On Saturday Evening I Attended the 80-20 Dinner

John Klusaritz


On Saturday evening I attended the 80-20 dinner with my spouse Alicia Yang,She had told me in advance that one of the primary concerns of the Chinese community - that would be discussed at the dinner, was the prevailing trend of educational institutions discriminating against Chinese and other Asian Americans.

This is something I have been well aware of for some time.  As a college and law student coming of age (and attending college and law school in the late 1970s and early 1980s), the terms used to refer to this were  “reverse” discrimination” or “affirmative action” — meaning that the government and educational institutions discriminate against ethnic and racial  groups who have become “too successful” and use this discrimination to deny educational “slots” to highly qualified individuals

This first started in the 1970s with affirmative action, preferring lesser qualified African Americans over White students.  I very closely followed the Bakke case as it worked its way through the courts culminating in the 1978 Supreme Court case which held that “quotas” were unconstitutional but other forms of taking into account racial preferences were not.— I was a first year law student at Harvard when that decision was rendered. 

This practice, of “reverse discrimination,” which was routinely used against white college applicants from the 1970s on is now being used throughout the country against Asian college applicants.

The bottom line is that this can only change through the courts;  we need Federal judges (at all levels — district court, court of appeals, and supreme court) appointed who believe that it is simply unconstitutional for government and schools to make decisions based on racial and ethnic lines;  in short, it ought to be “per se” illegal and a violation of civil rights laws for any school to have any question on an application regarding a child’s race or ethnicity.

As we all know, federal judges are appointed by the President (have lifetime tenure) and are subject to Senate approval.  Unfortunately, over the last 40 years,  the  philosophy of the mainstream Democratic party has been to support affirmative action, reverse discrimination and to use this “tool” as a way to shift the student population at colleges and universities to increase the African American and Hispanic percentages.  It is well known and firmly accepted that the overwhelming majority of Federal judges appointed by recent Democratic presidents support these positions.

Bill Clinton and Barak Obama each appointed two justices to the Supreme Court:  Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayer — all four support affirmative action — meaning all four believe it is OK for colleges to make racial based decisions. 

Since coming into office in 2009, Barak Obama has appointed over 300 judges to the Federal courts — almost all of whom favor affirmative action (i.e., reverse discrimination).

Based on this consistent record, I was extremely surprised to hear that the 80-20 group endorsed Obama in the past election;  I was also surprised to hear Dr. Woo talk in a critical manner about the Republican’s not responding to the 80-20  questionnaire.

While I am not familiar with the questionnaire, I would urge the 80-20 group to focus on the positions politicians and political parties are taking on the issue of reverse discrimination  and NOT on who completes a questionnaire. 

To those who may disagree with my opinion, I challenge you to name one Federal judge that Obama has appointed who has taken the position that taking into account racial profiles for college admissions is illegal or unconstitutional.  To the contrary, virtually every one of his judicial appointees support this racial discrimination that is getting worse.

The bottom line is that Chinese Americans and all Asian Americans have become huge “victims” of the affirmative action and reverse discrimination policies promulgated  by liberal politicians and the liberal judges that Democratic presidents have appointed.

Dr. Woo mentioned that Obama has appointed a number of Asian judges;  my response is that the more important factor is what the political views of  these Asian judges are and not the fact that they are Asian.  IN the 1970s, all members of the Supreme Court but one, were white.  Yet,  those white justices, most of whom had liberal political views, held that colleges could take into account racial profiles — a policy that unquestionably hurt white college applicants.

In fact, if you look at the Asians that Obama has appointed to Federal judges, all are liberals who will support the current reverse discrimination.  For example, Amit Mehta, an Asian Islander, is referred to as one of the first Asians appointed by Obama as a Federal Judge.  Amit Mehta clerked under Judge Susan Graber who is one of the most ardent supporters of affirmative action.  So, I guess we know how he is going to rule on decisions in front of him involving this issue. 

In summary, if 80-20 wants to have an impact on the terribly illegal and unconstitutional discrimination against Asian college applicants,  it needs to endorse political candidates who oppose affirmative action and reverse discrimination and who will appoint judges who will oppose these principles.

That is clearly NOT Barak Obama.  The 300 Judges he has appointed will all serve on the Federal courts for lifetime terms and all will support the current system of university’s discrimination against Asians and whites.

I have no idea whether 80-20’s support of Obama in the election influenced a lot of voters or not.  I do know that Obama’s presidency has been extremely harmful to the goals of Asians to receive equal treatment in the context of college admissions.

I would urge 80-20 to think carefully about who do endorse in the next election and not make the same mistake twice.

(Thank John Klusaritz and Alicia Yang for sharing this article with us)