the scientific community does not speak up, the day it can freely publish fundamental research and to openly discuss among colleagues may be numbered. This push for restrictions of open fundamental research reflects a total lack of understanding about what has made America the world leader in science and technology in the first place. In the book titled "Technology and National Security: Maintaining America's Edge," writer and historian Walter Isaacson wrote a chapter on The Source of America's Innovation Edge. He pointed out that the triangular partnership between government, industry, and academia created an ecosystem that helped produce the technological revolution after World War II. Each partner has its unique functions, and universities are where free and open research is conducted. If the free and open environment is lost and turned into national laboratories, American competitiveness in science and technology will be stifled. Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Deutch also wrote in the same book, "The risk of loss [of technology to China] is minor compared to the losses that will be incurred by restricting inquiry on university campuses." In other words, in the name of protecting America's research integrity, the policies that restrict open research on university campuses are in fact destroying America's leadership in science and technology. The Department of Justice denies that it makes decisions based on race, ethnicity or national origin. Harvard University Chemistry Department Chair Dr. Charles Lieber is cited as an example, but this is precisely what Professor Xi has been warning. Anyone who has academic collaboration with Chinese colleagues can become a target of the FBI. One does not have to be Chinese. According to a U.S. attorney, academic collaborations with China is "by definition conveying sensitive information to the Chinese." Once you are targeted, everything is under the microscope. National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189) "'Fundamental research' means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons." It is the policy of this Administration that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted. It is also the product of this Administration that, where national security requires control, the mechanism for control of information generated during federally-funded fundamental research in science, technology and engineering at colleges, universities, and laboratories is classification. 8. Balance Between Open Science and Security On December 11, 2019, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released the JASON report on Fundamental Research Security. JASON is an independent group of elite scientists which advises the U.S. government on matters of science and technology. JASON was briefed by representatives of the intelligence community and law enforcement during the study. They had access to all the available classified information In the end, the JASON report says in its findings the scale and scope of the [foreign influence by the Chinese government] remain poorly defined. It recommends that NSF should support reaffirmation of the principles of NSDD-189, which make clear that fundamental research should remain unrestricted to the fullest extent possible. It also says failure to disclose commitments and actual potential conflicts of interest should be investigated and adjudicated by the relevant office of NSF and by universities as presumptive violations of research integrity, with consequences similar to those currently in place for scientific misconduct. Not by the FBI. Not by throwing them into jail. In Professor Xi opinion, the scientific community should rally around the JASON report. It is well balanced, and it provides a blueprint of the proper response for the U.S. government for the perceived threats of the Chinese government to fundamental research. 1. Wrongful Persecution Born in China, Professor Xi was among the first students to attend college after the Cultural Revolution in China. He received his Ph.D. degree in physics from Peking University and Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Science, in 1987. After several years of research at the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center, Germany, he came to the U.S. and worked for Bell Communication Research/Rutgers University and University of Maryland before joining the Physics faculty at Penn State University in 1995. He moved to Temple University in 2009. On May 19, 2015, he was informed that he would be appointed permanent Chair of the Physics Department. Two days later on May 21, 2015 when the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus was convening a press conference to express concerns about racial profiling in the case of Sherry Chen, Professor Xi was sensationally arrested in the wee hours of the morning. Media reports the following day quoted the Department of Justice that Professor Xi was a "Chinese spy" selling sensitive information to China. Four charges were subsequently made, all of them based on intercepted emails. Professor Xi and his lawyer refuted point-by-point that the allegations were totally false. In particular, five top experts, including one whose trade secrets were allegedly stolen, examined the emails and provided affidavits to support Professor Xi's defense that he did not share or sell proprietary information to China. In fact, the fundamental research results were readily available in the Internet. Professor Xi and his lawyer raised the question of how publicly available technology can be "stolen" and alleged to be a criminal act. On September 11, 2015, DOJ dropped all charges against Professor Xi without explanation or responding to his questions. However, irreparable damage to his finances, career, reputation and his family had already been made. Profiling Today Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov (1921-1989) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 . As the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, Sakharov was awarded the Peace Prize for "his opposition to the abuse of power and his work for human rights." Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has awarded the Andrei Sakharov Prize every second year to recipients for "outstanding leadership and/or achievements of scientists in upholding human rights." Professor Xiaoxing Xi (郗小星) of Temple University is a 2020 recipient of the Andrei Sakharov Prize. He is himself a victim of racial profiling . Since the wrongful prosecution against him was dropped in 2015, Professor Xi has been tirelessly speaking up across the nation to stop the injustice of racial profiling, defend openness in university campuses, and protect American competitiveness in science and technology. Professor Xi was scheduled to receive the Andrei Sakharov Prize on March 4, 2020. The event was cancelled due to concerns about the coronavirus. Professor Xi recorded his prepared presentation in a 32-minute video. It provides compelling facts and arguments that cover not only the wrongful prosecution against him, but also the government's abuse of authority at the expense of American competitiveness and leadership by criminalizing fundamental research. This page is dedicated to communicate and expand on Professor Xi's message on racial profiling, which has already infected academia, government, private industry, and other segments of American society. It provides a synopsis of profiling today.

Chinese Americans are increasingly finding themselves targeted by the US in what has become the new "Red Scare." August 27, 2019 On August 27, 2019, the South China Morning Post reported on the current state of fear of a new "Red Scare" and the fight including APA Justice against the targeting of Chinese Americans. "As more Chinese Americans find themselves targeted in the increasingly bitter stand-off between Beijing and Washington, legislators, community groups and legal experts are pushing back in hopes of sending a message that enough is enough," the report said. "The US has arrested scientists of Chinese origin on industrial espionage and other charges, and multiple times the cases have been dropped for lack of evidence." "Chinese-Americans readily acknowledge that Beijing targets people of Chinese descent and that the US has every right to defend itself. But a disproportionate number of recent cases end up snaring innocent people targeted through racial profiling, eroding constitutional guarantees and wreaking havoc with individual lives and the community’s reputation." "Many scientists and academics of Chinese descent also end up accused of such violations as using pornography, cheating on expenses or making inaccurate disclosures to investigators when prosecutors fail to find evidence of links to China... There’s more collateral damage than protecting against espionage." "There are some legitimate concerns, but they are inflated, and Chinese Americans are being demonised. They’re collateral damage, like children caught in a broken marriage..." Ongoing efforts call for greater accountability over the security establishment, raising public awareness, continuing to promote understanding and dialogue, building community unity and coalitions, providing training, and taking legal actions against discrimination and wrongful arrest." Read the entire report here . Chinese Americans are increasingly finding themselves targeted by the US in what has become the new "Red Scare." Previous Next Activists Including APA Justice Resist New "Red Scare"

5. The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" 2020-2022 China Initiative Wednesday, June 23, 2021 On June 16, 2021, a mistrial in Professor Anming Hu’s case was declared after the jury deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict. After two years of failing to find any evidence of economic espionage, federal prosecutors built a case against Professor Hu rooted in racial bias and profiling under the Department of Justice’s “China Initiative.” This is a telling outcome for the first case of a university professor tried under the “China Initiative,” indicating the deep flaws in the investigations, surveillance, and other efforts under this initiative. The defense attorney for Professor Hu will provide a briefing of the trial. Civil rights organizations, the academic community, and local community leaders, who organized activities to support Professor Hu and his family, will speak out on their concerns with the “China Initiative” and the deeply concerning investigation and surveillance of Professor Hu. We will also hear actions being taken by Congress. Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #375 2/2 Meeting; GAO on Agency Safeguards; Unjust Alex Pretti Death; ICE Targets Hmongs;+ #375 2/2 Meeting; GAO on Agency Safeguards; Unjust Alex Pretti Death; ICE Targets Hmongs;+ In This Issue #375 · 2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · GAO: Agencies Should Assess Safeguards Against Discrimination · Alex Pretti: Another U.S. Citizen Shot Dead in Minneapolis · Hmong Americans Among ICE Targets · News and Activities for the Communities 2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held on Monday, February 2, 2026, starting at 1:55 pm ET. Rep. Judy Chu , Chair Emerita of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, will deliver a New Year of the Fire Horse message and a review of 2025 via video, in addition to updates from: · Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) · Joanna YangQing Derman , Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) We are honored by and welcome the following confirmed distinguished speakers: · Frank Wu , President, Queen’s College, City University of New York · Rosie Levine , Executive Director, US-China Education Trust · Elizabeth Rao , daughter of Dr. Jane Wu, and Attorney Tom Geoghegan , Despres, Schwartz, & Geoghegan, Ltd. The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the Co-Organizers of APA Justice - Vincent Wang 王文奎 and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . ***** The deadline for signing the coalition letter by faculty members to support justice & honor the memory of Dr. Jane Wu is January 29, 2026, 12 pm ET. Effective January 1, 2026, Dr. Steven Pei has stepped down from his role as Co-Organizer of APA Justice. As a result, Dr. Pei no longer represents APA Justice. Please direct all APA Justice matters to Jeremy Wu and Vincent Wang, Co-Organizers. We thank Dr. Pei for his dedicated service over the past few years and wish him continued success in the future. GAO: Agencies Should Assess Safeguards Against Discrimination On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released Report 26-107544, “ Research Security: Agencies Should Assess Safeguards Against Discrimination ,” in response to concerns raised by members of Congress regarding potential discrimination in federal agencies' research security reviews. The report examines whether federal agencies ensure that their research security processes are free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. While efforts to counter improper foreign influence are essential to protecting taxpayer-funded research, universities, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders have warned that these initiatives risk disproportionately targeting certain demographic groups—particularly scientists of Chinese or Asian descent. GAO identified five core safeguards necessary to prevent discrimination in research security processes: · Transparent improper foreign influence review processes. · Collection and use of demographic data to assess agency processes. · Multiple levels of review in improper foreign influence reviews. · Training agency staff in nondiscrimination practices. · Leadership commitment to nondiscrimination. GAO assessed the implementation of these safeguards across five federal agencies—DOD, DOE, NASA, NIH, and NSF—which provided the largest share of extramural federal research funding in FY 2023 (October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2023). The report concludes that agencies must balance the need to protect federally funded research from improper foreign influence with their legal and ethical obligation to ensure nondiscrimination. Systematic assessment of safeguards, GAO found, is essential to providing meaningful assurance that discriminatory practices do not occur. GAO also issued seven formal recommendations to improve transparency, documentation, and oversight of nondiscrimination safeguards. These recommendations are publicly posted, tracked online, and will be updated as agencies take action to implement them. GAO Contact: Hilary Benedict , Acting Director, Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, at benedicth@gao.gov GAO Report: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107544 APA Justice will continue to analyze the findings and provide updates on the implementation and implications of this report. Alex Pretti: Another U.S. Citizen Shot Dead in Minneapolis According to multiple media reports, the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti , a 37-year-old intensive care nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System, during a federal immigration enforcement action on January 24, 2026 has become a major national story, prompting protests, legal action, and bipartisan calls for accountability. Pretti was shot multiple times by two U.S. Border Patrol agents in south Minneapolis as he filmed and attempted to assist a woman during an enforcement operation. Pretti’s death occurred 17 days after Renee Good was fatally shot by an ICE agent. A third, non-fatal shooting involved a man wounded in the leg on January 14. The shooting locations for Good and Pretti in Minneapolis were about one mile apart. Federal authorities initially claimed that Pretti “approached” agents with a handgun. However, widely circulated video footage and eyewitness accounts indicate that he was holding a phone—not a weapon—and was attempting to help another person when he was tackled and killed. Pretti was a lawful gun owner with a valid permit, had no criminal history, and was widely described by family, neighbors, and colleagues as compassionate and deeply committed to caring for others, particularly veterans. Public response has been swift and substantial. A GoFundMe campaign established for Pretti’s family surpassed $1 million within days, reflecting widespread outrage and community support . Editorial coverage has also been sharply critical. A Washington Post editorial framed Pretti’s death as emblematic of broader concerns about the overreach and expanding role of federal immigration enforcement in U.S. cities and the erosion of civil liberties during the Trump administration’s second term, underscoring inconsistencies in official accounts and the urgent need for transparency and independent review. The Military.com profile further highlighted Pretti’s character and service, focusing on his work as a VA nurse and his concern about immigration enforcement practices. The report noted that local law enforcement leaders rejected the federal narrative of events and called for a cooperative, independent investigation to establish what occurred. Amid conflicting accounts and concerns that federal authorities restricted state investigators’ access to the scene, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison , joined by state and local officials, filed a lawsuit to preserve all evidence related to the killing. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security and its components from altering or destroying evidence. The lawsuit has intensified national scrutiny of federal law-enforcement accountability and reinforced public demands for a full, independent investigation. Members of Congress from both parties have also responded forcefully. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) described the incident as “incredibly disturbing” and called for a joint federal-state investigation, warning that the credibility of ICE and DHS is at stake. Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) urged a “thorough and impartial investigation,” while Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) emphasized that immigration agents “do not have carte blanche” in the use of force. On the Democratic side, Senator Tina Smith (D-Minn.) accused federal authorities of a potential cover-up, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned that DHS funding could face opposition absent comprehensive oversight. Several House members, including Representatives Michael McCaul and Andrew Garbarino , have called for hearings and formal review of immigration enforcement practices. O n January 27, 2026, the Trump administration announced that Tom Homan was going to Minnesota to oversee ICE operations in the state as Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and several other Border Patrol agents are expected to move out of Minneapolis. Bovino has been stripped of his title “commander at large” of the Border Patrol and will return to his former job as chief patrol agent along part of the U.S.-Mexico border, where he is expected to retire soon. Two agents were put on administrative leave. Within hours of Pretti’s death, Bovino asserted that Pretti “wanted to … massacre law enforcement,” while DHS Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon and acting “violently” toward officers. Neither provided supporting evidence, and their statements were contradicted by available video footage. A federal judge in Minnesota has ordered the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd M. Lyons , to personally appear in court and warned of possible contempt proceedings, citing ICE’s repeated failure to comply with court-ordered bond hearings for detained immigrants. Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz said the agency has repeatedly flouted dozens of court orders, including by extending detentions or transferring detainees out of state despite explicit judicial directives. Calling the situation “extraordinary,” Schiltz said lesser measures had failed, setting up a potential confrontation between the federal judiciary and the Trump administration amid a surge of ICE enforcement in the Minneapolis region that has overwhelmed local courts and drawn sharp judicial criticism of the government’s conduct. Taken together, the public reaction, legal action, and congressional response underscore the national significance of Alex Pretti’s tragic death—and the rapidly growing demand for accountability, transparency, and clear limits on federal law-enforcement authority. Hmong Americans Among ICE Targets According to NBC News on January 21, 2026, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her , the city’s first Hmong and Asian American mayor, said it was “heartbreaking” to witness recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota, including the arrest of Hmong American U.S. citizen ChongLy Scott Thao and the fatal shooting of another U.S. citizen, Renee Good , during a separate operation. Speaking to KARE just days after taking office, Her said, “Nobody ever comes into an office and within the third day of being in office there’s an ICE shooting,” adding that moments like this define leadership: “This is the moment in which you are asked to lead, and so you step up and you lead.” St. Paul is home to the nation’s largest urban Hmong population, and Her said the incidents have deeply shaken that community. Her described watching video of Thao being removed from his home in freezing conditions as particularly disturbing, noting her personal connection to the family. “It was heartbreaking to watch somebody get dragged out of their home,” she said. “I don’t know how anybody looking at that could ever justify the treatment of another human being that way.” Thao’s family said federal agents did not present a warrant or ask for identification and disputed DHS claims that the operation targeted suspected sex offenders living at the residence. Her said she has since received “firsthand, personal accounts” from constituents describing aggressive enforcement tactics, including agents “going door to door” and “targeting you by the way that you look and the way that you sound.” The clash has escalated into lawsuits by Minnesota cities and the state to halt federal deployments, followed by Justice Department subpoenas of state and local leaders—developments that underscore intensifying tensions over immigration enforcement, civil liberties, and federal-local authority. Read the NBC News report: https://nbcnews.to/4qKFS5g News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/01/29-30 The Jimmy Carter Forum on U.S.-China Relations2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/02/03 The Equity Pulse with Frank Wu 2026/02/17 Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative "Personal Marketing and Mentorship" 2026/03/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative "Personal Marketing and Mentorship" WHAT : Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative "Personal Marketing and Mentorship" WHEN : February 17, 2026, 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm ET WHERE : Webinar HOST : Committee of 100 Moderator: Peter Young , Committee of 100 Board Member and New York Regional Chair, and Chair of the Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative Speakers : · Raj Gupta , Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors, Johns Hopkins GUPTA-KLINSKY India Institute; Former CEO, Rohm and Hass · Bob Lee , Chairman of the Board, Blue Shield of California · Deb Liu , former President & CEO of Ancestry DESCRIPTION : Throughout the many events C100 has held over the years, one of the observations that comes out repeatedly is the importance of engaging in effective personal marketing, having a strong network inside and outside of the organizations that you are part of, and developing mentors. This event will feature insights from three accomplished panelists who have expertise on this topic from their current professional responsibilities as well as their own personal careers. REGISTRATION : https://c100-2-17-2026.eventbrite.com # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF January 29, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter