Newsletter - #155 Special Edition: Justice for Sherry Chen with Historic Settlement #155 Special Edition: Justice for Sherry Chen with Historic Settlement Back View PDF November 15, 2022 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #137 East Tennessee US Attorney; Chinese Student Visas Plummet; Denver History; Opinion #137 East Tennessee US Attorney; Chinese Student Visas Plummet; Denver History; Opinion Back View PDF August 15, 2022 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #49 House Hearing On Discrimination And Violence Against Asian Americans Today #49 House Hearing On Discrimination And Violence Against Asian Americans Today Back View PDF March 18, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #224 Henry Kissinger; 12/12 Section 702 Briefing; WH Commission/WH Fellows; DETERRENT Act #224 Henry Kissinger; 12/12 Section 702 Briefing; WH Commission/WH Fellows; DETERRENT Act In This Issue #224 · Invited Report: Dr. Kissinger's Passing and the Debate over His One-China Policy · 12/12 Community Briefing on Section 702 of FISA · President's Advisory Commission Renewed; White House Fellows Program Opens · CAPAC Chair Urges Opposition to DETERRENT Act on House Floor · News and Activities for the Communities Invited Report: Dr. Kissinger's Passing and the Debate over His One-China Policy Author: Juan Zhang , Editor, US-China Perception Monitor/ 中美印象, Carter Center, Juan.Zhang@cartercenter.org On November 29, 2023, Dr. Henry Kissinger , former U.S. Secretary of State, passed away at the age of 100. Dr. Kissinger advised 12 U.S. presidents on foreign policy, from President Kennedy to President Biden . The foreign policies he shaped influenced the lives of billions of people worldwide.This is especially true when it comes to China. In the early 1970s, Dr. Kissinger, with a strategic vision and great wisdom, opened the door for China to engage with the United States. China has since changed profoundly. The one-China policy and strategic ambiguity toward cross-strait was at the heart of the China policy that Dr. Kissinger and his aides crafted. This policy has helped maintain peace in East Asia for decades, laying the foundation for the region's prosperity.In light of growing competition in US-China relations, the policy of strategic ambiguity has become a point of tension. China hawks explicitly call for arming and defending Taiwan. Even President Biden has “misspoken” four times in recent months that the U.S. will come to Taiwan’s defense if China uses force. Under those noises, some experts and former diplomats have started to voice their support for policies that will and have maintained cross-strait peace. In a recent in-depth interview with the US-China Perception Monitor of the Carter Center, Ambassador Winston Lord , the close aide who accompanied Dr. Kissinger on visiting China in 1970s, shared his view on this question: The bipartisan Taiwan policy of nine American Presidents is one of the greatest diplomatic achievements in recent history, and "strategic ambiguity" is an essential part of that policy. …… To switch to "strategic clarity" would destroy a half-century of "One China" policy, upend our relationship with Beijing, and give Taiwan leaders the green light to take provocative actions, assuring that we would come to their defense in case of conflict, no matter what the origins.(Read the full piece: https://uscnpm.org/2023/11/30/ambassador-winston-lord/ ) Furthermore, three top-notch experts on China/Taiwan published a joint article on Foreign Affairs . In their piece, Bonnie S. Glaser , Jessica Chen Weiss , and Thomas J. Christensen argue that the United States cannot rely solely on deterrence to China. It should use a combination of assurance and deterrence. While strengthening deterrence, the United States should assure China that it will not support Taiwan's independence. At the same time, China must continue to explore peaceful unification means. Those points reflect fundamental elements of the strategic ambiguity policy that Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Lord, and others established decades ago. (Read the full piece: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/taiwan/taiwan-china-true-sources-deterrence ) Community Briefing on Section 702 of FISA WHAT: Webinar - Community Briefing on Section 702 of FISA: Sweeping Reforms to Warrantless Surveillance Initiative WHEN: December 12, 2023, 2-3 pm ET/11-12 noon PT HOSTS: Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), Advancing Justice | AAJC, APA Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) MODERATOR: Eri Andriola , Associate Director of Policy & Litigation, AASF SPEAKERS: · Noah Chauvin, Counsel, Liberty & National Security, Brennan Center for Justice · Joanna YangQing Derman, Director of Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights, and National Security, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez Kusakawa, Executive Director, AASF · Andy Wong, Managing Director of Advocacy, CAA DESCRIPTION: The briefing will feature civil rights, national security, and policy experts, who will break down what Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is and how it impacts Asian American communities. Panelists will discuss the key reform bills at play, including the Government Surveillance Reform Act (GSRA) and the Protecting Liberty and Ending Warrantless Surveillance Act (PLEWSA), and how the Asian American community and advocates can get involved on this issue. REGISTRATION: https://bit.ly/41ejxkG Breaking News: NBC News reported on December 6, 2023, that lawmakers have reached an agreement to temporarily extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The agreement to reauthorize FISA through April 2024 is part of bipartisan and bicameral negotiations over a path forward for the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Read the NBC News report: https://nbcnews.to/3Nho4Nv Earlier on December 5, 2023, a post on X, previously Tweeter, by Punchbowl News reported that House Speaker Mike Johnson nixed (more permanent) reauthorization of Section 702 in the NDAA. Read the X post: https://bit.ly/47Mdvdj President's Advisory Commission Renewed; White House Fellows Program Opens On September 29, 2023, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14109 to renew the President's Advisory Commission through September 2025. The action also amends Executive Order 14031 to provide commissioners with new authorities to more effectively communicate their work with the public. Established in May 2021, and co-chaired by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra and U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Katherine Tai , the 25-member Commission of AA and NHPI leaders advises the President on ways the public, private and non-profit sectors can work together to advance equity, justice, and opportunity for AA and NHPI communities. Read the White House announcement: https://bit.ly/3T8P2un White House Fellows Program Opens Applications for the Class of 2024-2025 White House Fellows Program is now open through 3:00 p.m. ET on Friday, January 5, 2024. You can apply here now: https://bit.ly/3OGlwb1 . Individual registration is required. On December 7, 2023, starting at 8 pm ET, the White House Initiative on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (WHIAANHPI) will host an online event for the public to learn how to apply, explore selection criteria, and ask for advice directly from Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander alumni panelists. Register for "An Introduction to the White House Fellows Program" here: https://bit.ly/3RbsAxZ Meet The AANHPI Team at The White House From left to right: · Krystal Ka‘ai , Executive Director, White House Initiative on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders · Neera Tanden , Senior Advisor to the President and White House Staff Secretary · Erika L. Moritsugu , Deputy Assistant to the President and AA and NHPI Senior Liaison · Philip Kim , Senior Advisor, White House Office of Public Engagement They were introduced by Hannah Y. Kim , Asia-Pacific policy adviser to the White House Chief of Staff, in a video celebrating the Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month during the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 1, 2023. A summary for the monthly meeting has been posted at https://bit.ly/3RwbRa0 . Other speakers at the meeting were · Nisha Ramachandran, Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, nisha.ramachandran@mail.house.gov · John Yang 杨重远, President and Executive Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Kusakawa, Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), gpkusakawa@aasforum.org · Brenna Isman , Director of Academy Studies, National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) · Paula Williams Madison, Former Print and TV Journalist, Retired NBCUniversal executive CAPAC Chair Urges Opposition to DETERRENT Act on House Floor According to a press release by the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) on December 6, 2023, CAPAC Chair Rep. Judy Chu (CA-28) took to the House Floor to urge her colleagues to vote in opposition to H.R. 5933 , the DETERRENT Act.Her remarks as delivered:“As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I rise in strong opposition to the DETERRENT Act.“The DETERRENT Act would burden higher education institutions and federal agencies by needlessly complicating existing research security measures. Further, the bill would impose unreasonably expansive reporting requirements on individual researchers. What is worst is that it would broadcast their personal information on public databases, therefore casting a chilling effect disproportionately on the Asian American academic community.“From the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II to racial profiling of Chinese American scientists under the failed China Initiative, countless Asian Americans have had their lives destroyed because our government falsely accused them of being spies. Already, seventy two percent of Asian American academic researchers report feeling unsafe. “Safeguarding national security can be done through commonsense reforms that Democrats have offered that don’t come at the expense of U.S. scientific innovation, global collaboration, and the Asian American community. In fact, Congressmember Bobby Scott has submitted such an amendment that is a commonsense reform. In the meanwhile, this bill, the DETERRENT Act, is a bill that I urge all my colleagues to vote no on.” News and Activities for the Communities APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2023/12/06 1882 Foundation Lecture and Reception: We are Americans 2023/12/07 An Introduction to The White House Fellows Program2023/12/10 Rep. Gene Wu 's Weekly town hall meeting 2023/12/12 Community Briefing on Section 702 of FISA2023/12/17 Rep. Gene Wu 's Weekly town hall meeting Visit https://bit.ly/45KGyga for event details. Back View PDF December 7, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #263 Return of Anming Hu; AAJC on Land Laws; Spying on USPS Mail; Vincent Chin's Legacy; + #263 Return of Anming Hu; AAJC on Land Laws; Spying on USPS Mail; Vincent Chin's Legacy; + In This Issue #263 · The Return of Exonerated Professor Anming Hu · Advancing Justice | AAJC Speaks Up on Discriminatory Land Laws · WP : Law Enforcement is Spying on Thousands of Americans' Mail · FBI Released 602 Pages of Its Vincent Chin Files · News and Activities for the Communities The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held via Zoom today, July 1, 2024, starting at 1:55 pm ET. In addition to Nisha Ramachandran , Joanna YangQing Derman , and Gisela Perez Kusakawa . confirmed invited speakers include Neal Lane , Kei Koizumi , Xiaoxing Xi , and Karla Hagan . Please register to attend. The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Steven Pei 白先慎 , Vincent Wang 王文奎 , and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . The Return of Exonerated Professor Anming Hu Professor Anming Hu returned and spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on June 3, 2024. It has been almost three years since he was fully acquitted of all charges against him under the now-defunct China Initiative.Professor Hu was born in China, a naturalized Canadian citizen, and Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK).On February 27, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of Professor Hu. He 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).At the time of his arrest, he was a tenured professor. After his arrest, UTK suspended him without pay and then terminated his employment on October 8, 2020.Professor Hu was the first academic to go to trial under the China Initiative. A mistrial was declared on June 16, 2021, after the jury deadlocked. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan 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," the judge wrote.On October 14, 2021, UTK offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. During the APA Justice monthly meeting on June 6, 2024, Professor Hu provided updates on his situation and his family's well being since his return to UTK. He expressed gratitude to his attorney Phil Lomonaco , members of the UTK Faculty Senate, Congressional representatives, CAPAC, and various Asian American justice organizations for their support.Professor Hu spent a year rebuilding his lab with startup support from the university's leadership. He acquired new equipment and repaired old, damaged devices. Despite recovering about 95% of his equipment, nearly 50% were malfunctioning and 30% were completely damaged.With help from collaborators, two of his PhD students graduated in 2022 and 2023.Professor Hu focused on applying for external funds and hiring new students. He secured one federal and one industrial fund, enabling him to hire one new PhD student and two undergraduates. However, his lab size is still only about 30% of its previous capacity, and it may take another one to two years to fully recover.The wrongful prosecution caused significant mental and physical harm to his family. They continue to struggle with sleep issues and anxiety, and Professor Hu sometimes needs medication to sleep. His wife still becomes anxious when receiving phone calls in the afternoon, a reminder of the day Professor Hu was arrested.In the past two years, the family has shared their experience with colleagues, friends, and church groups. Professor Hu also participated in panel discussions on the China Initiative and civil rights. Despite his reinstatement, the US government continued to falsely accuse him of being part of China's Thousand Talents Program. With support from lawyers and Congressional representatives Judy Chu , Ted Lieu , and Jamie Raskin , his U.S. permanent residency was approved in March 2024. Recently, his older son's green card was also approved.A summary for the June 3 APA Justice monthly meeting is being prepared at this time. APA Justice has compiled Professor Hu's story as an impacted scientist under the China Initiative. It is posted for beta review for its content, navigation, and links at https://bit.ly/44V5tOG . Please send your comments and feedback to contact@apajustice.org . Advancing Justice | AAJC Speaks Up on Discriminatory Land Laws During the APA Justice monthly meeting on June 3, 2024, Joanna YangQing Derman , Director, Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights & National Security Program, Advancing Justice | AAJC, reported that John Yang , President and Executive Director of AAJC, testified before the Texas Senate State Affairs Committee on May 29. The hearing addressed three interim charges or topics, one of which was foreign investment in Texas land. John Yang emphasized AAJC’s deep concern about the resurgence of discriminatory land laws under the guise of national security. He underscored the historical context of AAPI discrimination and called for robust research to accurately identify the issues these land laws aim to address. John successfully countered harmful and overbroad anti-China rhetoric that conflates Chinese individuals with the Chinese government. Overall, it was a successful testimony, with special credit to Asian Texans for Justice (ATJ) for facilitating the opportunity and playing a critical role in coordinating the response. John Yang’s written testimony is posted here: https://bit.ly/3zkxgwe . A summary for the June 3 APA Justice monthly meeting is being prepared at this time. WP : Law Enforcement is Spying on Thousands of Americans' Mail According to the Washington Post on June 24, 2024, · The U.S. Postal Service shares mail data with law enforcement without warrants. · More than 60,000 requests have been received since 2015, with a 97% acceptance rate. · A group of senators want judicial oversight, but the chief inspector declined to change the policy. The U.S. Postal Service has shared information from thousands of Americans’ letters and packages with law enforcement every year for the past decade, conveying the names, addresses and other details from the outside of boxes and envelopes without requiring a court order.Postal inspectors say they fulfill such requests only when mail monitoring can help find a fugitive or investigate a crime. But a decade’s worth of records, provided exclusively to The Washington Post in response to a congressional probe, show Postal Service officials have received more than 60,000 requests from federal agents and police officers since 2015, and that they rarely say no.Each request can cover days or weeks of mail sent to or from a person or address, and 97 percent of the requests were approved, according to the data. Postal inspectors recorded more than 312,000 letters and packages between 2015 and 2023, the records show.The IRS, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security were among the top requesters. In a letter in May 2023, a group of eight senators, including Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), urged the agency to require a federal judge to approve the requests and to share more details on the program, saying officials there had chosen to “provide this surveillance service and to keep postal customers in the dark about the fact they have been subjected to monitoring.”In a response earlier this month, the chief postal inspector, Gary Barksdale , declined to change the policy but provided nearly a decade’s worth of data showing that postal inspectors, federal agencies, and state and local police forces made an average of about 6,700 requests a year, and that inspectors additionally recorded data from about another 35,000 pieces of mail a year, on average.The practice, he added, had been legally authorized since 1879, a year after the Supreme Court ruled that government officials needed a warrant before opening any sealed letter.Wyden said in a statement, “These new statistics show that thousands of Americans are subjected to warrantless surveillance each year, and that the Postal Inspection Service rubber stamps practically all of the requests they receive.” He also criticized the agency for “refusing to raise its standards and require law enforcement agencies monitoring the outside of Americans’ mail to get a court order, which is already required to monitor emails and texts.”In their letter last year, the senators said that even the exteriors of mail could be deeply revealing for many Americans, giving clues about the people they talk to, the bills they pay, the churches they attend, the political views they subscribe to and the social causes they support.Read the Washington Post report: https://wapo.st/3Xxr9yO FBI Released 602 Pages of Its Vincent Chin Files Without explanation, the FBI released 602 pages of its files on Vincent Chin during the week of his murder 42 years ago. Helen Zia published an essay at the Vincent Chin Institute about its good, bad, and ugly on June 26, 2024. This is an AI-assisted summary of her essay: The Good · Community Support and Advocacy : The essay highlights the significant support and advocacy from the Asian American community and various organizations in seeking justice for Vincent Chin. · Awareness of Anti-Asian Hate : The release of the FBI documents and the efforts to commemorate Vincent Chin's legacy help raise awareness of anti-Asian hate and the historical context of such violence. · Legacy and Education : The essay emphasizes the importance of educating others about Vincent Chin's case and the ongoing fight against racial prejudice, contributing to a more informed and empathetic society. The Bad · Incomplete Investigation : The FBI documents are incomplete, missing critical details from the Wayne County criminal proceedings and failing to interview key witnesses, which hindered the investigation and justice process. · Inadequate Judicial Response : The essay criticizes the judicial system's response, particularly the sentencing judge's decision to release the attackers on probation and fines, which highlights systemic racial biases. · Media Bias : The essay points out how media coverage at the time failed to grasp or acknowledge the anti-Asian prejudice involved in the case, often casting doubt on the racial motivations behind the crime. The Ugly · Racially Motivated Violence : The brutal attack on Vincent Chin, driven by racial hatred and scapegoating during an economic recession, represents the ugly reality of racially motivated violence and bigotry. · Traumatic Aftermath : The essay describes the trauma endured by Vincent Chin's family and the Asian American community, exacerbated by the lack of justice and recognition from the judicial system. · Enduring Prejudice : The essay underscores the persistent ignorance and harmful stereotypes surrounding Asian Americans, both in the past and present, highlighting the ongoing struggle against racial prejudice and discrimination. Overall, the essay provides a detailed account of the events surrounding Vincent Chin's death, the community's response, and the broader implications for understanding and combating racial hatred. Read Helen Zia's essay: https://bit.ly/4eN4Nzg . Read the 602-page FBI case file: https://bit.ly/3RQobSt Vincent Chin's Legacy on Asian American Activism According to the Washington Post on June 26, 2024, when Vincent Chin , a Chinese American groom-to-be, was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat by two white Detroit autoworkers in 1982, his loved ones’ cries for justice fell on deaf ears. The autoworkers who attacked Vincent Chin did so under the false belief that he was Japanese, attributing the auto industry’s hardships to foreign competition from Japan.It took twelve full days before the media reported his killing — without recognizing the racism involved, remembers Curtis Chin , the nephew of Vincent Chin’s best man. Nine months later, judge Charles Kaufman handed the perpetrators just three years’ probation and a $3,780 fine, reasoning that “These aren’t the kind of men you send to jail.”Despite media silence and a lenient sentence for the perpetrators, Chin's case galvanized Asian Americans to unite across ethnic lines.Today , advocates still ensure that Vincent Chin’s name is never forgotten. In the wake of his death anniversary, and amid increasing xenophobia worldwide, his story provides guiding light for the struggle toward equality.Curtis Chin found his calling in the experience, and instead of taking over Chung’s — his family’s restaurant of five decades — spent the next 30 years elevating Asian American voices as a writer and a filmmaker. In his memoir and his documentary, “Vincent Who?,” Curtis Chin recounts Vincent Chin’s story and the racial animosity of 1980s Detroit.For Helen Zia , an activist who moved to Detroit in 1976 and took up work at an auto plant, Chin’s case laid bare the glaring injustices that Asian Americans faced: “There were two legal organizations in the whole country, one in New York and one in California,” Zia says. “We were in Detroit, and they couldn’t help us.” Zia rallied leaders from Detroit’s Chinatown and local lawyers to support Vincent Chin's mother Lily Chin and co-founded the American Citizens for Justice, which helped secure a federal trial for Vincent Chin. Zia launched the Vincent Chin Institute in 2022 to fill the void Asian American Detroiters found themselves in four decades ago through advocacy, education, and resources for Asian Americans in underserved areas.In the 21st century, the killing of Vincent Chin continues to energize Asian American advocacy and presence. Law students reenact his trial to highlight legal shortcomings. Hollywood has adapted his case into films like “Hold Still, Vincent” and “Who Killed Vincent Chin?”The fear of foreign economic threat parallels modern “anti-China hysteria and scapegoating,” says Stop AAPI Hate co-founder Cynthia Choi , pointing to how COVID-19 was racialized and fueled attacks on Asians across the country. The Vincent Chin case remains a cornerstone for Asian American advocacy, inspiring films, reenactments, and organizations like Stop AAPI Hate, which combats rising xenophobia and discrimination. Despite the progress achieved, advocates against anti-Asian hate assert that there is still considerable work ahead in every sector, from the workplace to the entertainment industry. The comprehensive history of Asian Americans, for instance, continues to be excluded from core K-12 history curricula in the United States. Some advocates like John Yang , the president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice AAJC, are turning their attention to what they say is a new form of anti-Asian hate: a growing number of bills preventing some Chinese citizens from buying and owning land. “Everyone is concerned about whether an Asian American is truly an American, and so they’re not being shown the same houses, they’re not being afforded the same opportunities,” Yang says. Wilson Lee , co-founder of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance Boston Lodge and the Chinese American Heritage Foundation, has organized a vigil for Vincent Chin every June 23 for the past six years. “We’re in it for the long haul,” Lee tells the Associated Press . “Because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s the popular thing to do.”On June 21, 2024, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus issued a press statement marking the 42nd Anniversary of the murder of Vincent Chin: https://bit.ly/4cdUAKT Read the Washington Post report: https://wapo.st/3VHk4Jf . Visit the Vincent Chin Institute website: https://bit.ly/39Bu0QQ News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2024/07/01 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2024/07/01 President's Advisory Commission Public Meeting - Livestreaming2024/07/02 President's Advisory Commission Public Meeting - In Person2024/07/03 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction on Florida SB 8462024/07/07 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/07/11-12 National AAPI Leadership Summit2024/07/13 APIAVote: Presidential Town Hall, Philadelphia PA2024/07/15 APIAVote: RNC Convention, AAPI Briefing &Reception, Milwaukee, WI2024/07/16-17 National Science, Technology, and Security Roundtable - Capstone2024/08/04 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall MeetingThe Community Calendar has moved. Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. New Appointments at Johns Hopkins University Starting July 1, 2024, Professor Jessica Chen Weiss joined the faculty of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, DC as the David M. Lampton Professor of China Studies and the inaugural director of a new institute on the evolving role of China in the world to be established this fall at SAIS, bringing together scholars, practitioners and experts from the private sector to foster deeper understanding and informed policy making. Professor Chen Weiss comes to SAIS from Cornell University, where she was the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies in the Department of Government. From August 2021 to July 2022, she served as senior advisor to the Secretary's Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department on a Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship for Tenured International Relations Scholars.Also starting July 1, 2024, Jeremy Lee Wallace has been named the A. Doak Barnett Professor of China Studies, also starting July 1, 2024; and he will be affiliated with the new institute at SAIS as well as the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins. Read the Johns Hopkins University announcement: https://bit.ly/4beT3CJ Back View PDF July 1, 2024 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

June 12, 2020 On June 12, 2020, Science Magazine reported that fifty-four scientists have lost their jobs as a result of NIH probe into foreign ties . Six questions are raised from the report about the National Institute of Health (NIH) investigations 1. Due process? What rights do the scientists have in terms of defense and representation? How are they informed and explained about these rights? How consistent is the decision process from case to case and from institution to institution? Are the standards public and publicized? How well are the scientists informed about these standards? 2. Shift and transparency in policy? As recently as July 1, 2014, current NIH Director Francis Collins spoke in Fudan University in Shanghai to promote international collaboration . This and similar reports have apparently been removed from the NIH website with one exception of this report about NIH leaders celebrate 30 years of research with China in 2009. Why were these reports removed? When did the shift in policy take place and why? How were the scientists notified of the change in policy? 3. How did NIH start these investigations? According to Page 19 of The Cancer Letter on April 26, 2019, Michael Lauer, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, stated that there are three ways to identify potential problems: (a) FBI and other law enforcement agencies, (b) anonymous complaints, and (c) stewardship of NIH program staff. For the targeted 189 scientists at 87 institutions, what is the respective count by these three ways? How is their pattern and distribution similar or different from previous years? 4. Criminalizing science and scientists? If the NIH is under pressure from the FBI and law enforcement to conduct these investigations, does it undermine the standard NIH procedures to deal with scientific ethical and integrity issues that may not be intrinsically criminal? How many of the scientists under NIH investigations conduct open fundamental research and how many on sensitive research that threatens national or economic security? Does their punishment fit the alleged act? What was actually stolen? 5. How will the NIH investigations enhance U.S. leadership in science and technology? Dr. Xifeng Wu was among the first scientists forced to leave MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She is now recognized for her significant contributions to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in China. She is a U.S. citizen. Her family still lives in Houston. How did her departure help U.S. leadership in science and technology? Same question for the 54 scientists. What threats have we mitigated by their departures? 6. Oversight and accountability? Is NIH open to third-party independent audit and review about the standards, process, and decision about these investigations? If so, would NIH cooperate with Congress and scientific/community organizations to conduct such audit, review, and oversight? In the case of Dr. Charlie Lieber, he was not charged as a spy. On February 3, 2020, Science Magazine reported that “[w]hat worries Andrew Lelling, U.S. attorney for the Massachusetts district, is that Lieber was allegedly paid to carry out research in China, which, combined with his failure to disclose those relationships, makes him potentially vulnerable to pressure from the Chinese government to do its bidding at some future point.” Are we punishing a child because one day he may grow up to be a criminal? How far have we deviated from a justice system based on facts and evidence, rather than pretext, for individual prosecutions or investigations? When was the last time the U.S. government targeted a nation and a people for law enforcement? These issues about accountability, oversight, and transparency are at the heart of racial profiling (according to the definition in H.R. 7120 Justice in Policing Act of 2020 ), justice, and fairness concerns for the Asian American community that led to the formation of the APA Justice Task Force in 2015. Previous Next 54 scientists lose their jobs from NIH probe into foreign ties

The APA Justice Task Force submitted a statement for a briefing with Senator Mark Warner and his staff on August 6, 2020. August 6, 2020 The APA Justice Task Force submitted the following statement for a briefing with Senator Mark Warner and his staff on August 6, 2020. updateonracialprofilingmarkwarner_20200805 .pdf Download PDF • 513KB The APA Justice Task Force submitted a statement for a briefing with Senator Mark Warner and his staff on August 6, 2020. Previous Next Briefing with Senator Mark Warner

Newsletter - #246 4/8 Monthly Meeting; JASON Report; Voting Gap; China Engagement; Delaware HB 322; More #246 4/8 Monthly Meeting; JASON Report; Voting Gap; China Engagement; Delaware HB 322; More In This Issue #246 · 2024/04/08 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · JASON Report on Safeguarding the Research Enterprise · Voter Registration Gap for Latinos and Asian Americans · Opinion: US Engagement Without Provocation of China · Delaware House Bill 322 Moves Forward · News and Activities for the Communities 2024/04/08 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held via Zoom on Monday, April 8, 2024, starting at 1:55 pm ET. In addition to updates by Nisha Ramachandran , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC); Joanna YangQing Derman , Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC; and Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), confirmed speakers are: · Robert Underwood, Commissioner, President's Advisory Commission on AA and NHPI; Former Chair of CAPAC; Former President of University of Guam · Yvonne Lee, Commissioner, USDA Equity Commission; Former Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights · Chenglong Li, Zhong-Ren Peng , and Jiangeng Xue , Officers of Florida Chinese Faculty Association and Professors of University of Florida · David Inoue, Executive Director, Japanese American Citizens League · Cindy Tsai, Interim President and Executive Director, Committee of 100 The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Steven Pei 白先慎, Vincent Wang 王文奎, and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . JASON Report on Safeguarding the Research Enterprise On March 21, 2024, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) released a new report by JASON, an independent science advisory group, titled " Safeguarding the Research Enterprise. " This report builds upon the 2019 Fundamental Research Security report. In this study, JASON was tasked to comment on specific steps NSF might take to identify sensitive areas of research and describe processes to address security in those areas. The report presents eight key findings and six recommendations for NSF's consideration. It emphasizes the importance of international collaboration in research while acknowledging various risks and the necessity to distinguish between sensitive and nonsensitive research.JASON recommendations highlight the importance of fostering a culture of research security awareness within the scientific community by providing substantive information to researchers about real risks, making resources available and encouraging continuous engagement with researchers and their institutions about the efficacy of research risk mitigation and control efforts. NSF is currently reviewing the findings and considering the implementation of recommendations as it develops new policy review processes for national security concerns. These policies are slated to be effective by the May 24, 2024, deadline set forth in the "CHIPS & Science Act of 2022."On March 31, 2024, Axios offered insights on the JASON report, suggesting caution in adding controls over fundamental science research. Many scientists emphasize the importance of an open research environment, essential for testing and exchanging results and hypotheses. Others argue that international collaborations offer insights into other countries' capabilities and help shape global science and tech standards. JASON highlights changes in fundamental research across physics, chemistry, biology, and materials science, with increasing scientific collaborations between countries. There is growing science and tech competition globally as nations invest in education and research infrastructure. The transition from basic science to practical technology is faster now, with advancements quickly commercialized. Many defense-related scientific breakthroughs are coming from civilian sectors and private companies, posing dual-use challenges. The rise of China in the science world order prompts re-evaluation of sensitive research handling.JASON advises NSF against broadly designating scientific fields as sensitive but recommends assessing project sensitivity case by case. It also cautions against expanding export controls to include fundamental research areas, warning of increased research costs, talent pipeline reduction, and hindrance to broader U.S. economic and national security interests.The project-by-project approach is "reasonable," says Tobin Smith , vice president for policy at the Association of American Universities, where the rubber hits the road for these policies.NSF is launching a Research on Research Security (RORS) program to delve into research security matters from an academic viewpoint. Currently, there is limited comprehensive data available on the issue, despite some information being published by the agency and others. NSF is working on a machine learning tool to scrutinize grants, papers, and related documents. This tool aims to uncover undisclosed affiliations, professional roles, or funding sources that could pose conflicts of commitment or interest. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is currently developing its Research Security Program Standard Requirement . A 2021 national security memorandum directed OSTP to establish research security standards for universities and other research institutions.Read the NSF announcement: https://bit.ly/4ajpFvv . Read the JASON report: https://bit.ly/3TGukke . Read the Axios report: https://bit.ly/3VBlve2 Voter Registration Gap for Latinos and Asian Americans According to NPR on April 2, 2024, in a pivotal election year, U.S. democracy continues to face a persistent challenge among the country's electorate — gaps in voter registration rates between white eligible voters and eligible voters of color. "For years, the shares of Black, Asian and Latino citizens age 18 or older signed up to cast ballots have trailed behind that of white adult citizens, according to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey."Based on national estimates from the last two federal election years, the disparity in registration rates between white and Asian eligible voters is around nine percentage points. Between white and Latino eligible voters, the gap is about 13 percentage points."Long-standing barriers to voter registration have made it difficult to close these gaps, and dedicated investment is needed to ensure fuller participation in elections and a healthier democracy, many researchers and advocates say," NPR said. The barriers and challenges include: · For some, economic needs overshadow political participation · Asian Americans and Latinos are less likely to be contacted by campaigns · Voting restrictions can disproportionately affect people of color · "...without our voice, nothing's going to be done" Read the NPR report: https://n.pr/49rvzcK Opinion: US Engagement Without Provocation of China According to the East Asia Forum on March 31, 2024, Johns Hopkins University Professor David Lampton and Stanford University Professor Thomas Fingar opined that the United States should seek engagement without provocation of China."China is in a phase of its foreign and domestic policy that emphasises an old bundle of policies attaching primacy to regime and national security at the cost of economic growth. At some point, China will move toward its other historical foreign policy bundle emphasising economic growth and more openness. The United States should hold open the door to the second policy package for the indefinite future, while deterring Beijing's most dangerous behaviour in its current policy incarnation. Washington needs to restore credibility to its One China Policy and lower the rhetorical temperature, a formidable challenge in the midst of a presidential election in the United States and when there is a high level of insecurity in Beijing," the professors said.Read the East Asia Forum essay: https://bit.ly/4cFddYG How Chinese Students Experience America In a comprehensive New Yorker report on April 1, 2024, Staff Writer Peter Hessler recounts his teaching experience at Sichuan University in China and tracks a class of students who have come to the United States through the Sichuan University–Pittsburgh Institute (SCUPI). All SCUPI classes were in English, and after two or three years at Sichuan University students could transfer to the University of Pittsburgh or another foreign institution. SCUPI was one of many programs and exchanges designed to direct more Chinese students to the U.S. In the 2019-20 academic year, Chinese enrollment at American institutions reached an all-time high of 372,532. A generation earlier, the vast majority of Chinese students at American universities had stayed in the country, but the pattern changed dramatically with China’s new prosperity. In 2022, the Chinese Ministry of Education reported that, in the past decade, more than eighty per cent of Chinese students returned after completing their studies abroad.In the span of a single generation, China’s enrollment rate of college-age citizens had risen from eight per cent to 51.6 per cent by 2019. Following a number of his students from China to the United States, Hessler tells a story of how COVID, guns, anti-Asian violence, and diplomatic relations have complicated the ambitions of the 300,000+ college students who come to the U.S. each year. Read the New Yorker article or listen to it at https://bit.ly/3vt00l3 (51:04). Delaware House Bill 322 Moves Forward According to Coastal-TV on April2, 2024, an act to amend title 29 of Delaware code in regard to a commission on Asian and Pacific Islander heritage and culture was recently voted on with one person in favor of the bill and four others agreeing to move it forward but with further consideration needed. House Bill 322 is sponsored by William Bush of District 29. It would bring representation of the AAPI community. The Delaware Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander Heritage and Culture would do the following: 1. Provide the Governor, members of the General Assembly, and policymakers with recommendations to promote the welfare and interests of all people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent who reside in this State 2. Establish, maintain and develop cultural ties between Asian and Pacific Islanders and Asian-Americans and Pacific Islander-Americans 3. Foster a special and compelling interest in the historical and cultural backgrounds of people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent, as well as in the economic, political, social and artistic life of the nations and territories involved 4. Help study, establish, or promote programs or events that will provide appropriate awareness of the culture, history, heritage, and language of people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent 5. Provide a platform for the promotion of the cultural and historical heritage of any people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent Asian American advocate and student at the University of Delaware's Biden School of Public Policy, Devin Jiang , said, "We can’t have a democracy when certain groups don’t have seats at the decision-making table. And for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, we lack representation in all three branches of government in Delaware, other states across the country, and the federal government." said Jiang, "We don’t have seats in many rooms. This changes in Delaware: if passed and signed into law, HB 322 will bring about more political representation for AAPIs."Read the Coastal-TV report: https://bit.ly/3PLJXWi Blinken appoints chief diversity and inclusion officer According to NBC News on April 2, 2024, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has appointed a new chief diversity and inclusion officer at the State Department ten months after the role became vacant. The position does not require Senate confirmation. Zakiya Carr Johnson will be tasked with building a workforce that “reflects America,” Blinken said in a statement. Although most at the State Department supported Blinken’s efforts to elevate issues of diversity and inclusion, a number also said that they would have liked the opportunity to share their thoughts ahead of Carr Johnson’s appointment. Chief among the challenges facing Carr Johnson will be “a massive retention issue at the department,” said Merry Walker , president of the Asian American Foreign Affairs Association. “Especially at the mid-levels.” Representatives from other State Department employee organizations expressed similar concerns about keeping staff on board. Read the NBC News report: https://nbcnews.to/3U1kn1X News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2024/04/07 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/04/08 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2024/04/09 China Town Hall (2-part program)2024/04/17 Racially Profiled for Being A Scientist. A Discussion of the US DOJ's China Initiative2024/04/18 Corky Lee's Asian America: Fifty Years of Photographic Justice 2024/04/19 Appeals Court Hearing on Florida SB 2642024/04/19 Committee of 100 Annual Conference and GalaVisit https://bit.ly/45KGyga for event details. Back View PDF April 4, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #220 Biden-Xi Summit/QI Letter; Dr. Yanping Chen; Section 702; "Global Women Forum"? News+ #220 Biden-Xi Summit/QI Letter; Dr. Yanping Chen; Section 702; "Global Women Forum"? News+ In This Issue #220 · Biden-Xi Summit and Quincy Institute Open Letter · Latest Development of The Case of Dr. Yanping Chen 陈燕平 · Alarm Over Section 702 Surveillance Program · Is It a "Global Women Forum" When There Is No Asian Woman? · News and Activities for the Communities Biden-Xi Summit and Quincy Institute Open Letter This is a special invited report by Juan Zhang , Editor, US-China Perception Monitor/ 中美印象, Carter Center The highly anticipated Biden-Xi summit took place on November 15, 2023, on the sidelines of the APEC summit in San Francisco, California. Many experts believe the significance of this meeting lies in the fact that it will prevent further deterioration of the bilateral relationship and possibly lead to a reset of the relationship between the two countries before the upcoming U.S. presidential elections.Before the meeting, 34 U.S. civil society and professional organizations issued an open letter urging the leaders to have “a cordial and productive discussion.” The letter expressed concerns over the current dangerous trends in Sino-American relations. APA Justice was a signatory to the letter. The organizations who signed the letter represent “a wide range of American constituencies with direct stakes in the future of the U.S.-China relationship.” “Continued hostile rhetoric from prominent figures in both the United States and China contributes to this alarming deterioration of relations,” the letter further stated. Dr. Yawei Liu , founding editor-in-chief of the U.S.-China Perception Monitor at The Carter Center, is also a signatory to the letter. Dr. Liu recounted the role of President Jimmy Carter and his Chinese counterpart Deng Xiaoping in finding ways to put aside differences and cooperate almost 45 years ago.“That legacy is endangered now,” he continued, saying both countries appear on a path that could lead to conflict and confrontation.Read the full report by The Hill : Farmers, academics, advocates urge Biden, Xi to calm US-China tensions . Takeaways from the Summit The White House released a readout after the meeting, framing the meeting as “candid and constructive.” Two leaders discussed “a range of bilateral and global issues, including areas of potential cooperation and exchanged views on areas of difference”, the statement pointed out. The two sides reached agreements on several key areas that include curbing the production of illicit fentanyl and resuming military-to-military communications, which was suspended after then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’s visit to Taiwan. Rick Waters, former diplomat and managing director of Eurasia Group’s China practice, pointed out in GZERO Daily a fentanyl deal would be key for Biden’s reelection campaign. Fentanyl is a dangerous drug that has become a leading cause of death among young Americans.Taiwan remains the biggest point of contention. It is also the most important issue that China wants to discuss at the summit. Analysts warned that Taiwan could become a flash point that might trigger a conflict between the two countries.Both sides expressed their positions on Taiwan. President Xi Jinping told President Joe Biden that the United States needed to take “concrete actions” to reassure China that it still stands by its stated policy of not supporting Taiwanese independence. President Biden emphasized the One China policy has not changed. Biden also reiterated that the U.S. opposes any unilateral change of the status quo. What’s next? Can this year’s summit successfully manage and stabilize this relationship? This is a million-dollar question. While many experts agree that it is constructive and positive that the top leaders from both countries talk to each other, they do not think that this summit would become a turning point for the troubled bilateral relationship. When the two leaders met last year on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Indonesia, both sides had a similar goal: to stabilize the bilateral relations. But the balloon incident earlier this year derailed that goal. The rest of this year would see further U.S. export control, arms sales to Taiwan, and military maneuvers in the South China Sea. Let’s hope leaders on both sides agree that they need to do everything to prevent their fierce rivalry from veering into conflict. Latest Development of The Case of Dr. Yanping Chen 陈燕平 According to AP , a federal judge in Washington is weighing whether to hold in contempt a veteran journalist who has refused to identify her sources for stories about Dr. Yanping Chen , a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but never charged. The judge previously ordered former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge , who now works at CBS , to be interviewed under oath about her sources for a series of stories about Dr. Yanping Chen. Dr. Chen, who was investigated for years on suspicions she may have lied on immigration forms related to work on a Chinese astronaut program, has since sued the government, saying details about the probe were leaked to damage her reputation. But after Herridge refused to divulge to Chen’s lawyers how she acquired her information, the scientist’s attorneys are asking U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to hold the reporter in contempt — a sanction that could result in steep monetary fines until she complies. It’s not clear when the judge might rule on Chen’s request to hold Herridge in contempt. The judge acknowledged the stakes in an August decision that forced Herridge to be interviewed, writing, “The Court recognizes both the vital importance of a free press and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge.” But Cooper said that “Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case.”Courts have recognized that journalists have a limited privilege to keep confidential their sources, allowing reporters to block subpoenas in the past. But judges in some cases, like Herridge’s, have found that privilege can be outweighed by the need for the information if the person seeking the source has failed to find it through other means.Read the AP report: https://bit.ly/3QEHfSe . Read the story of Dr. Yanping Chen: https://bit.ly/APAJ_Yanping_Chen Alarm Over Section 702 Surveillance Program According to WIRED , more than 60 groups advocating for Asian American and Pacific Islander communities are pushing the US Congress to reform the Section 702 surveillance program as Senate leaders move to renew it. A coalition letter expressing strong opposition to including a short-term reauthorization of Section 702 in a continuing resolution or any other "must-pass" legislation was sent to all members of Congress on November 14, 2023. The coalition calls for members of Congress to consider the concerns seriously and to reject any short-term reauthorization of Section 702. Failure to do so would perpetuate a system that unjustly targets Asian Americans and subjects them to unwarranted surveillance. "Section 702 and related surveillance authorities have been misused to spy on Americans, including but not limited to protesters, journalists, campaign donors, and members of Congress. The consequences of such misuse have had a profound impact on our Asian American community, resulting in wrongful targeting, unjust surveillance, and devastating tolls on careers, livelihoods, and reputations. This disproportionate targeting has fostered a climate of fear among Asian Americans and their families, causing anxiety about being stopped, monitored, or investigated while engaging in everyday activities. These issues not only raise significant concerns about civil liberties and civil rights, but also underscore the need for substantial reform," the letter said. "The inclusion of a short-term reauthorization in larger 'must-pass' bills would undermine the democratic process, run counter to the will of Congress, and disregard the concerns of the American people. Such an approach could also imperil the long-term viability of Section 702 by alienating members who are willing to engage in constructive negotiations for meaningful reforms," the letter also said.Concerned individuals may sign on to the opposition of warrantless surveillance here: https://bit.ly/3EFkg3R . A community briefing on Section 702 has been tentatively scheduled for December 12, 2023. Read the coalition letter: https://bit.ly/47gXxaO . Read the WIRED report: https://bit.ly/47wdFVz . Is It a "Global Women Forum" When There is No Asian Woman? On November 14, 2023, The Washington Post hosted an all-day event named Global Women's Summit, featuring "women from around the world galvanizing innovation and change." However, according to Nancy Chen , President of Chinese American Women in Action (CAWA), noted that none of the 44 women speakers and 2 men from around the U.S. and part of the world are of Chinese and East Asian ancestry. In an email to Sally Buzbee , executive editor of the Washington Post and one of the organizers for the Global Women’s Summit, Chen wrote "I am reaching out to you as the executive editor of the Washington Post and one of the organizers for the Global Women’s Summit. "It's astonishing that the Washington Post trumpets its Global Women's Summit with 44 women speakers and 2 men from around the U.S. and part of the world but omits and excludes American and other women who are of Chinese and East Asian ancestry. Basically, you have ignored almost one quarter of the female population in the world while touting this as a 'global' women’s summit. Our exclusion—either domestically or internationally—harkens back to the colonial era of the past two centuries when Asian women were excluded by the Page Act and later the Chinese Exclusion Act in the United States, and Asian countries were divided up amongst European powers. "By any measure, women of East Asian ancestry are equally shaking up the systems of power in government, entertainment, tech, business and medicine, but are apparently not enough to be recognized by Washington Post decision-makers. There is no shortage of distinguished and nationally-recognized women leaders—Women like Tammy Duckworth or Mazie Hirono in government, Michelle Yeoh or Sandra Oh in entertainment, Kim Ng in sports management, Dr. Leana Wen in medicine, Helen Zia in civil rights, Ellen Pao in technology, Celeste Ng , Maya Lin and more. You could have looked as close by as AARP, one of Global Summit's leading sponsors, and its Vice President of DEI Daphne Kwok whose career has spanned the civil rights, government and nonprofit sectors. It speaks volumes of the mindset of the Washington Post that East Asian American women leaders are invisible in this 'global summit.' "Chinese American Women in Action (CAWA) was founded a year ago amid anti-Asian racism during the pandemic in order to increase recognition and civic engagement for women in our community. This slight by the Washington Post is yet another reminder of the work ahead of us, our daughters and our granddaughters to belong and to be seen and heard. "We ask that you and the Post do better." Read Nancy Chen's letter: https://bit.ly/49ygHuu News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2023/11/16 C100 Forum Debate: Has the Chinese Economy Slowed Down Permanently, Temporarily, or It Depends?2023/11/18 Inaugural Jimmy Carter Conversation on U.S.-China Relations2023/11/18-19 National API Elected Officials Summit2023/11/19 Rep. Gene Wu 's Weekly Town Hall meeting2023/11/26 Rep. Gene Wu 's Weekly Town Hall meeting2023/12/03 Rep. Gene Wu 's Weekly Town Hall meetingVisit https://bit.ly/45KGyga for event details . 2. Survey on Racism and Anti-Asian Hate According to AsAmNews , nearly 9 out of 10 Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders polled, or 86 percent, say racism is a serious problem in the United States. Half of those say they’ve been discriminated against based on their race and 16 percent say they’ve been a victim of a hate crime.Those are the results of a new survey conducted by APIA Data and AP/NORC.Another 34% of AAPI adults believe they’ve been subjected to verbal harassment, racial slurs or have been on the receiving end of threats of physical violence.Surveys were conducted online and via telephone in English, the Chinese dialects of Mandarin and Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Korean. 1,178 Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders aged 18 and older living in the United States participated. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.2 percentage points.Read the AsAmNews report: https://bit.ly/40E2R5M Back View PDF November 16, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Following a public campaign led by Maryland State Senator Susan Lee and a coalition in February 2022, Reps. Jamie Raskin and Judy Chu hosted a Democratic Member Roundtable on “Researching while Chinese American: Ethnic Profiling, Chinese American Scientists and a New American Brain Drain” in June 2022. It was the first congressional hearing where the profiling of Chinese American scientists and the damage to American leadership in science and technology were heard. June 30, 2021 Table of Contents Overview The Human and Scientific Costs of Racial Profiling Must be Heard Congressional Staffer Roundtable on Research Integrity Bicameral Letter Urging DOJ Probe into Racial Profiling Links and References Overview Watch the video here. (1:42:15) On June 30, 2021, Representative Jamie Raskin, Chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and Representative Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, held a Democratic Member Roundtable titled “Researching while Chinese American: Ethnic Profiling, Chinese American Scientists and a New American Brain Drain.” The Department of Justice (DOJ) has long targeted Chinese Americans in extensive investigations into foreign espionage, leading to multiple false arrests of innocent Chinese American scientists. These efforts ramped up in federal agencies under the Trump Administration’s China Initiative, causing numerous scientists to lose their jobs despite not unveiling chargeable criminal conduct. This roundtable examined the federal government’s alleged racial profiling of Chinese American scientists, and addressed how the continued harassment harms the broader U.S. scientific community. Opening Remarks by Representative Jamie Raskin: “That is not acceptable in the United States of America, which was founded on principles of equality and justice. We reject guilt by association, we reject notions of collective guilt or ethnic or racial guilt. The United States is a welcoming place, it is open to people of all backgrounds and to creative ideas, and to scientific research and inquiry. That is how we established ourselves as a world leader in innovation and technology, by allowing for free-flowing thoughts and theories. By targeting people who are ethnically Chinese, without evidence, we are hampering our ability to be that world leader and we are harming an entire community.” Opening Remarks by Rep. Judy Chu: “We need to make sure we don’t repeat the mistakes of the Cold War. That means not spreading unfounded suspicions that paint all Chinese people as threats and which put innocent Chinese Americans at risk.” Witnesses and Their Testimonies Sherry Chen , a renowned hydrologist who was falsely accused of espionage in 2014, described the long-lasting effects of her mistaken arrest: “Until now, my life is still in limbo. My reputation is still under a cloud. The ordeal has taken away precious time in my professional career, and I can never recover the years I have lost. This injustice has now entered its tenth year and sadly there is still no end in sight. I keep fighting not only for myself but to do my part to make sure no one should ever be harmed because of their race or country origin.” Her written testimony: https://bit.ly/3S46zmo The Honorable Steven Chu , former Secretary of Energy and current Stanford professor, characterized the impact of racial profiling on Chinese American scientists: “Many of my Chinese-American faculty colleagues feel that they are under increased and unjustified scrutiny by the U.S. government. The Department of Justice’s ‘China Initiative’ and statements by U.S. funding agencies is [ sic ] creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.” His written testimony: https://bit.ly/3S4pTA8 Dr. Randy Katz , the Vice Chancellor for Research at the University of California, Berkeley, expressed how this targeting has affected the greater scientific community: “These investigations and related actions – such as the increased interrogation of Chinese-American researchers by Customs and Border Patrol officers at airports – have resulted in a chilling effect on our Chinese-American research community in particular, and America’s international collaborations and our continued ability to attract the world’s best and brightest. My university has seen a precipitous decline in graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and visiting students from China that began even before the Covid-19 pandemic. This will have ramifications for America’s research enterprise for many years to come.” His written testimony: https://bit.ly/3Y9GoLo Dr. Xiaoxing Xi , a professor of physics at Temple University and naturalized citizen who was falsely arrested for alleged spying in 2015, explained: “People have asked me, ‘How can the Department of Justice avoid wrongly accusing innocent people like they did in your case?’ My answer is that they can’t unless they stop considering Chinese professors, scientists, and students as nontraditional collectors, or spies, for China. For example, in all the criminal cases involving university professors under the China Initiative, the DOJ has shown no evidence, zero, that those charged have stolen intellectual property. Yet, they are being prosecuted for felony crimes.” His written testimony: https://bit.ly/48kZUKe Statements from concerned advocates and experts including Maryland Senator Susan C. Lee , who contextualized the current racial profiling in the broader history of discrimination against Asian-Americans. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology , which explained how actions taken by the Department of Justice and research grantmaking agencies has a chilling effect on international scientific collaboration. Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC , which submitted a number of recommendations of how to address racial profiling. Asian American Scholar Forum , which noted that Asian American professors chose to stay in the United States because they “believe, in democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law, and the research environment of freedom and exploration without fear.” Asian Pacific American (APA) Justice , which explained that “whether it is with malice or implicit bias or both, the checks and balance system has failed not only individuals but also an entire group of people who are targeted for their race, ethnicity, and national origin.” The Committee of 100, which submitted the research of Andrew Chongseh Kim and white paper on Prosecuting Chinese “Spies:” An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Espionage Act . Defending Rights & Dissent , which raised concerns about the FBI’s rhetoric around the “alleged threat from Chinese Americans in academia.” Patrick Eddington , of Defending Rights & Dissent, who expressed that freedom of association and open scientific exchange are “absolutely essential to advance human progress on a range of issues.” Stefan Maier , who stressed the importance of “academic freedom and a healthy, global scientific collaboration” to addressing “global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change.” Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, called for attention to the recent trial of Dr. Anming Hu (United States v. Hu; Case No. 3:20-CR-00021) at Knoxville, Tennessee. Testimonies from the trial have alarmingly revealed the FBI’s violation of Dr. Hu’s civil rights and misconduct during the investigation. [download and link to PDF at https://bit.ly/48Gia0G .] The Human and Scientific Costs of Racial Profiling Must be Heard On February 1, 2021, concerns about racial profiling culminated in a request by an alliance of prominent scientific and civil rights leaders and organizations nationwide for a congressional hearing spearheaded by Susan Lee, Maryland state senator, and Terry Lierman, Co-Chair of the University of Maryland. For a good part of 2021, scholars, think tanks, media, professional and community organizations began to collect data, conducted surveys, analyzed case studies, and reported on their findings, most of them do not support the government’s rhetoric on the China Initiative and instead point to its damaging impact on individuals and communities, open science, and international exchange. The alliance wrote to Jamie Raskin, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and called for an oversight hearing to address the profiling of scientists and scholars of Chinese or Asian descent based on the misguided perception that simply being of Chinese or Asian descent or having ties to China make them prone to espionage. The alliance requested the committee look into the broad sweep of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counterintelligence efforts and the National Institute of Health’s related actions against scientists of Chinese or Asian descent which have resulted in the loss of their jobs, reputations and devastation of their lives and families, even though they were later proven innocent. Maryland State Senate Majority Whip Susan Lee, whose district includes NIH, stated, “While we strongly support efforts to safeguard America’s interests and prosecute wrongdoers, it would be a grave injustice to target, stereotype, or place under suspicion an entire ethnic group. Many of these patriotic scientists have spent a lifetime of work dedicated to advancing medical breakthroughs which have made America one the global leaders in science and technology. They are a part of the solution to the United States’ global challenges, not a threat.” “The overzealous, broad, unchecked, and overreaching activities fueled by a xenophobic and toxic political climate have not only led to mistakes in investigations or prosecutions and civil rights violations, but also have crippled America’s ability to develop medical innovations that can enhance the quality of and save lives, especially during this Covid-19 pandemic. We need the committee to shine light on any discriminatory policies being employed by those agencies to ensure there is fairness, transparency and accountability,” said Terry Lierman. For decades, international scientific collaborations and exchanges between the United States and foreign academic and research institutions have been strongly encouraged and supported by the NIH and other academic entities, but now, they are being criminalized. “Science - like America itself - thrives on freedom, openness, and inclusiveness - there is no room for discrimination against men and women from China or anywhere else based on nationality," former White House science advisor Dr. Neal F. Lane said. "The PRC Government's rising nationalism and use of its economic clout to influence U.S. universities and society are real and growing, but any U.S. Government response that assumes all students, scientists, and scholars of Chinese descent are potential intelligence risks is unfair and unwise profiling that has no place in our democracy," said Dr. Wallace Loh, former President of the University of Maryland, College Park. To date, Congress has held numerous hearings focused only on the espionage threat, but it has not addressed the civil rights violations of Chinese Americans who have been wrongly targeted or the long term consequences and damages to the American research enterprise and minority communities if this pattern of racial profiling continues. “The Department of Justice launched the ‘China Initiative’ to counter perceived ‘national security threats.’ But the past two years have shown an over-emphasis on national security and an underemphasis on bias. I join others in calling for the end of the ‘China Initiative’,” said Professor Margaret Lewis of Seton Hall University Law School. “We are deeply concerned with the racial profiling and unjust prosecutions of Asian Americans and immigrants by the government,” said John C. Yang, Advancing Justice – AAJC’s President and Executive Director. “This latest wave of xenophobia has instilled fear within our communities as many Chinese Americans and immigrants are once again caught in our country’s long history of suspicion and racial discrimination against Asian Americans. We urge Congress to engage in oversight on this issue by holding a public hearing on this issue.” “Xenophobic targeting and persecution of Chinese Americans is causing irreparable damage not only to the impacted persons and their families, but also creates fear, suspicion, and hate towards the Asian American community. It must stop. It is grossly unjust and unfair to target an entire ethnic group from specific countries,” said Dr. Steven Pei and Dr. Jeremy Wu, Co-Leaders of the APA Justice Task Force. Full Package of Call for Congressional Hearing 2021/02/01 Calling for a Congressional Hearing on Racial Profiling of Asian American and Chinese Scientists Cover and Table of Content Press Release Letter to Rep. Jamie Raskin, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties with Signatories Articles, Letters and Statements from Professional Associations, Organizations and Societies Congressional Staffer Roundtable on Research Integrity On May 5, 2021, a Congressional Staffer Roundtable on Research Integrity was organized by the majority and the minority of the Committees on Science, Space, and Technology; Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and Armed Services (House and Senate). Speakers for the event included: Dr. Sudip Parikh, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science Mr. Tobin Smith, Vice President for Science Policy & Global Affairs, Association of American Universities Dr. Maria Zuber, Co-Chair, NASEM National Science, Technology, and Security Roundtable; Vice President for Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mr. Alexander Bustamante, Senior Vice President, Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, University of California System Mr. Frank Wu, President, Queen’s College, City University of New York Frank Wu’s remarks emphasized three “Cs” that should be promoted and one “C” to be avoided: Consistency of rules and enforcement priorities (among agencies and over time) Clarity of policies Communications to promote compliance (including anti-bias aspects) And not Criminalization Bicameral Coalition Letter Urging DOJ Probe into Racial Profiling On July 29, 2021, Rep. Ted Lieu delivered a bicameral coalition letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland calling for an investigation into the Department of Justice's "repeated, wrongful targeting of individuals of Asian descent for alleged espionage." "Over the years, multiple people who happened to be of Asian descent have been falsely accused by the Department of Justice of espionage," including the false accusations of spying alleged against Wen Ho Lee , Sherry Chen , Xiaoxing Xi , Anming Hu , and many others. "The common thread in every one of these cases was a defendant with an Asian surname — and an innocent life that was turned upside down." "No person should be viewed by our government as more suspicious because of the individual’s race. We thus request an update on the mandated implicit bias training and request an investigation to determine whether the Department of Justice has a written or unwritten policy, program, pattern or practice of using race (or other civil rights classifications such as religion, gender and national origin) in targeting people for arrest, surveillance, security clearance denials or other adverse actions. We also specifically request whether, under the 'China Initiative,' there is a written or unwritten policy, program, pattern or practice to target people based on their race, ethnicity or national origin." Jump to: Overview The Human and Scientific Costs of Racial Profiling Must be Heard Congressional Staffer Roundtable on Research Integrity Bicameral Letter Urging DOJ Probe into Racial Profiling Following a public campaign led by Maryland State Senator Susan Lee and a coalition in February 2022, Reps. Jamie Raskin and Judy Chu hosted a Democratic Member Roundtable on “Researching while Chinese American: Ethnic Profiling, Chinese American Scientists and a New American Brain Drain” in June 2022. It was the first congressional hearing where the profiling of Chinese American scientists and the damage to American leadership in science and technology were heard. Previous Next 7. Congressional Roundtable on Racial Profiling

Newsletter - #61 DOC Unit Abused Power! Memorable May 20; Stop AAPI Hate And Racial Profiling #61 DOC Unit Abused Power! Memorable May 20; Stop AAPI Hate And Racial Profiling Back View PDF May 24, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter