Search this site

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

Racial Profiling Alien Land Bills Alien land bills, also known as alien land laws upon passage, have historically restricted the landownership and property rights of immigrants, particularly those of Asian descent. They are being revived today. Dive into the issue Latest developments 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 Research Grant Politicization Research grants to organizations and academics with Chinese ties have become politicized, posing a threat to apolitical, peer-reviewed science. Learn More Chinese Exclusion Act The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882, which Iowa Congressman John Kasson described as "one of the most vulgar forms of barbarism." Learn More Learn more about related issues Featured: Interactive map Tracking Alien Land Bills The Committee of 100 launched an alien land bill tracker and a companion interactive map on December 15, 2023. This database tracks and maps state and federal bills that target property ownership by non-citizens, particularly from countries like China. These resources are updated four times a year in March, July, October, and December. Committee of 100: 2024 Alien Land Bill Tracker and Map Committee of 100: 2023 Alien Land Bill Tracker and Map In early 2023, APA Justice launched an interactive Alien Land Bill tracker with an interactive map to monitor restrictive state land ownership legislation. Following collaborative efforts, the Committee of 100 launched its own Alien Land Bill tracker and interactive map on December 15, 2023. Subsequently, APA Justice discontinued updates to its original tracker and map. As of May 28, 2023, there are 33 states known to have introduced some form of alien land and property bills in the current or recent legislative session. A few had passed and signed into state law; some have died; others were still pending. Original state-by-state links to the legislations and map were provided as community resources. They were collected from multiple sources including research by APA Justice, Advancing Justice | AAJC, Committee of 100, National Agricultural Law Center, Project South, media reports, and crowdsourcing. California's 1913 Alien Land Law During the APA Justice monthly meeting on April 3, 2023, Paula Madison, businesswoman and retired executive from NBCUniversal, proposed a proactive and assertive national media alert network for the Asian American community. The idea was prompted by the challenge of Texas Senate Bill 147 (SB147) and the revival of discriminatory alien land bills. While this bill was introduced in Texas, the implications nationally and globally were huge. It was decided that a roundtable will be convened to further discuss the development and implementation of the concept and strategies for the near term and the longer term. Following a discussion with the Asian American Journalists Association on April 10, 2023, the virtual Inaugural Roundtable was hosted by APA Justice on April 17, 2023. April 2023 Meeting Apr. 3rd 2023 National Media Network Read More According to the Equal Justice Initiative , on May 3, 1913, California enacted the Alien Land Law, barring Asian immigrants from owning land. California tightened the law further in 1920 and 1923, barring the leasing of land and land ownership by American-born children of Asian immigrant parents or by corporations controlled by Asian immigrants. The 1913 California Alien Land Law was one of the earliest and most influential U.S. laws specifically restricting Asian immigrants' land ownership rights. Anti-Asian land restrictions had been developing, especially on the West Coast, influenced by widespread anti-Asian sentiment. California's law became a model for similar legislation in other states. California did not stand alone. Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming all enacted discriminatory laws restricting Asians’ rights to hold land in America. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed various versions of the discriminatory land laws—and upheld every single one. Most of these discriminatory state laws remained in place until the 1950s, and some even longer. California's 1913 Alien Land Law According to the Equal Justice Initiative , on May 3, 1913, California enacted the Alien Land Law, barring Asian immigrants from owning land. California tightened the law further in 1920 and 1923, barring the leasing of land and land ownership by American-born children of Asian immigrant parents or by corporations controlled by Asian immigrants. The 1913 California Alien Land Law was one of the earliest and most influential U.S. laws specifically restricting Asian immigrants' land ownership rights. Anti-Asian land restrictions had been developing, especially on the West Coast, influenced by widespread anti-Asian sentiment. California's law became a model for similar legislation in other states. California did not stand alone. Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming all enacted discriminatory laws restricting Asians’ rights to hold land in America. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed various versions of the discriminatory land laws—and upheld every single one. Most of these discriminatory state laws remained in place until the 1950s, and some even longer.

Song Guo Zheng Previous Item Next Item

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.

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

August 26, 2018 On August 26, 2018, CBS 60 Minutes rebroadcast " Collateral Damage " nationwide with updates on the stories of Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi. Bill Whitaker reported on these and other innocent Chinese Americans wrongly accused of espionage-related crimes as the U.S. steps up the fight against Chinese theft of U.S. trade secrets and intellectual property. 60 Minutes Overtime, titled " The Spy Who Wasn't, " further describes that "[a]s innocent Chinese Americans are being accused as spies, the impact on them and their families lasts far beyond the legal fees and dropped charges." Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi are not the only Asian American victims of racial discrimination in U.S. history . Collateral damage for Chinese American scientists is also not a recent occurrence by chance. 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 is available here . 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. Previous Next The Profiling of Asian Americans

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

Newsletter - #3 July 6 Meeting Summary; ICE Directive On Student Visas; Racism In The Military #3 July 6 Meeting Summary; ICE Directive On Student Visas; Racism In The Military Back View PDF July 16, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #100 Reactions to MIT Tech Review Reports; NIH Director Speaks/Listening Sessions; Events+ #100 Reactions to MIT Tech Review Reports; NIH Director Speaks/Listening Sessions; Events+ Back View PDF December 9, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Anming Hu 胡安明 Docket ID: 3:20-cr-00021 District Court, E.D. Tennessee Date filed: Feb 25, 2020 Date ended: September 9, 2021 Table of Contents Overview 2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations 2021/07/30 Outage at DOJ Motion for Retrial 2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges 2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2021/12/18 AASF Webinar Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case” Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out The Role of UTK Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated Photo Album & Links and References Overview On February 27, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of Professor Anming Hu, an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). Professor Hu was the second China Initiative case involving a U.S. university professor of Asian ancestry. He was charged with three counts each of wire fraud and making false statements, but not espionage. The charges stemmed from his purported failure to disclose affiliations with a Chinese university while receiving funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Professor Hu was the first to go to trial. A mistrial was declared on June 16, 2021, after the jury deadlocked. The jury includes 4 women and 8 men - all white. This was an embarrassing outcome for DOJ to fail on the very first trial under the China Initiative. What was even more embarrassing was the overzealous tactics and misconduct of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) revealed during the trial. On the part of UTK administrators, they concealed the federal investigation from Professor Hu, provided his records to the authorities without a warrant or informing him, suspended him without pay, and fired him shortly after. Without any attempt to protect its faculty, UTK was broadly criticized for throwing Professor Hu “under the bus.” Despite the absence of evidence and misconduct, DOJ opted to pursue a retrial on July 30, 2021, prompting outrage by members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment. “The government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK," he wrote. Professor Hu was born in China and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. He joined the UTK faculty in 2013. At the time of his arrest, he was a tenured professor. After his arrest, UTK suspended him without pay. His son had to withdraw from UTK due to financial difficulties. UTK terminated Professor Hu’s employment on October 8, 2020, citing the termination was not for cause but for “not eligible to work due to policy or regulations.” On October 14, 2021, UTK offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. After a long delay, Professor Hu’s application for U.S. permanent residency was approved in March 2024. Back to Table of Contents 2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations The jury trial of Professor Hu started on June 7, 2021. On June 16, 2021, a mistrial in Professor Anming Hu’s case was declared after the jury deadlocked. Knox News reporter Jamie Satterfield provided end-to-end coverage of the trial. Although it was not her original assignment, Satterfield was on site to observe witness testimony, read records related to the case, and conducted a thorough, independent investigation. According to the Knox News reports, FBI agent Kujtim Sadiku admitted in court testimonies that federal agents: Falsely accused Professor Hu of being a spy for China, Falsely implicated him as an operative for the Chinese military in meetings with Professor Hu’s superiors, Used false information to put Professor Hu on the federal no-fly list, Spurred U.S. customs agents to seize Professor Hu’s computer and phone and spread word throughout the international research community that Professor Hu was poison, Used false information to justify putting a team of agents to spy on Professor Hu and his son, a freshman at UTK, for nearly two years, Used false information to press Professor Hu to become a spy for the U.S. government. During cross-examination, defense attorney Phil Lomonaco said to Sadiku, “You wanted to find a Chinese spy in Knoxville,” making note of the tactics he used to secure a fraud indictment against Professor Hu. “My job is to find spies, yes,” the FBI agent responded. During the trial, Sadiku admitted to not knowing the last time Professor Hu was in China. “You’ve been carrying around his passport … haven’t you?” Lomonaco asked Sadiku. “You know you’re under oath, right?” “I don’t remember the dates on it. … I wouldn’t rely on that document,” Sadiku responded. Lomonaco asked if Sadiku could return Professor Hu’s passport. During the trial, Sadiku was unable to recall who tipped him off that Professor Hu might be a spy. Sadiku claimed that his investigation had nothing to do with the China Initiative when the Trump administration was pushing federal prosecutors to round up Chinese spies under the China Initiative. He also claimed that his investigation began with an “open source” search for information on Professor Hu, which turned out to be a Google search on the professor. “If you can find it by Google search, how can it be that Professor Hu was hiding it as a secret,” Satterfield raised the rhetorical question after the mistrial. Sadiku admitted to telling university officials that Professor Hu was a Chinese military operative, despite having no evidence to back up that claim. He never followed up with the officials to clarify that his statements were false. Federal prosecutors then shifted their focus away from unsupported spy allegations. Instead, they pursued a case of fraud, citing a law known as the NASA restriction. This law prohibits NASA from funding research involving collaboration with China or Chinese-owned companies. Professor Hu was accused of intentionally omitting his part-time teaching job at the Beijing University of Technology (BJUT) from disclosure forms, allegedly violating the NASA restriction. However, the law does not bar NASA from funding research that involves collaboration with Chinese universities. NASA itself added Chinese universities to its restrictions list and the DOJ under the Trump administration used it as an excuse in 2018 to search American universities for China-born researchers as potential spies. Professor Hu was not the only professor born in China targeted as part of the China Initiative, but his trial is the first legal test of that NASA policy. Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Arrowood argued that Professor Hu began plotting to violate the NASA restriction in 2013 — two years after it was enacted — by leaving his part-time teaching job at BJUT off his UTK “outside interests” form. However, testimony showed that UTK officials told Professor Hu and all its research personnel the NASA restriction did not apply to its “faculty, staff and students” because they are not “entities of China.” A letter, dubbed the China Assurance and sent to NASA with each UTK grant proposal, repeated the same language. Professor Hu’s affiliation with BJUT was clearly listed in other UTK documents and in dozens of research papers posted on the Internet. Lomonaco also noted it was not Professor Hu who sought a NASA grant. It was NASA who sought Professor Hu’s technology. “They wanted him to work on this project,” Lomonaco said. “(A NASA contractor) sought him out because he was so qualified. (Hu) wasn’t trying to trick NASA.” 2021/07/30 Outrage at DOJ Motion for Retrial On July 30, 2021, the Department of Justice announced that it intends to retry the case against Professor Anming Hu after FBI agents admitted under oath to knowingly building a case on falsified evidence to find a non-existent spy, resulting in a mistrial. In statement issued by Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, she said, “Instead of the normal process of beginning with a crime and searching for a suspect, the FBI has, through its China Initiative, started with racially profiled suspects and searched for a crime. Many of the FBI’s cases have been flawed from the start, evident in the number of cases that have been dropped without any explanation, and despite the incredible harm done to those whose lives have been turned upside down by these investigations. The case of Dr. Anming Hu is the most glaring example of how investigations rooted in racial profiling lead to flimsy cases that cannot stand up in court. Worse, in order to justify this investigation, we know that FBI agents have falsified evidence. Yet instead of accepting that Dr. Hu does not in any way present a threat to our national security, the DOJ is disappointingly doubling down, pressing for a retrial to justify their fruitless investigation. We must take national security threats seriously, but the China Initiative does not work, and has threatened a return to prejudice as a cornerstone of policy. Unless the DOJ has new evidence against Dr. Hu, this case must be dropped and the China Initiative halted.” After the government made its announcement, defense attorney Philip Lomonaco filed a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal , which was originally filed on June 11, 2021 . The motion for acquittal was made because "the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. There is no evidence that Professor Hu willfully intended to deceive NASA... Without the intent to deceive there can be no wire fraud conviction. Without the convictions for wire fraud, the remaining counts would fail as well... In the alternative, Defendant would rely on previous briefings to the Court regarding the lack of intent to harm NASA as being a defense to wire fraud as well." On August 20, 2021, APA Justice and a coalition of nine national and local organizations sent a letter to Judge Thomas A. Varlan urging him to dismiss the case and acquit Professor Hu in the best interest of justice and fairness. The letter provides the Asian American historical perspective on racial profiling, including the government's continuing use of xenophobic labels on Asian Americans such as "Non-traditional Collectors" and "Thousand Grains of Sand," as well as a continuing pattern with the cases of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, Professor Xiaoxing Xi, and Ms. Sherry Chen prior to the China Initiative. The first trial shows that Professor Hu’s case has nothing to do with theft of American trade secrets. It started as an economic espionage investigation based on a false premise and failed with misinformation to implicate Professor Hu as a spy for China and attempt to press him to spy for the U.S. government. Congress made inquiries into the alleged FBI misconduct. It is with this historical perspective and the prevailing facts in his case that we find the intent by the DOJ to retry Professor Hu to be deeply concerning and invidious. Massive amounts of taxpayers’ dollars and federal resources have already been spent without accountability to inflict enormous harm to Professor Hu and his family in the government’s zeal to hunt for a non-existent spy. Overzealous investigations such as Professor Hu’s undermines the U.S. Constitution as the government should have at least a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before launching an investigation, and race, ethnicity or national origin should not be used to profile people. The co-signers of the letter were: Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC Asian-American Community Service Council Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) Defending Rights & Dissent Greater Nashville Chinese Association (GNCA) New England Chinese American Coalition (NECAC) Ohio Chinese American Association (OCAA) San Francisco Community Alliance for Unity, Safety & Education (SFCause) University of Tennessee Chapter of the American Association of University Professors The following organizations co-signed the letter at a later date: Asian American Unity Coalition (AAUC) Calvin J Li Memorial Foundation Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates Carl Patton, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State University, and The Committee of Concerned Scientists also sent their letters to Judge Varlan urging the dismissal of Professor Hu's case on August 2 and 4, 2021 respectively. 2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges The first trial of Professor Hu revealed the zeal of the misguided China Initiative to criminalize Professor Hu with reckless and deplorable tactics of spreading false information to cast him as a spy for China and press him to become a spy for the U.S. government. When these efforts failed, DOJ brought charges against Professor Hu for intentionally hiding his ties to a Chinese university, which also fell apart upon cross examination during the trial. A former juror said after the first trial, “It was the most ridiculous case.” About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” Despite the egregious abuses of authority and lack of evidence, DOJ motioned for a retrial of Professor Hu on July 30, 2021. The blatant disregard of fairness and justice outraged members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment. Judge Varlan wrote on page 42 of the 52-page ruling acquitting Hu that " the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK. " According to two legal experts, the judge's ruling has particular significance and relevance in similar cases against an academic under the China Initiative. On page 38 of the ruling, the judge wrote: The Sixth Circuit’s Frost decision is squarely aligned with Takhalov’s conclusion that the federal wire fraud statute requires the intent to cause a tangible harm to the victim regarding the benefit of the bargain between the parties. Frost’s ultimate conclusion that the lack of tangible harm meant there was insufficient evidence on the element of intent to Case 3:20-cr-00021-TAV-DCP Document 141 Filed 09/09/21 Page 38 of 52 PageID #: 2333 39 defraud, 125 F.3d at 361–62, further confirms that Takhalov’s definition of the term “defraud” in the federal wire fraud statute is correct and applies equally in this Circuit. The two legal experts opined that the judge required a high standard of “a specific intent to defraud” so as to receive some financial benefits. Professor Hu’s alleged hiding of his relationship with BJUT was not to defraud NASA for money. Accordingly, the wire fraud charges should be dropped. This means that this will make DOJ's wire fraud charge against other professors considerably harder. In addition, the judge carefully described how UTK failed to provide clear guidance and training to the professors on the restrictions of the collaboration with Chinese institutions, which explains why Professor Hu did not fully disclose his affiliation with the Chinese university. This problem is common in nearly all universities in the U.S. and can be used as a reason to fight the charges against other professors. 2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Professor Anming Hu, his wife Ivy Yang, and defense attorney Phil Lomonaco spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021, only days after Professor Hu’s acquittal. Phil led off the meeting with the good news about the acquittal of Professor Hu on September 9, 2021. He expressed appreciation for the interest, support, and help from many to Professor Hu and his family through the trying times. There were many twists and turns in the case. As the first academic to go to trial under the China Initiative, it was very important to have a good outcome for Professor Hu’s case, and Phill could not ask for anything better. Judge Thomas Varlan right from the beginning was open. He looked at the pre-trial motions where Phil set off the facts and arguments. The judge was open to waiting to see the evidence at trial - whether what Phil said in his papers really came true through the witnesses’ testimonies. The judge paid attention and was very much on point with everything in his memorandum opinion, granting the rule 29 motion by tracking the trial. Basically, Judge Varlan found there was no preponderance of the evidence to convince a jury that Professor Hu was guilty even given in a light most favorable to the government. The government did not provide sufficient evidence of guilt. The judge found two reasons why Professor Hu was innocent of wire fraud. The first being that there was insufficient evidence to show that he intended to deceive NASA, or fraudulently represent a material fact to NASA, that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that. The second theory Phil had propounded was that there was no damage or Professor Hu did not intend to injure NASA. Phil found a case law supporting the theory that if NASA is not damaged, or if Professor Hu was not taking property or money from NASA, or intended to take property and money from NASA, he could not be convicted of wire fraud. Phil cited a case out of the 11-th Circuit that held if there is no harm there is no foul, so to speak. It was a district court judge who is sitting on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. So it would have been Judge Varlan’s boss if he disagreed with that theory. That was another blessing that God provided, Phil said. Without the proof that Professor Hu knowingly and intentionally tried to deceive NASA, the last three counts of false statements were also not supported by evidence. If he did not intend to deceive NASA, then he did not intend to make false statements. Under Rule 29, the judge granted an acquittal on all six counts of the indictment. The last email Phil received from the government said that they were still trying to figure out their appeal options, which Phil did not think they had any, but he would see what they would say. They had a few days to absorb what had happened to make a statement officially in court if they were going to. Phil was very happy with Professor Hu for being a trooper all the way through this process. Professor Hu did not waver to prove his innocence. And that is the kind of client Phil likes – those who are innocent although it is the most stressful type of representation. Phil wishes all his clients had two PhDs, which would be a lot more helpful. Ivy Yang, wife of Professor Hu, followed Phil and expressed gratitude on behalf of their family including three children. The broad support they have received gave them comfort and inspiration to fight against injustice with determination and faith. History is made by people who are the true patriots of this country. Ivy thanked Phil as their beloved attorney and a wise and humble man. History was made by Phil, the jury, Jamie Satterfield, Judge Varlan, CAPAC, APA Justice, AAJC, United Chinese Americans, Asian American Scholar Forum, Committee of Concerned Scientists, American Association of University Professors, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and many, many more persons and organizations. For everyone who made donations, provided encouragement, and watched the case closely, Ivy thanked them for providing the strength for her family to continue the fight. She said Anming is an ordinary passionate scientist who only wanted to perform his research and to contribute his talents to the academic world. What has happened in the past years has damaged his career and reputation that was built over many years of tremendous unbelievable hard work. Although their lives have been forever changed and they are not sure of what the future holds, they will be forever thankful for the selfless actions of individuals who believed and supported them throughout the entire journey despite the backlash, oppression, and fear of injustice. Professor Hu concluded with his brief comments. It was still too challenging for him to find the proper words and no words would be adequate to express his deep appreciation for what so many have done for him. The scars and the painful memories are still there in his heart. For now, he preferred to remain silent and let Phil speak on the case and Ivy to speak for the family. Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University (AAUP), also spoke at the meeting. 2021/12/18 AASF Webinar On December 18, 2021, the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) hosted a webinar titled “The China Initiative and Professor Anming Hu’s Case.” Margaret K. Lewis, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law, served as moderator. Featured speakers were: Dr. Anming Hu, Associate Professor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville Mara Hvistendahl, Investigative reporter with The Intercept and the author of the book The Scientist and the Spy: A True Story of China, the FBI, and Industrial Espionage, on a case that foreshadowed the China Initiative Jamie Satterfield, Investigative journalist with more than 33 years of experience, specializing in legal affairs, policing, public corruption, environmental crime and civil rights violations Additional speakers included: Steven Pei, Asian American Scholar Forum Phil Lomonaco, defense attorney Wendy Chandler, former juror of the first trial Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors Mara Hvistendahl led off with historical context of targeting Chinese Americans dating back to the Second Red Scare and Dr. Qian Xuesen to the recent cases of Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi prior to the launch of the China Initiative. For the first time since his acquittal, Professor Hu talked in detail about his experience and thoughts of his ordeal. Jamie Satterfield, despite not being originally assigned to the case, described her investigative reporting. Her invaluable reports significantly impacted public understanding and perception of Professor Hu’s case in Tennessee and nationwide. Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case” A week after the first trial was declared to be a mistrial, on June 23, 2021, the Intercept published an interview with Wendy Chandler, a juror who served on the hung jury. When Chandler was called to serve on a federal jury in Tennessee, she trusted the prosecutors and the FBI. She was known only as Juror 44 in the case. She knew she had to keep an open mind. But surely there would be some merit to what the FBI had found, she thought. The government wouldn’t waste everyone’s time. “I walked in assuming the government had some reason to be there, assuming that they were coming at it with honesty and integrity,” she told Mara Hvistendahl in the first interview given by a juror in the case. “I assumed the best for them.” Chandler understood the complexity and importance of the case and committed to paying close attention, even adjusting her sleep schedule. But as the trial progressed, she grew increasingly skeptical. After six days of hearing witnesses and arguments, she came to a conclusion. “It was the most ridiculous case,” she said. About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” The trial ended in a hung jury. Chandler, one of four women on the all-white jury, was one of the holdouts. She came away believing that the lead FBI agent in the case had pursued the investigation out of ambition rather than an interest in justice. She also believed that when faced with questions from federal agents, the administrators who had advised Hu on his grant applications caved and hastily sacrificed their faculty. “This poor man just got sold down the river by his university and everyone else,” Chandler said. Professor Hu’s case follows a long history of FBI surveillance of ethnic Chinese scientists in the U.S., some of it with disastrous results. In the 1960s, the bureau compiled lists of researchers with ties to China. In the 1980s, agents tailed renowned physicist Chang-Lin Tien, who later became the chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley. In the 1990s, an FBI and Department of Energy investigation into Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee imploded in a series of missteps. “There has been very clear messaging from the Justice Department to the field offices that this is a massive priority and they should take it very seriously,” said Margaret Lewis, a law professor at Seton Hall University. “You combine that with calling it the China Initiative and issues with implicit bias, and you’re creating a recipe for unconscious decision-making to occur in a way that can pull you towards certain people as potential suspects.” In February, civil rights groups, researchers, and others jointly wrote House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Chair Jamie Raskin to request a hearing on investigations of ethnic Asian scientists. Maryland state Sen. Susan C. Lee, who signed the letter, told The Intercept, “We just want some accountability, because you’re talking about people’s lives.” Prosecutors tried to paint Professor Hu as duplicitous. In closing arguments, assistant U.S. attorney Casey Arrowood asserted, “He intentionally hid his ties to China to further his career. This case, ladies and gentlemen, is just that simple.” Professor Hu’s attorney had a different view. “This case is really embarrassing,” Lomonaco countered. “It makes me want to vomit.” The jury began deliberating that afternoon, June 14. It was clear to Chandler from the outset that the jurors didn’t agree. By the end of the day, after three hours of deliberations, they had not reached a verdict. Driving home that night, she burst into tears. “I was so scared for this man,” she recalled. The trial had left her with the feeling that the government was charging Professor Hu to justify its lengthy investigation. “They spent all this time and money on this big giant nothing burger, and they were not going to leave without a pound of flesh.” The jury resumed deliberations on June 16 and discussed the case for the entire day. At 4:45 p.m., the foreperson reported to the court that they were deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. After she was dismissed from jury duty, Chandler found Professor Hu’s GoFundMe page, which his wife started to cover his legal fees, and donated $20. She believes the government now owes Professor Hu an apology and that the University of Tennessee should offer him his job back. As Chandler put it, “He deserves so much, this man, with what was done to him.” Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out Soon after the acquittal of Professor Hu, Professor Mary McAlpin, President of the UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Distinguished Professor of the Humanities and Professor of French at UTK, spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021. AAUP is a nonprofit membership association of faculty and other academic professionals. Headquartered in Washington, DC, AAUP members and chapters based at colleges and universities across the country. Founded in 1915, AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country's colleges and universities. AAUP defines fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, advance the rights of academics, particularly as those rights pertain to academic freedom and shared governance, and promote the interests of higher education teaching and research. AAUP looks into not only questions of tenured professors but also the protection of non-tenure track faculty and graduate teaching assistants. Mary first heard of Professor Hu’s case from Jamie Satterfield’s report in the local newspaper, Knox News. People started posting many messages and questions in the AAUP listserv – What is going on? What happened? Is AAUP looking into this? What is the administration doing? People were upset and confused. Although the case comes down to simple injustice, trying to figure out what happened through reading was a challenge. Professor McAlpin provided a summary of three primary concerns. First was the FBI investigation and how it seemed to be a travesty of justice, which was also what the judge concluded. Second was UTK’s role in this investigation, which was also covered by Jamie Satterfield. One of her articles went into details about how the UTK administration responded to this case. The university is a giant bureaucratic entity, and it protects itself. When an FBI agent comes calling, the university is not there to help or protect the employee. This has happened several times over the course of Professor McAlpin’s career, but it was never in such an egregious and shocking fashion as in Professor Hu’s case. Third was the government's targeting of international faculty. They are particularly vulnerable to losing their employment at UTK which was what happened with Professor Hu. There are many international faculty members working at UTK. Many of Professor McAlpin’s colleagues in the Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures at UTK are on green cards or H1 visas. The international faculty members were probably following this situation very closely, but not speaking out the way that Mary believed she could as a U.S. citizen born in the U.S. and possessing tenure. Mary also said that she was closer to the end than the beginning of her career. As President of AAUP/UTK, she was also speaking for those who might be afraid to speak up, particularly employees who were not citizens at UTK. When the acquittal of Professor Hu came through, Mary and her colleagues were thrilled to hear the news. AAUP/UTK sent an email to UTK Provost John Zomchick, hoping that Professor Hu would be reinstated with back pay and perhaps for emotional and other damages. That was not what happened. Apparently, the university is expecting Professor Hu to demonstrate proof that he was able to work in the U.S. before they would rehire him. The UTK Faculty Senate was leading on this case and trying to figure out what exactly was going on with the reinstatement and the legal issues involved. While Professor McAlpin could not speak to the legality of what happened, the Provost has said that in every case and every situation surrounding this case, the UTK administration followed both the letter and the spirit of the faculty handbook. Even if the letter was followed, Professor McAlpin was not sure the spirit of the faculty handbook was followed in this case. From what Professor McAlpin could piece together, Professor Hu was indicted by the federal government. At that point the UTK administration put Professor Hu first on paid and then on unpaid suspension. According to the faculty handbook, the UT administration did not have to put Profdssor. Hu on unpaid suspension. For example, he could have been reassigned to another job unrelated to the indictment that was in play. It was a choice made to put Professor Hu on unpaid leave. Then, because Professor Hu was on unpaid leave, he no longer qualified for the H1B visa, with which he was working and at which point they fired Professor Hu not for cause, but because he did not have an H1B visa, which he did not have because they suspended him without pay, which they did not have to do. Mary observed that UTK basically triggered their own ability to fire Professor Hu because they probably did not want to deal with the legal fallout of the indictment. From what Mary understood at that time, Provost Zomchick was saying that UTK would rehire Professor Hu but he had to prove that he was eligible to work in the U.S., which would mean having a visa, which was lost precisely because the UTK administration suspended him. This is a catch-22 Kafka situation. The faculty members at UTK and perhaps the Faculty Senate were not going to stop pushing on this issue. This is a clear travesty of justice, and it had been continued unfortunately at the level of the university even after the acquittal of Professor Hu. The Role of UTK APA Justice constructed a timeline on the chronological events at UTK. [subject to review and confirmation by Professor Hu.] In March 2018, about nine months before the launch of the China Initiative, the FBI opened an economic espionage investigation on Professor Hu. FBI and Department of Energy (DOE) made at least four presentations to UTK officials prior to the indictment of Professor Hu. After a mistrial was declared, Knox News published How the FBI manipulated the University of Tennessee to find a Chinese spy who didn't exist on July 29, 2021, raising a detailed list of questions about the university’s treatment of Professor Hu. "The trial also revealed that UT administrators handed over documents from Hu’s university files without a warrant, concealed the federal investigation from him, misled NASA at the behest of a federal agent, set Hu up for his eventual arrest and fired him as soon as he was in handcuffs... It’s still not clear who at UT authorized meetings in 2018 between Hu’s bosses and federal agents or why. Chancellor Beverly Davenport was fired in July 2018 after a tumultuous tenure of less than 19 months, and System President Joe DiPietro announced his resignation two months later... The agents, testimony has revealed, didn’t have any proof of wrongdoing by Hu when they first walked onto UT’s campus and, therefore, no legal authority to take records from his personnel files," Knox News reported. On August 4, 2021, UTK Provost John Zomchick issued a message to the UTK faculty, responding to UTK Faculty Senate President Lou Gross' questions regarding the faculty rights of Professor Hu. President Gross posted his questions and notes under "Faculty Member Suspension Issue" on his web page at https://bit.ly/3Cr67F1 . Citing that the university administration followed the letter and spirit of the Faculty Handbook at every stage, Provost Zomchick provided a timeline of administrative actions taken regarding Professor Hu’s tenured faculty appointment from suspension on February 25, 2020, to termination on October 8, 2020. There were three versions of the Faculty Handbook online: 2016, 2019, and 2021. The handbook says the Faculty Senate President should be consulted when the administration is considering suspending a tenured faculty member. "That did not really happen," said Dr. Gross. "The then-faculty senate president was simply informed." "I have made it clear, and our current provost has agreed, what consultation means," Dr. Gross told Knox News. "Consultation means that there will be time to actually look at the details of a particular situation and provide meaningful input from the faculty senate president." One day after Professor Hu was acquitted of all charges, on September 10, 2021, UTK Chancellor Dr. Donde Plowman informed Dr. Gross and Dr. Beauvais Lyons, Faculty Representative on the UTK Advisory Board, that if Professor Hu "is able to verify authorization to work in the United States in the next year, the administrative termination will be reversed, and his faculty appointment will be reinstated with expectations in place around disclosures and outside interests." In response , Dr. Gross expressed concern that Dr. Plowman's letter was inconsistent with the UTK Faculty Handbook, which states that "full restitution of salary, academic position and tenure lost during the suspension without pay will be made." Dr. Gross also described an apparent catch-22 situation "because Professor Hu lost his work authorization due to UTK action so it is not clear that he can possibly re-attain work authorization without first having his position and employment here restored." In his separate response, Dr. Lyons urged UTK to take steps to reinstate Professor Hu to his faculty position. "This is not only about doing what is right, but damage control for our institutional reputation," he wrote. On September 13, 2021, Dr. Lyons and the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee which he chaired sent a memorandum including a set of 10 questions for UTK Provost Dr. John Zomchick to address at an upcoming Faculty Senate meeting. The UTK Senate Faculty held a public meeting on September 20, 2021. UTK faculty were also concerned with the lack of notice that Professor Hu received about the investigation. UTK administrators gave the U.S. Attorney’s Office documents from Professor Hu’s university files without a warrant, and they were not obligated to notify Hu. “In a world of data privacy, this is a great concern to everyone," Dr. Gross said. UTK faculty members were also upset with the lack of public support the university showed Professor Hu. According to the memo from the faculty affairs committee to the provost, the university did not make a statement specifically in support of Chinese and Chinese American communities. On October 14, 2021, Dr. Zomchick offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated On July 29, 2022, the White House announced the nomination of Casey T. Arrowood to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Arrowood led the prosecution of Professor Hu. “This is ridiculous,” Professor Hu said of the Arrowood nomination In an interview in August 2022. “This is the worst presidential nomination ever. I am shocked at this news.” Professor Hu said President Joe Biden should rescind the nomination and, if not, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary should reject Arrowood as a candidate for the post. “My case was a case of wrongful prosecution, and I believe (if Arrowood is confirmed) similar things will happen again and will damage long term the U.S. (government’s) reputation,” Professor Hu said. “If you do something wrong, you should have consequences. Instead, (Arrowood) is getting rewarded. It is very unfair. I do not think this is a reasonable nomination.” After the story was published, a slew of advocacy groups, including APA Justice, Asian American Scholar Forum, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and United Chinese Americans, teamed up with Professor Hu to defeat Arrowood’s nomination. “The nomination of Mr. Arrowood is an affront to the Asian American, immigrant and scientific communities,” the groups stated in a letter-writing campaign notice . “It opens a new wound when we still need to heal from the targeting and fallout before and during the ‘China Initiative.’” “Mr. Arrowood’s wrongful prosecution of Professor Hu betrayed the public trust and confidence we all place in our judicial system,” the letter stated. Mr. Arrowood demonstrated his poor judgment, wasted valuable taxpayers’ dollars, failed to uphold justice and fairness, and eroded public trust. “His unjust prosecution of Professor Hu, not once but twice, is deplorable and an embarrassment to our nation,” the letter continued. “In summary, Mr. Arrowood’s track record does not meet the high requirements and expectations for a U.S. Attorney. We strongly support Professor Hu’s request for the withdrawal of the nomination of Mr. Casey Arrowood to be the next U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.” The Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on the Arrowood nomination when the Senate session ended in January 2023. The White House did not renominate Arrowood. Continuing Education and Advocacy Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #195: 6/5 Meeting; Voting Assistance; Stand With Asian Americans; Houston Safety #195: 6/5 Meeting; Voting Assistance; Stand With Asian Americans; Houston Safety In This Issue #195 2023/06/05 Monthly Meeting Summary Posted Asian Americans Feel Particularly Targeted By New Laws Criminalizing Those Who Assist Voters No Longer Suffering In Silence: Asian Americans Denied Tech Leadership Roles Go To Court Houston Town Hall Meetings on Asiatown Community Safety 2023/06/05 Monthly Meeting Summary Posted The June 5, 2023, APA Justice monthly meeting summary has been posted at https://bit.ly/42N0htX . We thank the following speakers for their updates and discussions: Casey Lee , Policy Advisor, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), provided updates on the Preemption of Real Property Discrimination Act introduced by Reps. Al Green and Judy Chu and uplifted a primer on the alien land law issue that was published by Edgar Chen , Special Policy Advisor, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. Joanna Derman , Director of the Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights and National Security Program, gave updates on three Advancing Justice | AAJC activities: (a) messaging guidance and suggested talking points on how to frame conversations and policy work related to US-China strategic competition, (b) tracking all discriminatory land laws being introduced across the country, and (c) bill analysis guide on US-China legislation and determine its potential for immediate harm. Mary Tablante , Associate Director of Strategic Communications, Asian American Scholar Forum, gave updates on three activities: (a) a video series titled “Project Pioneer” with the National Science Foundation on contributions of Asian American and immigrant pioneers to the US and the world, (b) meetings with the Biden Administration to educate and give voice to issues of concern from the scholar community, and (c) convening an event in partnership with the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies on presidential appointments in the Federal Government. Elizabeth Goitein , Senior Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, gave a briefing on the history, problems, and ongoing legislative battle over the reauthorization of section 702 of FISA. Section 702 authorizes warrantless surveillance. It is supposed to target only foreigners overseas, but for the last 15 years it has become a rich source of warrantless access to American’s communications - their emails, their phone calls, their text messages - in a way that completely undermines Congress's intent and Americans’ constitutional rights. Asian Americans and Chinese Americans in particular are extremely likely to be victims of these types of abuses. The Brennan Center's position is that Congress should not reauthorize Section 702 without significant, sweeping reforms. In the case of Professor Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星 , a physics professor at Temple University, he was prosecuted based on false charges that he had shared secret information about superconductor technology. Those charges were the result of the Government's misreading of emails that the Government had intercepted. The Government ultimately had to drop the charges, but only after significant damage to Dr. Xi and his family. Dr. Xi has filed suit against the Government. In that suit, he alleges that the Government accesses emails using Section 702. Clay Zhu 朱可亮 , Partner, DeHeng Law Offices 德恒律师事务所; Founder, Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (CALDA) 华美维权同盟, gave an update on the lawsuit led by the legal team of CALDA, ACLU, AALDELF, and a law firm against the discriminatory Florida Senate Bill 264 which was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis into law on May 22. The legal team was working on a motion for preliminary injunction. The legal team has received tremendous support from organizations and communities. It shows our communities have realized that this is something we need to take a stand. Clay has also received tremendous support from sister and partner organizations and is monitoring the situations in other states. There is a lot of community efforts happening in Texas and Florida by Professor Steven Pei 白先慎 and many other people and Texas-based organizations lobbying the legislature and voicing our opposition to the bills. Ashley Gorski , Senior Staff Attorney, National Security Project, ACLU, commented that it is essential that we do all that we can to stop this Florida bill in its tracks to prevent copycat litigation from going forward and to work alongside so many community organizations that have been doing the hard work of advocating directly with the legislatures to try to stop these bills from going into effect. Ashley underscores that this law is stigmatizing and discriminatory just by virtue of it being in the books. People's lives are very concretely affected by this law going into effect. They risk losing deposits on the property that they have already contracted. If this law goes into effect, they are going to lose out on the opportunity to purchase that property. A real estate brokerage firm has already seen a decline in prospective clients and expects to lose a significant percentage of its business because of this law. Bethany Li , Legal Director, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), commented that the work that we are doing here on this case is very much in line with the China initiatives that we have done in the past, such as with the South Asian and Muslim community after 9/11. Asian American communities have been targeted for being national security threats and harmed. Throughout the call today, we are hearing not just the alien land law passed in Florida and the ones that we continue to monitor, but also a lot of the surveillance issues that have affected Asian American communities across the board as well as communities of color. One of the ways in which we try to approach our work against violence in Asian American communities is to pay closer attention to how the United States and different states enact laws and policies at different levels contribute to that violence, despite their rhetoric about wanting to protect and support Asian American communities from violence. Haipei Shue 薛海培 , President, United Chinese Americans, reported from Florida where he convened a two-day statewide retreat with the Chinese American community leaders to summarize what they have learned and how to move forward on community matters. With the sudden appearance of the alien land bill, the participants not only saw the bill firsthand, but many were also actively involved in fighting it. About 60 people from six major cities in Florida attended the retreat in Orlando. A new 501(c)(4) organization was born out of this protest movement. The name is Florida Asian American Justice Alliance (FAAJA). At the same time, Chinese American communities in Louisiana and Alabama are still fighting against the bills that impact their lives in their states. The alien land bills impact the Chinese community countrywide. UCA will have similar retreats in other states that have been affected by such laws and prepare for next year, a presidential election year. Participants from California, Georgia, North and South Carolina to Florida. have joined weekly meetings started by Texas state representative Gene Wu every Sunday evening since February. Gene Wu 吳元之 , Member, Texas House of Representatives, saw how angry the community has become because of the importance of the alien land bills, massive organizational efforts, and some real key leaders stepping up to fill the gap. That was how the Texas bills were defeated. The real key was the community’s participation. It is very clear in other states like Louisiana and Florida, they did not have a strong Asian presence in the legislative body. Gene was glad to see in many other states, African American legislators just stood up and took the lead in defending against some of these bills. We need more national leadership on this issue because this issue is not going away. This is an existential crisis for the Asian community and especially for the Chinese community. We have periods and waves of anti-Chinese, anti-Asian sentiment in our nation's history, but this is one of the strongest pushes against our community that Gene has ever seen. Either we stand up and fight, or it is game over. The laws are just the tip of the wave, the crest of the coming wave is anti-Asian hate. There is a perfect storm of Covid, of tensions with China, and economic factors that are going to create the right environment for dramatically increased anti-Asian hate. It should be incumbent upon all Asian communities to start a campaign nationally that this is wrong. It is racist to hold Asian Americans responsible for what happens in other parts of the world when you don't do that to anybody else. We need to engage our media celebrities. We need to engage elected officials. We need to engage the President. We need to engage a lot of other groups to push back against this. A part of this is also fighting these bills at the national level. Read the 6/5 meeting summary: https://bit.ly/46GI6ZO . Watch the 6/5 meeting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBYYQipLmis (1:36:15). Read past monthly meeting summaries: https://bit.ly/3kxkqxP Asian Americans Feel Particularly Targeted By New Laws Criminalizing Those Who Assist Voters According to the Associated Press (AP) on July 7, 2023, for a century, the League of Women Voters in Florida formed bonds with marginalized residents by helping them register to vote — and, in recent years, those efforts have extended to the growing Asian American and Asian immigrant communities. But a state law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May would have forced the group to alter its strategy. The legislation would have imposed a $50,000 fine on third-party voter registration organizations if the staff or volunteers who handle or collect the forms have been convicted of a felony or are not U.S. citizens.A federal judge blocked the provision. The NAACP and other groups that register voters sued the state over provisions in a larger elections bill Republican Gov. DeSantis signed on the same day he announced he is running for president. its passage reflects the effort by DeSantis and other GOP leaders to crack down on access to the ballot.“If there’s not access, in terms of language, we can’t get to as many people, which particularly affects AAPI voters,” Executive Director Leah Nash of the League of Women Voters said, referring to the state’s Asian American and Pacific Island population, which has grown rapidly and where more than 30% of adults have limited English proficiency.In states where penalties are getting tougher, the developments have sowed fear and confusion among groups that provide translators, voter registration help and assistance with mail-in balloting — roles that voting rights advocates say are vital for Asian communities in particular.“It’s specifically targeting limited English proficiency voters, and that includes AAPI voters,” said Meredyth Yoon , litigation director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice in Atlanta.In Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill in June that raises the penalty for illegal voting to a felony, upping it from a misdemeanor charge that was part of a sweeping elections law passed two years earlier. Alice Yi , who is Chinese American, used to help translate in Austin, Texas, but said the new law isn’t clear about whether good faith mistakes will be criminalized and worries that she could get into trouble by offering assistance. Ashley Cheng , the founding president of Asian Texans for Justice, recalls discovering her mother was not listed in the voter rolls when she tried to help her vote in 2018. They never found out why she wasn’t properly registered. Advocates say this highlights flaws in the system and illustrates how volunteers are essential to overcoming them. Farha Ahmed , an attorney in Texas, said the increased liability in helping these marginalized communities access the ballot box forced her to decide against continuing as an election judge, a position that administers voting procedures and settles disputes concerning election laws. “There’s not a lot of resources and there’s not a lot of protection,” said Ahmed. “Election judges want to help make it easy for people to vote, but with these new laws in place, they’re very unsure of where is their liability when they’re really just trying to do their best to help.”A section of Georgia’s 2021 election bill made it a misdemeanor to offer a voter any money or gifts at polling places, a provision that included passing out water and snacks for those waiting in lines. Attempts to get a court to toss out the ban on snacks and water have so far been unsuccessful. James Woo , the communications director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, said he won’t even get his parents a drink of water while helping them with their ballots.Read the AP report: https://bit.ly/3NM9z3s No Longer Suffering In Silence: Asian Americans Denied Tech Leadership Roles Go To Court According to USA Today on July 6, 2023, Vaishnavi Jayakumar joined Facebook and Instagram owner Meta after stints at Disney, Google and Twitter in January 2020. Her job on the youth policy team was to protect children and teens from bullying, harassment and other forms of abuse. But Jayakumar – an Asian American originally from Singapore – says she couldn’t shield herself from racial bias on the job. Soon after inquiring how she could move up at Meta, Jayakumar says her supervisor began leaving her out of opportunities and initiatives that used to be in her scope and “layering” her under less experienced employees. Despite years of experience and positive feedback as a team player, Jayakumar says her supervisor told her she was not senior or collaborative enough to be promoted, according to a complaint Jayakumar filed with California’s Civil Rights Department.While her workload and responsibilities increased, Jayakumar says her performance ratings began to slip. “I've never felt more keenly that as an Asian woman, I'm destined to be a worker, I'm not destined to be a leader,” she said in an interview. “And that's an awful feeling... The generations of men and women before us had to suffer in silence. I don't think any one of us wants this to continue for a minute longer than it already has.”Jayakumar is one of a growing number of Asian Americans in the tech industry breaking their silence and going public with charges of discrimination and retaliation. In a series of recently filed lawsuits, they say that racial biases spanning decades in Silicon Valley that typecast Asian Americans as worker bees have shut them out of management and executive positions with greater power, profile and pay.Research shows that Asian Americans are the most likely to be hired in professional roles yet the least likely of all racial groups to break into tech company leadership. At Meta, 46% of employees were Asian American in 2021, but just 27% of executives. White employees, on the other hand, accounted for 39% of Meta's workforce but 58% of its executives.“The tech industry has made progress in becoming more racially diverse in its workforce but has made virtually no progress in becoming more racially equitable in its leadership pipeline,” said Buck Gee , an executive adviser to Ascend Foundation, the nation’s largest network of Asian American professionals. Asian Americans are left out of diversity discussions and initiatives because there is a perception that they don’t face adversity in the workplace when, in fact, the economic realities for Asians and Asian Americans vary greatly, particularly for those in low-wage and low-opportunity jobs on H-1B visas, said Pawan Dhingra , president of the Association for Asian American Studies president and a professor at Amherst College. “Asians are seen as an immigrant group that in many ways is doing pretty well," Dhingra said. "There is not a major movement to worry about the plight of Asian Americans outside of hate crimes on the street.”That began to change with the groundswell of anti-Asian hate and violence during the COVID pandemic. Participation in employee resource groups and workplace activism surged. More Asian Americans began calling out workplace bias, even in the insular tech industry. “The pandemic really galvanized the community, especially those of us in tech, because I think we all saw that what was happening in the streets was happening in the workplace,” said Jack Song , who advises tech startups on their communications and branding. Song says he was inspired to share his story publicly by Justin Zhu , the ex-CEO of tech startup Iterable who is suing his former company and co-founded the nonprofit organization Stand with Asian Americans to help others in a similar situation. Zhu says he filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation after he says he was fired for raising complaints about anti-Asian discrimination. Not everyone has the resources to fight back, Zhu says. So Stand with Asian Americans is launching a workplace justice initiative."A core purpose of the workplace justice initiative is to show that you are not alone in fighting racism in the workplace. We connect people with survivors who have faced discrimination, give moral support, give legal support and we help them tell their story so they can get the support they need in this David vs. Goliath fight," he told USA Today . Ben Huynh says his troubles began in May 2022 when he was promoted into the management ranks at software company Coda. Huynh says he didn’t get a pay increase with the promotion unlike his peers and believed he was earning less than his peers. So he complained to human resources. “Despite the quality of my work, once I had spoken out, the gates began closing around me,” said Huynh, who is Vietnamese American. “I felt iced out and like a pariah.” “There's a shift because people are seeing that they have to take action or things will not change,” said Huynh, who filed a lawsuit against Coda in June, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on race. “If we want to see something change, we have to do something about it.”But with the industry roiled by large-scale layoffs that are disproportionately affecting people of color, the decision to act can be fraught, said attorney Charles Jung . Asian Americans often worry that no one will have their back if they come forward, said Jung, a name partner with Nassiri & Jung. The few Asians who make it to the top seem hesitant to rock the boat or bring up diversity issues, he said.Jung’s client Andre Wong , who is Chinese American, says he found out firsthand the consequences of speaking out in an industry where anti-Asian bias is rarely acknowledged. Wong, who worked at Lumentum for more than 20 years, says he led the development of the company’s most profitable product line and helped the company expand into new markets.In 2021, Wong says he helped start the Asian Employee Resource group which obtained demographic data showing that while 60% of Lumentum’s U.S. workforce is Asian, senior executives were mostly white, with less than 15% of them Asian. In May 2022, Wong said he was given a “glass cliff” assignment – a role that women and minorities are handed with little chance of success – as the only non-white employee on a team. He says he accepted the assignment with assurances he would soon be considered for a promotion to senior vice president. Instead, he was terminated in December. Wong is suing Lumentum for $20 million in damages. He says he would donate a big chunk of any award he receives to the cause of fighting anti-Asian discrimination. “Asian Americans are the engine behind all these tech companies. Many of these technical teams are almost exclusively Asian American employees. But the leadership in strategic or business positions are not minorities," Wong said. "When you finally step back and see it, it’s so stark.” Read the USA Today report: https://bit.ly/3D4mCsk Houston Town Hall Meetings on Asiatown Community Safety According to Houston Public Media on July 7, 2023, Houston police said they are still looking for a second suspect involved in a shooting robbery that led to a restaurant worker being hospitalized. During a townhall meeting in Houston’s Asiatown in the evening of July 6, police said they arrested the first suspect in the robbery of Holam Cheng , who was shot four times, but still need help on finding the second. The meeting was held to address concerns of crime in the community, especially after Cheng was shot. The meeting was attended by U.S. Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green , Texas state representative Gene Wu , Chief Troy Finner and Assistant Chief Ben Tien .Throughout the meeting community members discussed concerns with their own experiences. One speaker claimed he and his sister were the victims of a hate crime, but they have yet to get a case number from police on it. “I ended up with concussion, my sister ended up in the hospital with life threatening injuries, she spent a couple of weeks in the hospital. And I’ve reported it to the police and our investigator,” he said. “He refused to contact the perpetrators, three white men. And he refused to interview them.”Finner said he would make sure that he got a case number and would personally look into the case.Other speakers said they wanted the department to increase officers patrolling in Asiatown, and address language barriers when reporting crimes. Finner warned the community that some see them as a target, and to be vigilant.Read the Houston Public Media report: https://bit.ly/43ciTDD Asian residents in Houston demand more bilingual officers to fight crime The second townhall was held in the morning of July 8 at the Chinese Civic Center. HPD Assistant Police Chief Yasar Bashir , Houston Fire Chief Samuel Pena , representation from HCSO, U.S. Congressional Members Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green , Texas State Senator John Whitmire , Stafford City Council member Alice Chen attended. The discussion was led by Texas State Representative Gene Wu .According Fox26 on July 8, 2023, Asian residents in Houston are concerned about crime in their community and are calling for more bilingual officers to help them feel safe. Residents said in the meeting they are worried about the recent violent crime in the Asiatown area. They specifically cited the case of Holam Cheng , who police say was robbed and shot six times on June 25.According to an update from GoFundMe , "my father has woken up thankfully. He has been undergoing many surgeries and will be continuing to. Thank you everyone for the blessings and support. We will share updates whenever possible."Read and watch the Fox26 report: https://bit.ly/3D30Rc2 Back View PDF July 10, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Van Andel Research Previous Item Next Item