Policy Advocacy See what we're doing Working with federal agencies and policy makers to advocate for social justice and rights. Social Justice The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the president on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. OSTP Developments This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item One Subtitle Goes Here This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item Two Subtitle Goes Here This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item Three Subtitle Goes Here On September 9, 2022, Dr. Steven Pei and Dr. Jeremy Wu, Co-Organizers of APA Justice, joined a virtual meeting with Senior Research Officers at the Association of American Universities (AAU). The meeting was moderated by Roger Wakimoto, Vice Chancellor for Research, UCLA. It included a 10-minute presentation by Steven and Jeremy on "Academic Freedom and Engaging Faculty on Campus - The Asian American Perspective " and a package of backgrounds and references , followed by questions and answers, and robust and productive discussions. The meeting continues our engagement and collaboration with AAU after Toby Smith, Vice President for Science Policy & Global Affairs, spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on June 6, 2022. Founded in 1900, AAU is composed of America’s leading research universities which collectively help shape policy for higher education, science, and innovation; promote best practices in undergraduate and graduate education; and strengthen the contributions of leading research universities to American society. PROPOSAL TO SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICERS OF THE AAU We suggested four wishes from the Asian American faculty perspective: Engage faculty in the development and implementation of NSPM-33 and similar policies on campus to make sure clear instruction, sufficient support, and proper training are provided to faculty, researchers, and administrative staff. “Establish (an independent or joint with faculty senate) committee (preferably led by a Chinese American faculty) to evaluate, define and protect the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of faculty and administration in cases involving the investigation of faculty by outside agencies” - a resolution passed by the faculty senate of a founding member of AAU Offer and publicize first response followed by independent legal assistance. Consider legal insurance in the long term. Help faculty, staffs, and students to resolve visa, border entry, and related issues. Dialogue with the AAU Warrantless Surveillance The U.S. Constitution protects its people against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the U.S. government engages in mass, warrantless surveillance of phone calls, text messages, emails, and other electronic communications. Information collected under this law without a warrant can be used to prosecute and imprison people, even for crimes that have nothing to do with national security. Chinese American immigrants and scientific communities, have especially been targets for warrantless surveillance leading to wrongful and unjust prosecutions. Learn more The China Initiative From November 11, 2018 to February 23, 2022, the US national security program created to address economic espionage disproportionately targeted Asian American academics, scientists, and researchers for what were largely administrative errors, harming academic freedom. Learn more See what we've been fighting Advocating for the rights of APA academics, researchers, and scientists. Academic Advocacy

Terms of Use This document sets forth the terms of use for the APA Justice website at www.apajustice.org (“Site”). Please read the following terms of use carefully. These terms of use govern your use of this Site and all applications, software and services available on this Site. Last updated: December 25, 2018 Acceptance of Terms You acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by these terms of use and to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation U.S. export and re-export technical data exported from the United States or the country in which you reside. You further agree to comply with all local laws, regulations and rules regarding online conduct and acceptable content. You represent you have the legal authority to accept these terms of use on behalf of yourself or any party you represent. If you do not agree to these terms of use, do not use this Site in any manner. Description of Site "Site" encompasses the website and all of its content and policies, any modifications, updates, enhancements, revisions, new features, and/or the addition of any new web properties. We reserve the right to make any Site changes at any time and without prior notice. Modifications We reserve the right to revise, supplement, update, delete and change these Terms of Use at any time at its sole discretion and without notice to you. All Terms of Use changes are effective immediately upon being posted. Your continued use of this Site after any changes to these Terms of Use will mean you accept those changes. We may also change or impose fees for products and services provided through the Site at any time in its sole discretion. APA Justice Privacy Policy Our privacy policy governs the use of information collected from or provided by you at the Site. For more information, see our privacy policy for this Site. Site Ownership The Site, including all text, logos or graphic images appearing therein, and any and all intellectual property rights associated with this Site and its contents are the sole property of the Site owners, its affiliates or third parties. The content is protected by copyright and other laws in both the United States and other countries. Elements of the Site are also protected by trade dress, trade secret, unfair competition, and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. All graphics, icons, and other items that appear on the Site are trademarks, service marks, trade dress and/or copyrighted works ("Intellectual Property") of the Site owner, its affiliates or other entities that have granted the Site owners the right and license to use such Intellectual Property and may not be used or interfered with in any manner without the express written consent of the Site owner. Except as expressly provided herein, the Site owner does not grant you an express or implied right to the Site owner's or any third party's Intellectual Property. The information on the Site is intended to provide corporate, product, or service information only and may not be used for any other purposes. Site Use Restrictions The unauthorized copying, displaying or other use of any content from this Site is a violation of law. The Site is for your personal and non-commercial use only. You will not (i) post on or transmit to the Site any defamatory, libelous, obscene, pornographic, profane, threatening, or unlawful materials or any materials that could constitute or encourage conduct that would be considered a criminal offense or give rise to civil liability, whether under statute, common law or equitable principles, or otherwise violate any law; (ii) copy, reproduce, modify, lease, loan, sell, create derivative works from, upload, transmit, or distribute the intellectual property of the Site in any way without the Site owners' or the appropriate third party's prior written permission or (iii) use the Site in any manner that violates any applicable laws, regulations, orders, or other restrictions. Trademarks and Service Marks There may be a number of proprietary logos, service marks, trademarks, slogans and product designations found on this Site, including but not limited to: the APA Justice name and seal. Other trademarks displayed on this Site through links to other sites are the property of the respective trademark owners. By making these marks available on this Site, the APA Justice owners do not confer upon you any of the Site's or any third party's intellectual property rights. The APA Justice trademark may be used as a hyperlink without the APA Justice owners' prior written permission. Copyright Trademark Notices All content of the Site is: Copyright © 2015-2019 APA Justice. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy Indemnification You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold APA Justice harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising from or related to your use of the Site. Links to Third Party Websites Are Not Endorsements This Site may provide links to other third-party World Wide Web sites or resources. The APA Justice owners make no representations or warranties whatsoever about any other website which you may access through this Site. Because the APA Justice owners have no control over such sites and resources, you acknowledge and agree that the APA Justice owners are not responsible for the availability of such external sites or resources and is not responsible or liable for any content, advertising, products, services or other materials on or available from such sites or resources. It is your responsibility to take precautions to ensure that whatever you select for your use is free of viruses, worms, Trojan horses and other items of a destructive nature. References on this Site to any names, marks, products or services of any third parties or hypertext links to third party sites or information are provided solely as a convenience to you, and do not constitute or imply an endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of, or affiliation with the third party or its products and services. The APA Justice owners shall not be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with use of or reliance on any such third-party content, products or services available on or through any such site or resource. Notices and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement The Site owners will investigate notices of copyright infringement and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2) ("DMCA"). Pursuant to the DMCA, written notification of claimed copyright infringement must be submitted to the following Designated Agent for the APA Justice owners in accordance with the DMCA: APA Justice, Attention DMCA Designated Agent, APA Justice Headquarters, contact@apajustice.org . Email/Feedback Property of APA Justice You may choose to use email to communicate with the APA Justice owners. If you choose to email the APA Justice owners, know that the Internet is not secure or private, unauthorized people may be able to intercept and read the mail you send to the APA Justice owners or mail the APA Justice owners send to you. Since email can be used to spread viruses, you should install and maintain virus protection software on your PC. To the extent permitted by applicable law, any comments or materials (collectively "Feedback") sent to APA Justice including but not limited to questions, submissions, suggestions, ideas, postings, comments or the like shall become the property of APA Justice upon receipt. APA Justice shall have no obligation of any kind with respect to such Feedback and shall be free to modify, copy, perform, publish, transmit, reproduce, use, exhibit, disclose, display, transform, copyright, create derivative works, distribute the Feedback to others and otherwise exploit the Feedback without limitation. Further, APA Justice shall be free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in such Feedback for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited to developing, manufacturing and marketing products incorporating such information. Limitation of Liability APA Justice will not be liable to you or any third party for any damages of any kind arising out of or relating to the use of the inability to use this Site, its content or links, including but not limited to loss of profits or other damages caused by or related to errors, omission, interruptions, defects, delay in operation or transmission, computer virus, line failure, and all other direct, indirect, special incidental, exemplary or consequential damages of any kind whether under these terms of use. statute, regulation, common law precedent or doctrine, even if APA Justice has been advised of the possibility of such damages or was negligent. In jurisdictions that prohibit the exclusion or limitation of liability for for incidental or consequential damages, APA Justice's liability is limited to the greatest extent permitted by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, APA Justice's total liability to you for all loses, damages, and causes of action, including but not limited to those based on contract, tort or otherwise, arising out of your use of this Site, its content or links, shall not exceed the amount you paid to access this Site. The information on this Site, including text, images, and links, and the information on any websites, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with APA Justice, which you may visit through the Site, is provided "As Is" by APA Justice as a convenience to all users. without representation or warranty of any kind to you or any third party, inclduing but not limited to, any express or implied warranties (I) of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose; (II) of informational content or accuracy; (III) of non-infringement; (IV) of quiet enjoyment; (V) of title; (VI) that the Site will be uninterrupted or error-free; (VII) that nay defects or erros in the Site will be corrected; (VIII) that the Site or the server that makes it available are free from viruses or other harmful components or (IX) that the Site is compatible with any particular hardware or software platform. Efforts by APA Justice to modify the Site shall not be deemed a waiver of these limitations. Governing Law These Terms of Use are entered into and granted in the District of Columbia and shall be governed by and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the District of Columbia, United States of America, excluding any law or conflicts or law principle that would apply the law of another jurisdiction, and excluding the District of Columbia Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. You expressly agree that the exclusive jurisdiction for any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms of Use shall be filed only in the federal or state court with competent jurisdiction located in Washington, DC. You consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by such courts in any such action. If any part of these Terms and Conditions is unlawful, void, or unenforceable, that part will be deemed severable and will not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions. Entire Agreement These Terms of Use constitute the entire agreement between you and APA Justice and govern your use of the Site, superceding any prior agreements between you and APA Justice relating to your use of this Site. Use of Communication Services Site may in the future contain bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, calendars, and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group (collectively, "Communication Services"). You agree to use the Communication Services only to post, send and receive messages and material that are proper and related to the particular Communication Service. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using a Communication Service, you will not: Defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others. Publish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topic, name, material or information. Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents. Upload files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another's computer. Advertise or offer to sell or buy any goods or services for any business purpose, unless such Communication Service specifically allows such messages. Conduct or forward surveys, contests, pyramid schemes or chain letters. Download any file posted by another user of a Communication Service that you know, or reasonably should know, cannot be legally distributed in such manner. Falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is uploaded. Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Communication Services. Violate any code of conduct or other guidelines which may be applicable for any particular Communication Service. Harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses, without their consent. Violate any applicable laws or regulations. APA Justice has no obligation to monitor the Communication Services. However, APA Justice reserves the right to review materials posted to a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion. APA Justice reserves the right to terminate your access to any or all of the Communication Services at any time, without notice, for any reason whatsoever. APA Justice reserves the right at all times to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in APA Justice's sole discretion. Always use caution when giving out any personally identifying information about yourself or other people in any Communication Service. APA Justice does not control or endorse the content, messages or information found in any Communication Service and, therefore, APA Justice specifically disclaims any liability with regard to the Communication Services and any actions resulting from your participation in any Communication Service. By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your submission to APA Justice, you are granting APA Justice, its affiliated companies and necessary sub licensees permission to use your submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your submission; and to publish your name in connection with your submission. No compensation will be paid with respect to the use of your submission, as provided herein. APA Justice is under no obligation to post or use any submission you may provide and may remove any submission at any time in APA Justice's sole discretion. By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your submission as described in this section including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the submissions. Termination APA Justice reserves the right to terminate at any time, at its sole discretion, the Site and/or your use of the Site. Unlawful or Prohibited Use Possible evidence of use of this Site for illegal purposes will be provided to law enforcement authorities. Please report any violations of these Terms of Use to APA Justice at contact@apajustice.org . Contact contact@apajustice.org

Community Networking This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share. You can use this space to tell users a story about the company or describe a special service it offers. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Explore

Legislative Alert Victims Federal Agencies Congress Media Watch Legislative Alert H.R. 3038 Securing American Science and Technology Act of 2019 was introduced by Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) on May 30, 2019. It has 33 bipartisan co-sponsors (17 D and 16 R). According to Science , this bill has been folded into H.R. 2500 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA), which passed the House with a 220 - 197 margin on July 12. The Senate version of the NDAA, S. 1790 passed earlier on June 27, 2019 with a margin 86-8 . Its difference with the House will be resolved in conference. S. 2133 Secure American Research Act of 2019 was introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on July 16, 2019. It has 7 co-sponsors (4 R and 3 D). H.R. 2133 and H.R. 2500 are listed as related bills. Section 2.(3).F of S. 2133 reads as follows: "(F) develop and ensure the implementation of a means for Federal agencies listed in paragraph (2)(A) to aggregate and share Federal agency information regarding completed investigations of researchers that were determined to be knowingly fraudulent in disclosure of foreign interests, investments, or involvement relating to Federal research, which shall-- (i) be shared among agencies listed in paragraph (2)(A); (ii) not be made available to the public; and (iii) not be subject to the requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the “Freedom of Information Act”);" "Malign Foriegn Government Talent Recruitment Program" The Bipartisan Innovation Act is the bill merging the House's America COMPETES Act and the Senate's USICA. On April 6, 2022, the White House announced a bipartisan and bicameral Congressional briefing to discuss the urgent need to invest in made-in-America semiconductors as well as research and development that will protect our economic and national security: https://bit.ly/3rhJtea . The America COMPETES bill was passed by the House on February 4, 2022. It has 3,610 pages: https://bit.ly/3vlzeXL . Pages 670-674 covers Subtitle E—Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program Prohibition and SEC. 10651. Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program Prohibition. The Senate passed its revised USICA on March 28, 2022. That bill has 2,326 pages: https://bit.ly/3M32KIh . Pages 263-267 covers Section 2303. Foreign Government Talent Recruitment Program Prohibition. Where APA Justice keeps an eye on individual and group victims, selected legislative bills and actions, federal policies and practices, and media reports and bias that may enable racial profiling and adversely impact the Asian American community Explore Watchlist WATCHLIST

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.

Programs and Initiatives Explore ways to get involved. Click on a program below to learn more about efforts to combat racial profiling and unfair government policies, or find them in the menu above. Advocacy Read More Advocacy for justice and fairness: our work with policy makers to push for AAPI rights and to ensure justice for AAPI academics and scientists. Community Networking Read More A network giving greater resources and a more assertive voice to the Asian American community. History & Education Read More Learn more about important historical events and cases involving Asian American people and culture. Yellow Whistle Campagn Read More Our partnership with the Yellow Whistle Project to promote self-protection and solidarity against discrimination and violence.

Timeline Visualization of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Special Thanks to Martin Gold for use of materials from his book: Forbidden Citizens: Chinese Exclusion and the U.S. Congress English version: Chinese version: The first recorded arrival of three Chinese sailors in the U.S. travelled from Canton (now Guangzhou), China on board the ship Pallas to Baltimore, Maryland in August 1785. There is still a neighborhood called Canton in Baltimore today. It was settled and named by the ship's captain. By 1860, the census counted 34,933 Chinese living in California. More than three quarters of them were miners and laborers who first came to the U.S. during the 1848-1855 Gold Rush and then helped built and completed the First Transcontinental Railroad by 1869. Despite their contributions to the American society, these early Chinese arrivals encountered barriers due to their appearance and lifestyle. They were soon deemed incapable of assimilating into American culture and resented as threats to American labor. When economic conditions worsened and unemployment increased in the U.S. in the 1870s, prejudice against Chinese culminated into violence. Various legislations followed, leading to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which Iowa Congressman John Kasson described as "one of the most vulgar forms of barbarism." Initially set for a period of ten years, the Chinese Exclusions Act was extended for another ten years in 1892 and then became permanent law in 1902 after five additional Acts to extend and tighten the original law. The final Senate vote in 1902 was 76 yeas and one nay. The lone no vote was cast by Massachusetts's Senator George Frisbie Hoar. Extensions of the Chinese Exclusion Act further excluded Japanese, Koreans, and other Asians. Congress banned all Chinese from becoming U.S. citizens from 1882 to 1943, and stopped most Chinese from even entering the country beginning in 1882. These actions were legal because they were made into laws. They were democratically decided by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Barred from becoming voters, the Chinese had no political recourse against repeated discrimination. After the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, the immigration quota for Chinese was set at 105 per year. It took another 20 years until the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 allowed more equitable immigration quotas for Asians to move to the U.S. Led by Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus , the House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution expressing regret in 2012 for the passage of discriminatory laws against the Chinese in the U.S., including the Chinese Exclusion Act. Earlier in 2011, a similar resolution sponsored by Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was unanimously agreed to by the Senate. Unfortunately, history about discriminatory exclusion of Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans may still be in writing at this time. Library of Congress Chinese Exclusion Act 1860-2010 Chinese American Populations Census Bureau Chinese Exclusion Act Read the booklet The 1882 Project

Newsletter - #169 03/06 Meeting; "China Initiative"; Texas SB 147+; Racist Attacks; AA Leadership; News #169 03/06 Meeting; "China Initiative"; Texas SB 147+; Racist Attacks; AA Leadership; News In This Issue #169 2023/03/06 APA Justice Monthly Meeting One Year After the End of the "China Initiative" Updates on Texas Senate Bill 147 and Opposition to Revival of Alien Land Laws Racist and McCarthyist Attacks on Rep. Judy Chu and Dominic Ng Condemned Building a Sustainable Platform and Pipeline for AAPI Leadership in Higher Education Asian American Community News and Activities 2023/03/06 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held on Monday, March 6, 2023. Confirmed speakers include: Nisha Ramachandran , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), to provide updates on the latest developments and activities of CAPAC John Yang 杨重远 , President and Executive Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC to provide updates on the Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights & National Security Program and related Activities Gisela Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum, to provide updates on AASF activities Peter Toren , Attorney and Member of Sherry Chen Legal Team, to be recognized and share his reflections on the Sherry Chen case Steven Pei 白先慎 , Co-organizer, APA Justice, to provide updates on Texas Senate bills, webinars, and opposition to discriminatory land laws Grace Meng 孟昭文 , Member, U.S. Congress and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, to remark on the latest developments and legislation for the Asian American community Baimadajie Angwang 昂旺 , New York Police Department, and John Carman , Attorney, to share Angwang's story of injustice as another victim of racial profiling under the "China Initiative" The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. 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 . Read past monthly meeting summaries here: https://bit.ly/3kxkqxP . One Year After the End of the "China Initiative" 1. Baimadajie Angwang 昂旺. One year has passed since the end of the "China Initiative," but the damages inflicted on impacted innocent persons continue. Hear the story of a New York police officer, an Afghanistan veteran, and an Army reservist, who became yet another victim of the "China Initiative." His case was finally dismissed in January 2023. After an ordeal of two and a half years, he has yet to return to the New York Police Department. What does he want the public to know and learn from his experience? Where does he go from here? Angwang will tell his story with his attorney John Carman in the March 6, 2023, APA Justice monthly meeting. Read more about Angwang's story at https://bit.ly/3RIqXId 2. Nature Report. According to the Nature report on February 24, 2023, anti-Asian scrutiny has only intensified since the controversial "China Initiative" ended one year ago. Scientists of Chinese heritage say that they are still being targeted unfairly and fear for their safety.¶ While the "China Initiative" was active, more than 150 people were criminally charged for actions such as failing to disclose funding or partnerships with institutions in China.¶ Nearly 90% of them were of Chinese heritage. Many of the charges brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) after the initiative’s launch in 2018 were eventually dropped or dismissed, and some prosecutions ended in acquittal.¶ The climate of fear and anxiety hasn’t gone away — researchers are just being pressured in a new way, says Jenny Lee. ¶ Since the initiative’s official shutdown, the US government has adopted various anti-China policies. And although the DOJ is pursuing fewer criminal charges, it says that it will work increasingly with federal agencies to investigate researchers and issue civil and administrative penalties for noncompliance. Universities are also taking a more active role in assisting investigations and pursuing potential wrongdoing, sources tell Nature .¶ “I’m sorry to say that it has only intensified,” says MIT professor Gang Chen 陈刚 , He and others who have had their lives upended by the initiative have been speaking out about the damage that it has done.¶ According to the San Diego Union-Tribune in December 2022, Xiang-Dong Fu , a molecular biologist at the University of California, San Diego, was forced to quit his position after the university accused him of hiding ties to China.¶ According to Toby Smith , US institutions acknowledge the considerable research contributions from these scientists. Universities are working to ensure that all faculty members are disclosing information properly. But he calls on US funding agencies to provide greater clarity for universities on what counts as an offense and what are appropriate and fair sanctions.¶ The end of the "China Initiative" gave the illusion that researchers of Chinese heritage would be targeted less, Jenny Lee says, but “the chilling effect” is “still very much at play.”¶ Researchers unjustly accused under the "China Initiative" and now rebuilding their lives and careers are emblematic of this situation. Scrutiny of researchers of Chinese heritage had begun years earlier than the launch of the "China Initiative." Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星 was accused of passing information to scientists in China about restricted technology in 2015. The DOJ eventually dropped the charges. “I am afraid of doing any research,” he says. “We always live in fear.”¶ Anming Hu 胡安明 , a nanotechnology researcher at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, who was indicted for hiding ties with China in 2020 and put under house arrest for more than a year before being acquitted, is also trying to get his research back on track. He has spent the past year rebuilding his lab, but has had trouble securing any funding.¶ Read the Nature report: https://go.nature.com/3kveefx Updates on Texas Senate Bill 147 and Opposition to Revival of Alien Land Laws 1. Second Webinar: Historical Re-Hash - Alien Land Law and SB147 WHAT: Webinar titled "Historical Re-Hash - Alien Land Laws and SB147" WHEN: Friday, March 1, 2023, starting at 6:30 pm ET/3:30 pm PT WHO: Moderator: Janelle Wong, Professor of American Studies, University of Maryland Panelists: Gene Wu 吳元之, Attorney and Texas State Representative Madeline Hsu, Professor of History and Asian American Studies, University of Texas at Austin Carol Suzuki, Professor of Law, School of Law, University of New Mexico at Albuquerque Opening Remarks: Ted Gong , Executive Director of the 1882 FoundationRegister for this webinar at http://bit.ly/3Id2uGp 2. Joint Statement in Opposition to Texas SB 147. On February 17, 2023, the Asian American Bar Association of Houston (AABA Houston), the Austin Asian American Bar Association (Austin AABA), the Dallas Asian American Bar Association (DAABA), and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) issued a joint statement to strongly oppose the provisions of Texas Senate Bill 147 that prohibit individuals from owning land, buying homes, or establishing businesses in Texas based on their family's country of migration.¶ Read the joint statement: https://bit.ly/3EG7YZl 3 . SB 147 Panel: A Reprisal of Alien Land Laws? On March 2, 2023, the American Constitution Society (ACS) will host an event to discuss proposed Texas Senate Bill 147. Panelists will discuss the Federal and State constitutionality of the proposed bill, its mirroring of bigoted Alien Land Laws that banned Asian immigrants from owning property and establishing businesses, and the overall policy implications of this bill on our immigrant communities. The event is co-sponsored with: ACS DFW Lawyer Chapter, NAPABA, DAABA, AABA Houston, SMU APALSA, SMU ACS, SMU FedSoc. WHEN: Thursday, March 2, 2023, 12:30pm CT WHERE: Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law | Karcher Auditorium, 3315 Daniel Ave, Dallas, Texas 75205 WHO: Panelists: Rep. Salman Bhojani , Texas State Representative District 92 Rep. Gene Wu 吳元之, Texas State Representative District 137 Leo Yu , Clinical Professor of Legal Research, Writing, and Advocacy and ACS Faculty Advisor, SMU Dedman School of Law Moderator: Kristine Cruz , Associate, Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP; Co-Chair, ACS Dallas-Ft. Worth Lawyer Chapter; President-Elect, Dallas Asian American Bar AssociationRegister for the hybrid in-person and Zoom event at: http://bit.ly/3Z28id0 4. Media Reports MSNBC . According to a MSNBC report on February 25, 2023, a bill introduced in December 2022 is picking up steam in the Texas Senate. SB 147 would make it illegal for Chinese citizens to buy any property in the state of Texas, including home purchases. Ling Luo 罗玲 , founder and chair of the Asian Americans Leadership Council, stops by "The Katie Phang Show" to discuss the bill. Watch the MSNBC video: https://on.msnbc.com/3SvK9Jo (4:42) San Francisco Standard . According to a report by the San Francisco Standard on February 23, 2023, Nick Gee, a staff member of Chinese for Affirmative Action, flew from San Francisco to his hometown of Houston to join the local protests against Texas SB 147.¶ Texas SB 147 has sent a shock wave through Chinese American communities nationwide, sparking new debate on the anti-China rhetoric, anti-Chinese racism in politics and the “perpetual foreigner” stereotype. In response, a coalition of Chinese Americans from across the country are banding together to voice their opposition.¶ Peter Kuo , the vice chairman of the California Republican Party, said he was disheartened by the proposed bill. “It actually harnesses a lot of negative energies or negative prejudice against the Chinese Americans who are already here,” said Kuo. He said the bill’s language would increase anti-Asian sentiment and turn Asians into scapegoats. Read the San Francisco Standard report: http://bit.ly/3KAcVXs Washington Post. According to a report by Washington Post on February 22, 2023, a growing number of state legislators and members of Congress are offering a master class in how not to confront China by supporting indiscriminate crackdowns on Chinese citizens and companies seeking to purchase U.S. land.¶ Bills like SB 147 evoke a long and painful history. In the past, the desire to ensure U.S. national security has often been expressed in ways that excused or justified hatred against Asians. In turn, racist anxieties about people of Asian descent have played a key role in shaping the development of national security policy.¶ Revisiting the long history of anti-Asian behavior in the United States makes clear the inherent dangers of today’s assaults. Read the Washington Post article: https://wapo.st/3Z3ZpzI Racist and McCarthyist Attacks on Rep. Judy Chu and Dominic Ng Condemned 1. Mediaite.com . According to a report by Mediaite.com on February 24, 2023, top House Democrats slammed Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX) over the Republican’s comments on Fox News earlier in the week in which he said he questions Rep. Judy Chu’s 赵美心 ( D-CA) “loyalty or competence.”¶ Gooden made the remarks in response to Fox News host Jesse Watters asking if he believed “Congresswoman Chu should be looked into?”¶ House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) also released a statement lambasting Gooden. “Lance Gooden’s slanderous accusation of disloyalty against Rep. Chu is dangerous, unconscionable and xenophobic.”¶ Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA), head of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, also released a statement: "At a time when anti-Asian hate continues to threaten communities, it’s critical that we condemn these racist and xenophobic attacks immediately and hold our fellow colleagues accountable to rid our politics of such dangerous statements and hatred." Read the Mediaite.com report: http://bit.ly/3ZnnfpN 2 . Congressional Black Caucus. On February 24, 2023, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) issued the following statement: "Last night, Rep. Lance Gordon appeared on Fox News and questioned the loyalty of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) Chairwoman Rep. Judy Chu 赵美心 , indicating that she should be stripped of her security clearance simply because of her Chinese ethnicity. To be clear, a person's ethnicity is not indicative of their trustworthiness or loyalty to this country and to suggest otherwise is inflammatory as a nation of immigrants. The CBC stands with CAPAC in denouncing Rep. Gooden's racist and xenophobic remarks, and we urge Republican House leadership to follow suit and take action." 3. United Chinese Americans (UCA). On February 26, 2023, UCA issued a statement. "United Chinese Americans (UCA) strongly condemns the recent racist and offensive remarks made by Texas Representative Lance Gooden against Representative Judy Chu 赵美心 , Chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and a highly respected leader in Chinese American and AAPI communities. His baseless comments questioning Representative Chu's loyalty to the United States are McCarthyist, racist, and shameful."¶ "It is no less disturbing and shameful to accuse Dominic Ng 吴建民 , a highly respected Chinese American business and community leader, and President Biden’s pick to represent the United States on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation in 2023, of treason to America, based on flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence." Read the UCA statement: https://bit.ly/3kBl0An 4 . AP News Report. According to an AP News report on February 26, 2023, the leaders of a new House select committee on China defended Democratic Rep. Judy Chu 赵美心 , saying it was abhorrent and unacceptable for a GOP lawmaker to question her loyalty to the United States based on her Chinese heritage.¶ “One of my colleagues, unfortunately, attacked Judy Chu, the first Chinese American congresswoman in the United States Congress, saying that somehow she’s not loyal to the United States. I find that offensive as an Asian American myself,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi , the ranking Democrat on the panel, about the comments last week from Rep. Lance Gooden .¶ Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher , the Republican chair of the China panel who appeared with Krishnamoorthi on CBS ’ “Face the Nation,” said Gooden was out of line. “We should not question anybody’s loyalty to the United States,” Gallagher said. “That is out of bounds. It’s beyond the pale.” Gallagher said his bipartisan committee, which is officially called the “Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party” was named as such “to constantly make that distinction between the party and the people.” “We must constantly be aware of going overboard as we try and win this competition with China,” he said. Read the AP News report: http://bit.ly/3IwLhI5 More Media Reports Politico. According to a Politico report on February 26, 2023, “One of my colleagues, unfortunately, attacked Judy Chu 赵美心 , the first Chinese American Congresswoman in the United States Congress, saying that somehow she’s not loyal to the United States. I find that offensive as an Asian American myself,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi said of criticism last week of the California Democrat by Rep. Lance Gooden .¶ Joining Krishnamoorthi on CBS ’ “Face the Nation,” Rep. Mike Gallagher agreed with him: “We should not question anybody’s loyalty to the United States. I think that is out of bounds.” “Absolutely, we shouldn’t question anybody’s loyalty,” Gallagher added.¶ Host Margaret Brennan asked Gallagher how the American people can be sure the panel doesn’t end up as being seen as persecuting people, as in the 1950s loyalty hearings led by Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.).¶ “Joseph McCarthy’s from my district, he’s buried in my district; we need not exhume his body and reanimate it,” Gallagher said, adding: “We must constantly be aware of going overboard as we try and win this competition with China.”¶ Read the Politico report: https://politi.co/3KBOxVn 2023/02/27 CBS News. "House China panel leaders denounce heritage-based attack on Rep. Judy Chu." https://cbsn.ws/3SEe4iz 2023/02/27 Salon. House Democrats rip MAGA Republican for 'blatantly racist' attack on Rep. Judy Chu." http://bit.ly/3Zvv9xz 2023/02/27 NBC News. " House China panel leaders defend Rep. Judy Chu after Texas Republican's attack." https://bit.ly/3xWLqjd 2023/02/25 Los Angeles Times. "GOP congressman questions her ‘loyalty.’ Rep. Judy Chu, House Democrats blast ‘racist’ rhetoric:" https://lat.ms/3ktyMVV . 2023/02/25 Business Insider. "Democratic Rep. Judy Chu, the first Chinese American woman elected to Congress, blasts a Texas GOP congressman after he questioned her loyalty to the US: 'It is racist'." http://bit.ly/3xXleoA 2023/02/25 Vanity Fair. "Democrats Denounce Rep. Lance Gooden for Questioning The 'Loyalty' of Rep. Judy Chu Following Rumors of Ties to China's Communist Party." http://bit.ly/41uG1xr 2023/02/24 The Hill. "Democrats erupt with fury after Republican questions ‘loyalty’ of Rep. Chu." http://bit.ly/3Y4rYvx 2023/02/24 Washington Post. "Democrats defend Rep. Chu against ‘xenophobic’ accusations of disloyalty to U.S." https://wapo.st/3Z6miCs . Building a Sustainable Platform and Pipeline for AAPI Leadership in Higher Education Register for this workshop webinar: http://bit.ly/3xPv6Rj Chang-Lin Tien Leadership in Education Award. Know an academically accomplished AAPI leader in Higher Education? Nominate them to the Asian Pacific Fund for the 2023 Chang-Lin Tien Leadership in Education Award! Deadline MARCH 3, 2023. For eligibility criteria and more information, go to: https://bit.ly/TienAward Asian American and Scientific Community News and Activities 1. Workshop on Asian American Trailblazers in Civil Rights. On Wednesday, March 22, 2023, the 1990 Institute and the Alice Fong Yu Alternative School invite middle and high school teachers to learn more about the Asian Americans who fought for civil rights that benefited all who call America home. By 2025, a majority of states will have requirements in place for Asian American and Pacific Islander studies be taught in school. This multifaceted event will highlight Asian American pioneers and the pivotal court cases that have changed the landscape of U.S. civil rights, including the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that established the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. The 125th anniversary of this landmark case is on March 28, 2023. Register for the event: http://bit.ly/3ZpBLgN 2. MIT Technology Review. According to a report by MIT Technology Review on February 20, 2023, Citizen, a hyperlocal app that allows users to report and follow notifications of nearby crimes, is trying to remake itself by recruiting elderly Asians.¶ Read the MIT Technology Review Report: http://bit.ly/3xVWmgZ Subscribe to The APA Justice Newsletter Complete this simple form at https://bit.ly/2FJunJM to subscribe. Please share it with those who wish to be informed and join the fight. View past newsletters here: https://bit.ly/APAJ_Newsletters . Back View PDF February 28, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

McCarthyism WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME Go Go Prev Next Table of Contents Overview What is McCarthyism? Historical Key Figures The Role of The Media - Then and Now Today’s McCarthyism on Chinese and Asian Americans Continuing Developments Overview During "China Week" in September 2024, Representative Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), took the House floor to denounce efforts to revive the "China Initiative," calling it a New McCarthyism. An era of suspicion, paranoia, and surveillance, McCarthyism serves as a historical warning against government overreach, racial profiling, and suppression of dissent. Recently, under the guise of national security, the U.S. government has enacted stringent measures against Chinese and Asian Americans, such as extensive alien land laws and the “China Initiative.” References and Links APA Justice: The China Initiative APA JUstice: Attempts to Revive The China Initiative 2024/09/10 Radio Free Asia: EXPLAINED: What is ‘China Week’ at the US Congress? Back to Table of Contents What is McCarthyism? McCarthyism refers to the period in the early 1950s in the United States when Senator Joseph McCarthy led a campaign to root out alleged communists in government, media, academia, and other institutions, often without substantial evidence. It has since become a term that describes the practice of making unsubstantiated accusations, using fear and intimidation to suppress dissent, and damaging reputations without proper evidence or due process. Notoriously harsh on writers and entertainers, McCarthyism also targeted government officials, educators, and union leaders. Famous artists investigated include Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, Leonard Bernstein, Lena Horne, Dalton Trumbo, Langston Hughes, Arthur Miller, Burl Ives, and Dashiell Hammett. McCarthyism led to investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and loyalty tests for federal employees. Many individuals lost their jobs, were blacklisted from industries (especially in Hollywood), or faced public shaming. The era created an atmosphere of fear and repression in which dissenting political views were brutally suppressed. Although many of Senator McCarthy’s claims were eventually proven to be unsubstantiated, McCarthyism was fueled by rising anti-communist sentiment due to the inception of the Korean War and communist advances in eastern Europe and China. Furthermore, the first Red Scare (1917-1920), fueled by the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and increasing labor unrest, remained fresh in the minds of many American citizens, exacerbating the pervasive atmosphere of hysteria and vigilance. In 1954, the movement began to collapse after McCarthy’s own credibility was questioned during the televised Army-McCarthy hearings, leading to his censure by the U.S. Senate. Ultimately, McCarthyism drove a wedge between the populace and the U.S. government, leaving American citizens wary of government overreach, racial profiling, and suppression of dissent. Back to Table of Contents Historical Key Figures Senator Joseph McCarthy Born in Wisconsin in 1908, Joseph McCarthy began his career as an attorney, spending three years as a circuit judge. After serving in the Marine Corps during World War II, he won the Republican nomination for the senate in 1946 and was elected. On February 9, 1950, he delivered his infamous “Enemies from Within” speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, declaring that 205 communists had infiltrated the State Department, launching him into headlines nationwide. However, when testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he was unable to name a single communist in any government department. Historian Margaret Brennan noted that McCarthy’s numbers changed frequently, saying “He had no list. He had no names. It was all a big lie.” Following McCarthy’s initial claim, he began a relentless anti-communist crusade, investigating various government departments and questioning innumerable witnesses. Despite failing to identify a single “card-carrying communist,” his actions caused several people to lose their jobs and many more to receive popular condemnation. In the last two years of the Truman administration (1951-1953), 6,000 federal employees left the government. McCarthy’s relentless persecution of countless individuals and the forced conformity that the practice caused came to be known as McCarthyism. Only in 1954 did public opinion finally turn against him, following a televised 36-day hearing on his charges of subversion by U.S. Army officers and civilian officials. The hearing exposed his aggressive and brutal interrogation techniques, famously prompting Joseph Nye Welch, special counsel to the army, to rebuke, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” In December of 1954, the Senate formally condemned him for conduct “contrary to Senate traditions,” an action taken only once before in Senate history. McCarthy died in 1957 from alcoholism and withdrawal before he completed his second term in office. Roy Cohn Born to an affluent Jewish family in the Bronx in 1927, Roy Cohn graduated from Columbia University with both an undergraduate degree and a law degree by the age of 20. Cohn earned a national reputation as a ruthless prosecutor for his contribution to the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were convicted of spying for the Soviet Union in 1951 and were executed by electric chair in 1953. In 1953, Cohn served as chief counsel on the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Cohn became instrumental to McCarthy’s efforts to investigate, interrogate, and purge federal employees accused of being communists. Cohn’s preference not to hold hearings in open forums and aggressive questioning of suspected Communists aligned with McCarthy’s inclination towards holding “executive sessions” and “off-the-record” sessions away from the Capitol. This strategy minimized public scrutiny and enabled the interrogation of witnesses without significant accountability. Through rhetoric linking communism with homosexuality, McCarthy and Cohn also instigated the Lavender Scare, a concurrent moral panic and wave of repression forcing thousands of LGBTQ+ federal employees out of their jobs. In McCarthy’s famous “Enemies from Within” speech, he singled out two of the cases involving alleged homosexuals. McCarthy and Cohn’s effort to purge LGBTQ+ employees led to an incredibly destructive and effective witch hunt, causing between 5,000 and 10,000 federal employees to resign from their jobs or be terminated. After resigning from the Senate subcommittee in 1954, Cohn returned to New York, establishing himself in private practice at Saxe, Bacon & Bolan. Cohn became a powerful attorney known for his aggressive and unethical legal strategies and had many high-profile clients, including several organized-crime bosses, New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, and Donald Trump. Over the years, he became Donald Trump’s mentor and close personal friend. The 2024 film The Apprentice chronicles their relationship. During the debate over the passage of New York’s first gay rights bill, Cohn aligned himself with the Archdiocese of New York, calling homosexual teachers “a grave threat to our children.” While Cohn vehemently refused to self-identify as gay, his longtime friend Roger Stone shared that Cohn often had sexual encounters with men, and Cohn frequently attended public events with his partners. Cohn died from complications of AIDS in 1984. Edward R. Murrow Broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow played a pivotal role in countering McCarthyism. Born in North Carolina in 1908, Murrow joined the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) in 1935 and gained national fame through his highly reliable and dramatic eyewitness reportage of the German occupation of Austria, the German takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and the Battle of Britain during World War II. He returned to radio broadcasting in 1947 and moved on to television where he launched his broadcast See It Now . On March 9, 1954, Murrow’s See It Now broadcast exposed McCarthy’s fear-based tactics, claiming McCarthy’s chief accomplishment had been “confusing the public mind as between the internal and external threats of communism.” Murrow reminded Americans that "accusation is not proof” and warned against being “driven by fear into an age of unreason,” famously ending the segment with the parting words “good night, and good luck.” Afterwards, CBS received tens of thousands of letters, telegrams, and phone calls praising the broadcast. By challenging McCarthyism when other journalists did not, Murrow profoundly shaped broadcast journalism, setting powerful standards with his unwavering commitment to factual reporting, democratic principles, and the press’s role as a vigilant watchdog. The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University continues this legacy, promoting ethical journalism, journalistic integrity, and strategic communication. The House Un-American Activities Committee Formed in 1938 as an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives, the House un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigated alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having communist ties. It became a standing (permanent) committee in 1946 and was known as the House Committee on Internal Security beginning in 1969. When the House abolished the committee in 1975, its functions were transferred to the House Judiciary Committee. By the late 1940s, HUAC had acquired such power that the mere threat of investigation by it could ruin a person’s career. While the HUAC remained staunchly anticommunist in nature, several of its members retained alarming affiliations and sympathies. Martin Dies Jr., the founding member of the committee, was a known supporter of the Klu Klux Klan (the Klan) and had spoken at several of its rallies. Tennessee Representative and HUAC member John E. Rankin was also a Klan supporter, as was lawyer, politician, and fellow HUAC member John S. Wood. On one occasion Wood defended the Klan, arguing that “The threats and intimidations of the Klan are an old American custom.” Martin Dies Jr. and John E. Rankin were also known antisemitics. The committee especially targeted entertainers and artists in Hollywood, beginning a stringent campaign to ferret out “subversives” in the entertainment industry. Of seventeen subpoenaed screenwriters, producers, and directors, ten refused to answer the now-infamous question “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?” on First Amendment grounds. Fined $1,000 and sentenced from six months to a year in jail, these ten became known as the Hollywood Ten. Six of the ten were Jewish. According to Walter Goodman, author of The Committee (1964), “The source of Rankin’s animus against Hollywood — and he made no particular effort to conceal it — was the large number of Jews eminent in the film industry. In Rankin’s mind, to call a Jew a Communist was a tautology.” In early 1947, President Harry S. Truman enacted executive order (EO) 9835 requiring a loyalty oath for all federal employees, designed to root out communist influence in the government. The vague nature of this EO allowed HUAC to begin widespread investigations of every person suspected of communist sympathies or affiliations. By the early 1950s, HUAC had investigated nearly a fifth of all federal government employees. While HUAC never clearly defined what constituted an “un-American activity,” the committee remained anticommunist in nature. In 1948, Nixon and Rep. Karl Mundt coauthored two bills aimed at eradicating communist influences in the government. The first, the Mundt-Nixon Bill, required the federal registration of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) and its front organizations. The second sought to outlaw many activities of CPUSA but failed in the Senate before it could pass. HUAC’s severe anticommunist zeal, and particularly the Mundt-Nixon Bill, created a dilemma for many American communists. Members needed to register their organizations but failure to do so could result in imprisonment. As an investigative committee, HUAC did not have the authority to prosecute suspected individuals, but they acquired much power through their ability to circumvent constitutional guarantees of due process, presumption of innocence, and free speech. HUAC has been criticized for violating First Amendment rights, particularly because its anticommunist agenda seemed to supersede the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly. The committee’s anticommunist investigations are often associated with McCarthyism, although Joseph McCarthy himself, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with the House committee. McCarthy was the chairman of the Government Operations Committee and its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate. In the wake of McCarthy’s downfall, the prestige and authority enjoyed by HUAC began to gradually decline. In 1959, the committee was denounced by former President Harry S. Truman as “the most un-American thing in the country today.” In August 1966, HUAC hearings called to investigate anti-Vietnam war activities were disrupted by hundreds of protestors. The committee faced witnesses who were openly defiant. As author Joel Kovel remarked, “other nations never were able to define communism as somehow ‘un-’ the identity of that nation.” Back to Table of Contents The Role of The Media - Then and Now The media played a significant role in amplifying and affirming McCarthyism to the American public. Throughout McCarthy’s stringent crusade against communism, newspapers, radio stations, and television broadcasts continually reported his accusations uncritically, lending credibility to his unsubstantiated claims. In 1950, the New York Times covered McCarthy’s “Enemies from Within” speech without questioning its validity. Sensational headlines and constant broadcast coverage heightened public fear, reinforcing McCarthy’s portrayal of Communism as a pressing internal threat. Meanwhile, television brought the HUAC hearings directly into American homes, magnifying McCarthy’s influence. Despite constant, uncritical coverage of McCarthy’s crusade throughout all media channels, “there was never anybody in government that they could prove to be a card-carrying communist,” according to historian Margaret Brennan. While the media exacerbated the chaos, fear, and fervor of McCarthyism at its height, it also encouraged and accelerated McCarthy’s downfall. Namely, the 36-day hearing on McCarthy’s charges of subversion by U.S. Army officers was broadcast nationally, delivering an estimated 188 hours of television directly to American homes. Likewise, Edward R. Murrow’s See It Now broadcast exposed McCarthy’s fear-based tactics and reminded Americans that "accusation is not proof.” Throughout U.S. history, the media has often depicted Americans and immigrants of Asian origin using biased and derogatory rhetoric, particularly during times of geopolitical tension. Their coverage has fueled harmful public perception and policies with lasting impacts on Asian communities. Media Bias in the Case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee On March 6, 1999, the New York Times published an inflammatory exposé , accusing “a Los Alamos computer scientist who is Chinese-American” of conveying American nuclear secrets to the Chinese government. This marked the beginning of a witch hunt by NYT reporters James Risen and Jeff Gerth. Just three days later, before any arrests or charges had been made, Risen reported the unnamed scientist to be Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwan-born scientist working in the nuclear weapons design area at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Lee was subjected to a rushed, three-day interrogation by FBI officials before being fired from his job. Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson directed that Dr. Lee be fired without review. Government officials believed the theft of American nuclear secrets from Los Alamos in the 1980s helped China miniaturize its bombs, accelerating its nuclear development to a level on par with the U.S. However, the suspected espionage was not detected until 1995, leaving the New York Times and many government officials to blame the White House for the delay, inaction, and skepticism. These criticisms gained traction as Republican lawmakers were simultaneously entrenched in a full-blown campaign to convince President Bill Cllinton of the dawn of a new cold war. In December of 1999, Dr. Lee was finally arrested for 59 counts of downloading restricted data to unrestricted systems. According to experts, the codes he downloaded were so tailored to American testing and engineering that they would not have been intended for or useful to China. Dr. Lee was not charged with nuclear espionage because there was no evidence. Before his trial, he was placed into a 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement, shackled for his one hour of exercise. He was jailed in solitary confinement without bail for nine months. During family visits (one hour each week), he was forbidden to speak in Mandarin. In September 2000, Dr. Lee pleaded guilty to one felony count of mishandling data and was released. In 2006, Dr. Lee settled a lawsuit over violations of his privacy rights and received $1.65 million from the federal government and five news organizations, The Washington Post , The New York Times , The Associated Press , The LA Times , and ABC News. In Judge James A. Parker of Federal District court in Albuquerque’s statement to Dr. Lee, he expressed extraordinary remorse for the abuse of power by the executive branch throughout Dr. Lee’s case, vehemently insisting the executive branch "embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen of it.” He expressed his deep regret for his role in the case and issued a sincere apology. After Dr. Lee’s release, the New York Times published a reflection on their role in the case, remaining “proud of work that brought into open a major national security problem” and “careful reporting” that “accurately portrayed a debate behind the scenes on the extent and importance of Chinese espionage.” The Times did express some remorse over not giving Dr. Lee “the full benefit of the doubt” but remained firm that they did not “initiate the case against Wen Ho Lee.” In 2001, the Subcommittee on Department of Justice Oversight released the “ Report on the Government’s Handling of the Investigation and Prosecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee .” Despite finding insufficient evidence to support charges that Dr. Lee’s ethnic heritage was a factor in the government’s actions during the case, the FBI claimed that “Dr. Lee was more likely to have committed espionage for the People’s Republic of China because he was ‘overseas ethnic Chinese’” to obtain the warrant to search his house. Robert S. Vrooman, the former head of counterintelligence at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said that ethnicity “was a key factor” and that Dr. Lee was unfairly singled out for federal investigation because of his ethnicity. In October 2000, Notra Trulock, former Director of Intelligence at the Department of Energy, vehemently denied that he held “‘racist views toward minority groups’ and that this was the factor in targeting Dr. Lee.” However, he also shared that Robert Vrooman alleged that he had stated “no ethnic Chinese should be allowed to work on U.S. nuclear weapons programs,” which Trulock claimed was “categorically false.” In the words of then President Bill Clinton, “the whole thing was quite troubling.” Media Bias in Japanese American Internment Prior to the outbreak of World War II, the FBI had identified German, Italian, and Japanese nationals who were suspected of being potential enemy agents and who were kept under constant surveillance. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, this suspicion spread to include all persons of Japanese descent, whether foreign born or American citizens. The task was turned over to the U.S. Army as a security concern. In order to prevent a repeat of Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt of the Western Defense Command believed stringent measures needed to be taken. DeWitt prepared a report with false evidence, arguing for the creation of military zones and Japanese detainment. His original report also included detainment of Germans and Italians, although the idea of rounding up people of European descent did not seem to be as popular. Despite the falsehoods included in his argument, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942 with the stated intent of ensuring national security and preventing espionage on American shores. Thereafter, the entire West Coast was deemed a military area and was divided into military zones, authorizing military commanders to exclude civilians from military zones. Although the EO did not specify a certain military group, the army began to enforce curfews that applied solely to Japanese Americans. Next, the army encouraged voluntary evacuation by Japanese Americans. Finally, Lt. General John L. DeWitt began the forced evacuation and detention of Japanese American West Coast residents. Acting under the authority of the EO and amid growing public paranoia and fear over the perceived threat Japanese Americans posed, the U.S. army targeted all Japanese Americans within varied distances from the Pacific. In the span of four months, approximately 112,000 people (nearly two-thirds of whom were American citizens) were sent to “relocation centers” which were to be their homes for the remainder of the war. Anyone who was at least 1/16 Japanese was forcibly evacuated. Three Japanese American citizens challenged the constitutionality of the forced relocation and curfew orders through legal actions: Gordon Hirabayashi, Fred Korematsu, and Mitsuye Endo. Of the three, only Mitsuye Endo was determined to be “loyal” and allowed to leave the detention center in Topaz, Utah. In Ex parte Mitsuye Endo , Justice Murphy of the Supreme Court wrote that Japanese internment is “another example of the unconstitutional resort to racism inherent in the entire evacuation program” and that “racial discrimination of this nature bears no reasonable relation to military necessity and is utterly foreign to the ideals and traditions of the American people.” Fred Korematsu was arrested in 1942 for refusing to relocate to a Japanese internment camp. When the Supreme Court heard the case, his attorneys argued that the EO violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law. Although Korematsu lost the case, he became a civil rights activist and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998. In his dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Jackson argued the EO violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and called it “the legalization of racism.” The final Japanese internment camp closed in March 1946. President Gerald Ford officially repealed Executive Order 9066 in 1976. Only in 1988 did Congress acknowledge and apologize for the injustice of internment, providing $20,000 to each formerly incarcerated person. Tennessee Rep. and HUAC member Rankin was a staunch proponent of Japanese American internment. In Michi Weglyn’s Years of Infamy , Rankin is quoted as saying “I’m for catching every Japanese in America, Alaska, and Hawaii now and putting them in concentration camps.” In late 1942, he re-introduced Senate Bill 2293 which would have allowed for the removal of any ethnic Japanese in the U.S. and its territories. Rankin’s position on HUAC gave him the unique authority and audience to spread suspicion and paranoia about many of America’s immigrants and racial and religious minorities. During Japanese American internment, American newspapers contributed to pervasive anti-Japanese sentiment by portraying Japanese Americans as disloyal spies and saboteurs. Headlines warned of a “Fifth Column” within the U.S., stoking fear and prejudice. This coverage, based on unsubstantiated claims, helped garner support for the internment of 120,000 persons of Japanese heritage. Before his children’s books, Dr. Seuss worked as a political cartoonist and propagandist during World War II, creating cartoons and illustrations that were published in newspapers and used in military training films. One of his infamous cartoons published on February 13, 1942, depicts Japanese Americans lined up as the “Fifth Column” along the West Coast, awaiting the “signal from home,” playing into mass hysteria and derogatory stereotypes. Two days after President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 authorizing Japanese American internment, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial endorsing it, asserting that Japanese Americans posed a national security risk. Seventy-five years later, on February 19, 2017, the Los Angeles Times formally recanted its 1942 editorials. Acknowledging its own role in garnering public support for internment, the paper expressed regret for fueling anti-Japanese sentiment and drew parallels with the current climate replete with xenophobia, discrimination, and anti-immigrant rhetoric. The 2017 editorial warned against repeating such injustices, highlighting the need to protect civil liberties for all. Recent Media Coverage and Bias Today, many investigative journalists and media outlets uphold the principles Edward R. Murrow and others embodied. Jamie Satterfield, investigative reporter at the Knoxville News Sentinel, built a reputation as a prolific and dedicated crime and courts reporter. Following the 2008 disaster at the Kingston coal-fired power plant in which more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash spilled onto nearby homes and waterways, Satterfield mined internal documents, lawsuits, and reports. She chronicled the names and circumstances of all of the employees at the plant that have died and fallen sick. In a related incident, she relentlessly reported on the health hazards at a local playground, in which coal ash waste was used as infill. Satterfield has earned recognition from the Scripps Howard Foundation, the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi Awards, the First Amendment Center, and many more. After 27 years at Knoxville News Sentinel, Satterfield parted ways with her employer in 2021. It is not known if her relentless investigations were related to her departure. During the “China Initiative,” MIT Technology Review played a significant role in holding the government accountable by embarking on a thorough research investigation to determine the initiative's efficacy. They found that only a quarter of people charged had been convicted. Although several reporters and media outlets remain committed to upholding journalistic integrity and the press’s role as a vigilant watchdog, many sources choose to be complicit by simply repeating and echoing the government’s narrative. This is especially harmful when it concerns critical issues such as racial profiling, public corruption, civil rights violations, and environmental crime. Back to Table of Contents Today’s McCarthyism on Chinese/Asian Americans and Immigrants The China Initiative Today, Chinese and Asian Americans and immigrants are still facing unwarranted suspicion, investigations, and arrests under the guise of national security. In November 2018, the Department of Justice launched the China Initiative, aiming to combat economic espionage and theft of intellectual property purportedly conducted by Chinese entities, including individuals and organizations with ties to the Chinese government. However, the project actually resulted in increased racial profiling and enhanced stigmatization of Asian Americans, in addition to government overreach and loss of scientific innovation. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions commenced the project on November 1, 2018 with no clear definition of what deemed a significant national security concern to be investigated under the initiative. Less than a year later, Kansas University Professor Feng “Franklin” Tao became the first academic and scientist of Chinese origin to be indicted. By September 2021, multiple media outlets had questioned the efficacy of the initiative, following a string of highly publicized dismissed cases. Three months later, MIT Technology Review published two investigative reports on the China Initiative, finding that only about a quarter of people and institutions charged had been convicted and that most of the cases had little or no obvious connection to national security. Nearly 90% of defendants charged under the initiative are of Chinese heritage. Officially, the China Initiative ended in February 2022 under the Biden Administration, but the harm it has inflicted on targeted individuals and the broader AAPI community remains. Attempts to Revive the China Initiative Despite its official end, Republican lawmakers are pushing to reinstate the initiative. In February 2025, Senator Rick Scott announced the reintroduction of his Protect America’s Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act to reinstate and codify President Trump’s CCP Initiative under the Department of Justice. The same day, Representative Lance Gooden reintroduced a companion bill in the House. House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party vs. the House Un-American Activities Committee In 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives established the Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party, focusing on economic and security competition with China. In December of 2022, Rep. Kevin McCarthy unveiled the committee, writing: To win the new Cold War, we must respond to Chinese aggression with tough policies to strengthen our economy, rebuild our supply chains, speak out for human rights, stand against military aggression, and end the theft of Americans’ personal information, intellectual property, and jobs. We must recognize that China’s “peaceful rise” was pure fiction and finally to confront and respond to the Chinese Communist Party with the urgency the threat demands. To do that, House Republicans will establish a Select Committee in the new Congress. In addition to international issues, the Committee also focuses on domestic issues regarding the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in the U.S., such as Chinese purchases of American farmland. It also investigates human rights issues and “ideological warfare.” The House Select Committee is reminiscent of the House un-American Activities Committee in its targeting of a specific subgroup under the guise of national security. Like its infamous predecessor, it risks wielding investigative power not as a tool for genuine security concerns, but as a means to exacerbate racial prejudice, bias, and stigmas. Without clear safeguards or accountability, the Committee could easily devolve into an entity that issues unsubstantiated, warrantless claims, tarnishing reputations without due process. Such practices not only fuel suspicion and paranoia across the population, but also discourage legitimate political expression and further entrench xenophobia. Qian Xuesen 钱学森 and Brain Drain Born in Hangzhou in 1911, Qian was raised in an aristocratic family with well-educated parents, one of whom (his father) established China’s national education system. Qian graduated from the top of his class at Shanghai Jiao Tong University (上海交通大学) and was awarded a rare scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to study aeronautical engineering. From there, he transitioned to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) where he studied aerodynamics and jet propulsion. During World War II, he helped create and organize the U.S. long-range rocket research program and directed research on the country’s first successful solid-fueled missile at the newly established Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL). Qian was given security clearance to work on classified weapons research and even served on the U.S. government’s Science Advisory Board. Along with the influential aeronautical engineer Theodore von Karman, Qian was sent on an extraordinary mission to Germany under the temporary rank of lieutenant colonel in 1945. He became the Robert H. Goddard Professor of Jet Propulsion at Caltech and the director of the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Jet Propulsion Center. In 1949, a new director at the JPL expressed concerns about the possible presence of a spy ring within the lab, sharing his suspicions with colleagues. Notably, according to author and lecturer Fraser MacDonald, all of the suspected spies were either Jewish or Chinese. As the fervor of McCarthyism rapidly gained traction, the FBI accused Qian and others in the lab of being communists and threats to national security. Qian was detained on grounds of espionage and placed on house arrest for five years. He returned to China in 1955 with his wife and two children where he became the director of the Fifth Academy of the Chinese Ministry of Defense. Today, he is often hailed as “the father of Chinese aerospace” because he personally mentored the inaugural generation of revolutionary Chinese aerospace engineers. His political integrity and patriotic zeal were instrumental in securing critical institutional and financial support. After his retirement in 1970, Qian focused on music, the martial arts, and traditional Chinese philosophy, living the last two decades of his life in relative isolation. Qian’s story marks the beginning of a much larger problem: brain drain. The Trump administration’s actions in the spring of 2025 have prompted chaos, confusion, and fear as mass deportations and raids frequently occur. In addition, the State Department has prompted much confusion over international student visas as it implemented a three-week pause on interviews and then severely tightened the visa screening process. As such, many international students are scared to leave the country to visit relatives, fearing they will not be allowed re-entry. Many international students do not consider pursuing higher education in the U.S. at all. The Trump administration’s abrupt and volatile cancellation of funding and grants has also discouraged many scientists and academics. In March 2025, Nature conducted a survey asking American scientists if they would consider leaving the U.S. Of the over 1,200 respondents, 75% indicated that they are considering leaving, with many searching for jobs in Canada and the U.S. Other Victims In 2010, the FBI investigated Dr. Yanping Chen in relation to her previous work with the Chinese astronaut program. Dr. Chen became a U.S. citizen in 2001 and founded the University of Management and Technology in Arlington, Virginia in 1998. The FBI’s investigation of her was dropped in 2016 and no charges were ever filed. However, her confidential information was leaked to a Fox News reporter, Katherine Herridge, who used the information to publish three stories implying that Dr. Chen was gathering intelligence for the Chinese government. Herridge has refused to name the identity of her source. In October 2013, scientists at Eli Lilly, Guoqing Cao and Shuyu Li, were arrested for passing $55 million worth of secrets to a Chinese drug company. They were jailed and placed under house arrest. Over a year later, the charges were dropped. In October 2014, Sherry Chen, a hydrologist at the National Weather Service, was arrested. She had sent publicly available information to an old classmate in China and referred that person to a colleague for further information. The colleague reported her as a potential spy. While charges were dropped six months after her arrest, the National Weather Service refused to give Chen her job back. In May 2015, Xiaoxing Xi, chair of the Temple University physics department, was arrested for allegedly sharing designs for a “pocket heater,” a device used in semiconductor research, with contacts in China. However, investigators without the proper scientific background had misinterpreted the plans and the charges were dropped four months later. Continuing Impact In a recent Time magazine article examining the enduring legacy of McCarthyism and the media’s role in amplifying political fearmongering, the author argues that the incentives driving sensationalism and scapegoating have only intensified in today’s political landscape. As the piece notes: “This basic dynamic remains true 75 years later—arguably it has only gotten worse. Some of the most influential figures in American politics today won their power and prominence the same way McCarthy did—not from passing legislation, serving on important committees, helping their constituents, or skillfully mastering policy areas—but because of their willingness to say outrageous things that capture the attention of the news media.” The article’s broader critique resonates deeply with recent attacks on Asian American communities, particularly amid renewed anti-China rhetoric, surveillance of Asian American scientists and scholars, and efforts to cast immigrants and activists as threats to national security. Much like the Red Scare era, contemporary political discourse often relies on suspicion, racialized scapegoating, and media spectacle to consolidate power. Back to Table of Contents Continuing Developments Back to Table of Contents Timeline Contents McCarthyism

Newsletter - Dcember 2025 Monthly Meeting Summaries Dcember 2025 Monthly Meeting Summaries 2025/12/01 APA Justice Monthly Meeting APA Justice Meeting – Monday, 2025/12/011:55 pm Eastern Time / 10:55 am Pacific Time 1. Updates from CAPAC Speaker: Judith Teruya, Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Judith.Teruya@mail.house.gov [not on record] 2. Update from Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC Speaker: Joanna YangQing Derman, Director, Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights & National Security Program, Advancing Justice | AAJC, jderman@advancingjustice-aajc.org · Advancing Justice | AAJC: Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights & National Security Program Joanna provided a policy update covering several key areas. She noted that AAJC continues to monitor developments related to the China Initiative and ongoing negotiations in the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations process, particularly with the extended January 30 deadline. On the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Joanna reported that both chambers have passed their versions of the bill and that AAJC has submitted its official letter to House and Senate Armed Services leadership. She highlighted the Rounds Amendment (No. 3810) as a major area of concern because it would broaden Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews of foreign purchases of certain agricultural lands. She emphasized that AAJC is in active discussions with Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) and others on the Hill to ensure civil rights safeguards are reflected in the final bill. Joanna also addressed Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s recent proclamation labeling The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) a “foreign terrorist organization” and “transnational criminal organization.” She stressed that AAJC views this as “an attempt to weaponize state power against a religious minority” and is working with interfaith and civil rights partners to oppose discriminatory actions. She noted that CAIR has already filed a federal lawsuit in response. She closed by expressing AAJC’s appreciation for the APA Justice community and said the organization looks forward to sharing a full 2025 wrap-up in the new year. 3. Update from Asian American Scholar Forum Speaker: Gisela Perez Kusakawa, Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), gpkusakawa@aasforum.org [not able to attend] 4. Update from Chinese American Citizens Alliance Speaker: Kin Yan Hui, National President, Chinese American Citizens Alliance Kin Yan Hui was recently elected to be National President of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance (C.A.C.A.), He previously served as National Executive Vice President from 2023 to 2025 and as National Vice President for Membership from 2017 to 2023. He is also a Past President of the San Antonio Lodge. In his hometown of San Antonio, Kin serves as the Zoning Commissioner for the City of San Antonio’s District 6, representing 165,000 residents. He also sits on the Bexar County Civil Service Commission. A retired civil servant with over 35 years of service in the U.S. Department of the Air Force, Kin concluded his career in 2017 as Chief Engineer for four Air Force Cyber Weapon Systems. In that role, he led a team of more than 75 engineers and technical professionals developing and acquiring advanced cyber capabilities for the Air Force. Kin holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Houston, a Master of Arts in Management from Webster University, and was an Executive Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. In his remarks, Kin offered a detailed overview of the organization’s 130-year history, its national footprint, and his vision for strengthening its role in the Chinese American community. Opening with characteristic humor—“As a good bureaucrat, I have to have PowerPoint slides, so please put up with that”—Kin set a collegial tone before walking the audience through C.A.C.A.’s mission: “to practice and defend Chinese American citizenship and to preserve our cultural and historical heritage, because without historical and cultural preservation, we are not a people.” Kin traced C.A.C.A.’s roots to 1895, when it was founded in San Francisco as the Native Sons of the Golden State. By 1915, it had reorganized under its current name and expanded nationally. He highlighted several moments of historic significance, including the organization’s advocacy for repealing the Chinese Exclusion Act, testimony before Congress in the 1940s, efforts that led to the War Brides Act and Chinese Alien Wives Act, and more recent achievements such as the 2012 Congressional Statement of Regret and the 2018 Congressional Gold Medal awarded to Chinese American World War II veterans. The medal project, Kin recalled, was a challenge—“It was during COVID, and we were having a very difficult time doing that”—but C.A.C.A. persisted and continues to locate families who were unaware of their eligibility. C.A.C.A. today includes 20 lodges and roughly 3,000 members, historically concentrated along the West Coast but growing rapidly in the South and Southwest. Kin emphasized that while the national board provides guidance and resources, “a lot of the work that’s being done is really at the lodge level.” His vision for the future focuses on restoring prominence, strengthening impact, and ensuring relevance nationwide. Conversations with community leaders, he noted, have helped sharpen that mission: “Not just for the C.A.C.A., but for the greater Chinese American community at large.” To support this vision, Kin outlined strategic goals: empowering lodges, improving messaging and partnerships, increasing membership, and defending birthright citizenship. Membership development will include a new pipeline, service recognition programs, and a youth advisory council—critical, he noted, because “we are all volunteers, with no paid staff, so we must appreciate every minute we get from volunteers.” On birthright citizenship, Kin recounted internal skepticism from some members who believed constitutional rights were secure. His response was grounded in risk management: “The risk may be low, but the severity is so high that we have to address it.” C.A.C.A. will establish a dedicated project team to prepare for and respond to potential policy threats. Kin concluded by reaffirming C.A.C.A.’s long-standing role and future direction: “I just want to introduce the organization…and give you a glimpse into what we are planning to do in the next two years.” He expressed gratitude for the chance to connect with allied organizations and strengthen shared commitments to civil rights, community empowerment, and cultural preservation. 5. Updates from American Civil Liberties Union · Speaker: Patrick Toomey , Deputy Director, National Security Project, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Patrick returned to provide an in-depth briefing on two major areas of ongoing ACLU litigation: the challenge to Florida’s discriminatory housing law (SB 264) in Shen v. Simpson, and the national-security–related litigation surrounding the federal government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. Both issues, he noted, remain of high importance to Asian American communities and immigrant-rights advocates across the country. Patrick began by reminding the audience that the ACLU is engaged in a wide range of immigration and civil rights litigation, including work related to birthright citizenship, which had been referenced earlier in the meeting. For purposes of this briefing, however, he focused on the two cases in which he is personally involved. I. Shen v. Simpson – Florida’s SB 264 Housing Restrictions Patrick first summarized developments in Shen v. Simpson, a challenge to Florida’s SB 264, a law that restricts property ownership by immigrants from China and six other “countries of concern.” The law prohibits non-citizens and non-green-card-holders from these countries from buying property in large parts of Florida, with only narrow exceptions. The ACLU—together with AALDEF, CALDA, the DeHeng Law Firm, Quinn Emanuel, and the ACLU of Florida—represents four individual Chinese immigrant plaintiffs and a real estate company that serves primarily Chinese clients. On November 4, 2025, a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit declined to issue a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of SB 264, which Patrick described as “disappointing.” Much of the decision turned on the court's ruling that the plaintiffs lacked "standing" to challenge the law's main restriction on property purchases. However, he highlighted an important clarification in the ruling: the court narrowed the law’s application and found that it does not apply to certain Chinese immigrants who live in Florida and intend to remain there indefinitely. That clarification, he explained, provides meaningful—but limited—relief to affected communities. He emphasized the broader context. SB 264 echoes a long history of “alien land laws” targeting Asians and other immigrant groups under the guise of national security. The ACLU views the law as part of a nationwide resurgence of discriminatory state-level property restrictions, which mirror policies from the early 20th century. Looking ahead, Patrick explained that next steps remain uncertain. The Eleventh Circuit must first issue a formal order returning the case to the district court. Once that occurs, the ACLU and the state defendants will submit a status update proposing a schedule for next steps in the case. He assured the audience that updates will be provided as the litigation team decides how to move forward in light of the Eleventh Circuit's decision. II. Alien Enemies Act Litigation Patrick then turned to the ACLU’s ongoing challenges to the federal government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute allowing deportation of nationals from countries with which the U.S. is at war. In March of this year, he explained, the government used the Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals. These individuals were transported first to El Salvador and detained in the notorious “Terrorism Confinement Center,” before later being transferred to Venezuela. These individuals had no opportunity to contest their designation or removal under the AEA. 1. The Fifth Circuit Case (for individuals still in the U.S.) The ACLU represents Venezuelan nationals who remain in the United States and continue to face potential deportation under the Act. In June, the ACLU argued the case before a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, which issued a 2–1 decision ruling the government’s use of the Act unlawful. The government then requested an en banc hearing before the full Fifth Circuit, which was granted. Briefing is underway, and oral argument is scheduled for late January. Because the case raises significant questions about executive power and wartime authorities, Patrick noted that Supreme Court review is likely. Importantly, deportations under the AEA are currently paused while the litigation proceeds. 2. District Court Litigation in Washington, D.C. (for individuals already deported) A second challenge focuses on those who were removed in March with no due process. The ACLU is seeking a new preliminary injunction that would allow deported individuals the opportunity to bring habeas and due-process claims that they were unable to pursue before being transported out of the country. Toomey noted that this group was deported “under cover of darkness,” without notice, hearings, or the ability to consult counsel. These cases, he stressed, raise profound constitutional questions about due process, wartime authority, and the treatment of immigrant communities. Both remain active and will likely continue into 2026. Conclusion Patrick closed by encouraging attendees to stay engaged as litigation moves forward. He invited follow-up questions through the chat or by email and reaffirmed the ACLU’s commitment to defending the civil rights and liberties of immigrant communities targeted by discriminatory laws and emergency powers. The outcomes of these cases, he noted, will have significant implications for Asian American communities, Venezuelan immigrants, and the broader legal landscape governing immigration enforcement. 6. Update from National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Speaker: Edgar Chen , Special Advisor, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) Edgar Chen, Special Policy Advisor for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), provided an overview of NAPABA’s recent annual convention and the organization’s broader civil-rights–focused work. He began by thanking APA Justice for the opportunity to share updates and participated in discussion of Florida’s SB 264 during the Q&A. Edgar explained that NAPABA represents more than 80,000 Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students across the United States, with additional Canadian affiliates. Each year, NAPABA convenes members in a different host city for its annual convention. The 2025 gathering took place in Denver, Colorado, and was NAPABA’s second-largest convention ever, with over 2,800 attendees. He noted that last year’s Seattle convention reached a record 3,400 attendees and featured Governor Gary Locke as an opening speaker. Edgar highlighted several elements of the Denver convention that intersect with current civil rights issues. Responding to earlier panel discussion about the federal Community Relations Service (CRS), he noted that CRS — often called “the nation’s peacemakers” — has historically had four directors of Asian American descent: Grand Lum, Rose Ochi, Justin Locke, and Julius Nam. Grand Lum participated in a Denver panel on alternative dispute resolution. Edgar also connected other speakers’ points to NAPABA’s recent work, noting, for example, that NAPABA included the Congressional Gold Medal for Chinese American WWII veterans as part of its 2018 lobby-day agenda. NAPABA’s continuing legal education offerings at the convention spanned more than 43 breakout sessions covering emerging and specialized practice areas, including artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, healthcare law, tariffs, and even Asian American leadership in the outdoor and skiing industries — a nod to the Colorado setting. From this broad program, Edgar emphasized several civil rights sessions that were most relevant to the APA Justice audience. These included programming on birthright citizenship, such as a reenactment of the landmark Wong Kim Ark case; discussions about discrimination against Pacific Islander women; sessions addressing sexual violence; and a program on language access in the wake of the recent rescission of the Clinton-era executive order guaranteeing federal language-access services. The convention also explored book bans and the erosion of intersectional identities in public education and discourse. Edgar personally moderated a panel on immigration enforcement featuring Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He summarized the panel’s key conclusion: the central issue currently shaping immigration outcomes is “discretion,” particularly the growing use of negative discretion across U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and other parts of the federal immigration system. He stressed that, beyond ICE, these shifts have implications for refugees, asylum seekers, and vulnerable communities — especially in the context of the recent shooting in Washington, D.C., which has further intensified national debate over immigration policy and public safety. The convention also featured a major plenary session with Justice Goodwin Liu of the California Supreme Court and Ajay Mehrotra of the American Bar Foundation. They discussed the “Portrait Project,” a data-driven analysis of AANHPI representation in the legal profession and the barriers that impede career advancement. The research identifies three persistent barriers: lack of mentorship, limited networking infrastructure, and insufficient development of soft skills that are rarely taught in law school but crucial to professional success. Edgar emphasized that first-generation lawyers in particular face challenges in navigating these unwritten rules of the legal profession, and that part of NAPABA’s mission is helping to close these gaps. He also noted that NAPABA honored several Trailblazers this year, including Committee of 100 member Alan Tse and Rutgers Law Professor Rose Cuison-Villazor, both widely recognized for their leadership and contributions to civil rights and legal scholarship. The convention concluded with a gala featuring an in-depth conversation between actor Rich Ting and journalist Katie Fang — a session Edgar described as especially compelling. Looking ahead, Edgar announced that the next NAPABA convention will take place in Los Angeles, where attendance could reach 5,000 members. He invited APA Justice participants and interested community members to follow upcoming announcements about the 2026 program. 7. Q&A and Discussions 8. Next Meeting The next monthly meeting will be held on Monday, January 5, 2026, starting 1:55 pm ET/10:55 am PT Back View PDF December 1, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Page not found. (Error 404) Double check the website address and retype it in the address bar—or return to homepage. Back to Homepage

Just a minute, we’re fixing something here. (Error 500) We hope to be back online very soon.