Dear Dean Harris,

On March 31, I contacted you regarding the OSPI proviso contract, and Professor So. Assistant Dean Peter Denis reached out to me on April 6th and expressed interest in engaging us to “meet, listen, and problem-solve”. We then exchanged emails with Mr. Denis and his office to schedule a meeting. However, that line of communication stopped on April 14, after we accepted a meeting proposal for April 17. 

I have since sent Mr. Denis several emails, yet I have never received any reply from him. My last email to Mr. Denis was on May 12, in which I sent him evidence of Professor So’s plan and promise to divert the OSPI proviso funds to finance her research that was outside the scope of the proviso and completed before the contract was even signed.

We have documented all the detailed evidence on our site at: Examining Professor So’s Problematic Research That Was Financed by Improperly Diverted Funds From the Proviso to OSPI .

The contract is between OSPI and the UW College of Arts and Science, NOT between OSPI and Professor So. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to insist on giving this contract to Professor So. Although it is unclear to us why Associate Dean Linda Nelson told OSPI that the contract would be completed by Professor So, OSPI did not specifically request that this contract be completed by her. As a matter of fact, OSPI told us that “OSPI has no record of a contract with Professor Connie So.” Our request remains that Professor So be removed from the OSPI contract. Our concerns with Professor So are:

1) Her xenophobic comments regarding “Americans of Chinese descent”;

2) Her personal beliefs do not align with the goal and deliverables of the contract;

3) The poor quality of her work, as demonstrated by both her research and her draft curriculum materials;

4) She promised money from the OSPI proviso contract to pay for consultants she hired for her research that was completed before the contract was signed and was outside the scope of the proviso. Even worse, her research counters the exact intention of the proviso; 

5) The OSPI contract requires written permission from them before subcontracting. She clearly violated that clause when she hired consultants without informing OSPI;

I hope the UW College of Arts and Science does not knowingly support Professor So’s improper behavior and enable her to misuse proviso funds. 

Copying OSPI and Senator Wagoner on this email.

I appreciate your timely attention on this matter.

Regards,

WA Asians For Equality

The post Follow Up Letter to UW College of Arts and Sciences Dean Requesting Teaching Professor Connie So To Be Removed From the OSPI Contract Project appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

OSPI is a government agency responsible for public education. One may ask why OSPI would commission Professor So to conduct research related to state legislation. In an email on March 31, OSPI denied any association or involvement with Professor So, stating that “OSPI has no record of a contract with Professor Connie So” and “OSPI did not contract Dr. So to produce any survey about finding the appropriate month for Americans of Chinese Descent History Month. Therefore, we have no knowledge of the creation of the survey, funding, or payment breakdowns.” Furthermore, on January 31, 2023, Professor So sent her “Recommendations for Chinese American Month” to Rep. Santos and other recipients, but no one from OSPI was included in the report’s distribution list, despite her claim that the research was commissioned by OSPI. Professor So clearly misrepresented herself at the public hearing.

Upon reviewing the records obtained through the Public Records Act (PRA), it becomes evident that Professor So not only misrepresented herself in front of the panel of House committee members but also improperly redirected the OSPI proviso contract funds to finance her research project without the knowledge of OSPI. Moreover, her research project contradicted the purpose of the proviso contract between OSPI and UW. The contract is “for the successful implementation and operation of a collection of materials and resources about the history of Americans of Chinese descent.” However, Professor So asserted that her research, financed by the funds she inappropriately diverted from the OSPI contract, did not support the name “Americans of Chinese descent”.

Professor So was not only dishonest in front of the state legislators but also misleading to her survey participants. In the survey she referenced during her public hearing testimony, she stated, “the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction asked Dr. Connie So, teaching professor at the University of Washington’s American Ethnic Studies Department, to evaluate whether January is the best month to honor ‘Americans of Chinese descent’ –title of the original bill”. She then deceptively added a question about the name of the month as an afterthought, despite the name already having been determined.

Professor So’s politically motivated and problematic research raises significant concerns. She selectively sent a two-question survey to a small group of 40 individuals in her close circle of friends and political allies, including 26 people involved in the email chain discussing the name and month to be included in the survey. Notably, among them were Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos and Rep. Cindy Ryu, the only two legislators who voted against the Americans of Chinese Descent History Month bill, which successfully passed both the Senate and the House this year. Only 18 out of the 40 individuals she contacted responded to her survey, which was narrowly framed and biased in design, within the period of January 25 to January 29, 2023. Apart from the issues of sampling bias and an insufficient sample size, Professor So intentionally introduced survey bias by providing pros and cons commentary alongside each survey question—an approach frowned upon as it undermines the objectivity of the survey. Additionally, on January 27, Professor So provided a narrow definition of “Americans of Chinese Descent” to the 40 survey participants, which in turn influenced their answers to the survey. It is deeply appalling to witness such politically motivated and poor-quality work coming from a professor at the University of Washington.

Below is a quick summary of Professor So’s “research” methodology:

• Research Method: Survey;
• Research Timeframe: January 25, 2023, to January 29, 2023;
• Sampling Method: Non-scientific. Professor So simply emailed 40 people in her social and political circle to solicit answers to her survey. Among them, 26 were involved in discussing the survey design themselves. Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos and Rep. Cindy Ryu were among the group of 26. Her friends and associates, some of whom are not even of Chinese descent, are not a fair representation of the Chinese descent community in Washington, which introduced sampling bias;
• Sample Size: 18 respondents. Out of the 40 people she reached out to, only 18 responded. For any quantitative research, a sample size of 18 is too small to draw any valid conclusion;
• Survey Questions: 2 questions: name of the month and which month; 
• Survey Design: Each question has multiple answer options. Instead of letting respondents simply answer the survey based on their own opinions, Professor So paid 4 consultants to write pros and cons commentaries for each answer option and accompanied each survey question with those commentaries. This introduced survey bias, as the commentaries would inevitably influence respondents’ answers. This is especially true when the consultants fail to include Senator Wagoner’s floor speech. “When Americans are attacked, Americans stick together”, Senator Wagoner said on the floor. The senator recognizes that the Chinese descent community has been facing an uptick in anti-Asian hate crimes and purposefully chose the name “Americans of Chinese Descent History Month” to emphasize that they are Americans first. 
• Other: Professor So sent out an email to the 40 survey participants, and said “I have been asked by a few people to clarify ‘Americans of Chinese Descent’ versus ‘Chinese American Month’”. So then provided her version of explanation and asserted  “Chinese did not have naturalization rights until the Magnuson Act of 1943.  Thus, the early pioneers who built the railroad were NOT Americans.  However, ‘Americans’ of Chinese descent puts the emphasis on being an American.” So’s narrow definition of “Americans of Chinese descent” scared people away from selecting that term. We later learned that people thought adopting the name “Americans of Chinese Descent History Month” would leave out the history of early Chinese immigrants, which is completely untrue. Just as The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 applies to all individuals with disabilities, regardless of their citizenship, the term “Americans” is not reserved only for US citizens;

The proviso contract between OSPI and the UW College of Arts and Sciences was not signed until March 21, 2023. However, Professor So had already promised payment to her consultants for her research project, which was outside the scope of the contract and without the knowledge of OSPI, back in January. On January 14th, she wrote to her consultants: “To make sure that an ‘appropriate’ month is chosen, OSPI has given the department of American Ethnic Studies some funds to find researchers to determine what month would work best. Since the money is going to AES, of course I will be one of the researchers because of the obvious conflict of interest … OSPI, through AES, will pay you (or a group that you designate) money for the research. ” It is evident that Professor So also violated the clause in the OSPI contract that specifically states,”Neither CAS nor any subcontractor shall enter into subcontracts for any of the work contemplated under this Contract without obtaining prior written approval of OSPI.”

Timeline of evidence:

• 2022 – A $25,000 proviso to the OSPI “solely for the office to create and distribute promotional and educational materials to school districts for Americans of Chinese descent history month” was written in the 2022 Supplementary Budget. Despite the legislature’s failure to establish the Americans of Chinese descent history month that year, the proviso passed;
• May 17, 2022 – Senator Keith Wagoner and Senator Christine Rolfes sent a letter to OSPI to clarify how the funding should be used. In the letter, the two senators state: “The budget proviso was included to provide OSPI the tools needed to provide educational and promotional materials, e.g., posters or flyers celebrating the unique history and contributions of these Americans”, and “…emphasize the fact that these materials specifically state Americans of Chinese Descent and not Chinese-Americans.”;
• November 9, 2022 – The dean of the UW College of Education, Mia Tuan, sent out an email and stated, “I spoke with Rep. Tomiko Santos today to make sure I understood her wishes. Based on that conversation, here’s what my Assistant Dean for Finance (Santhi) and I suggest: -it doesn’t make sense to involve the College of Education in this transaction. Santhi will follow up with Jenny to introduce her to Santhi’s counterpart in the college of Arts & Sciences (the academic home for Asian American Studies). This is a cleaner and simpler process than having funds pass through our college.”
• December 22, 2022 – In response to OSPI’s follow up email on the contract, Santhi Perumal, the Assistant Dean of the UW College of Education, said, “There has been some change of plans and so I am introducing my colleague over at the College of Arts and Science, Linda Nelson (copied on the email), who will be taking over this.” Linda Nelson, the Associate Dean of the UW College of Arts and Sciences, emailed OSPI: “I understand that the work outlined in this contract will be completed by Professor Connie So who is a member of the Department of American Ethnic Studies within the College of Arts & Sciences.“;
• January 11, 2023 – Associate Dean Nelson, sent Professor So an email with the subject line “FW: Americans of Chinese Descent Contract Intake for OSPI”, and stated, “My contacts from OSPI are asking about the status of our contract review?” According to the Purpose of the Agreement section, the contract is “for the successful implementation and operation of a collection of materials and resources about the history of Americans of Chinese descent.“;

• January 14, 2023 –  Professor So sent an email to four people who she later hired as consultants for her research project and said, “To make sure that an ‘appropriate’ month is chosen, OSPI has given the department of American Ethnic Studies some funds to find researchers to determine what month would work best. Since the money is going to AES, of course I will be one of the researchers because of the obvious conflict of interest. But I am hoping that the four of you, all with tremendous Chinese American historical credibility, might come up with at least 1-2 months that make sense. OSPI, through AES, will pay you (or a group that you designate) money for the research. ” In the same email, she also revealed Rep. Santos’ association with her research, stating, “Sharon Tomiko Santos is sponsoring a bill to create a Chinese American History/Heritage Month…. The deadline for this bill’s passage is February, so we should try to find a month by the end of January.”;

• January 15, 2023 – Professor So sent another email to the four consultants and stated, “I think the amount of research money I can distribute will be around $1000-$3000. I will know more this coming week.”;
• January 18, 2023 – Professor So told her consultants in an email, “My meeting with UW budgeting and OSPI is next Tuesday”,  which was January 24, 2023;

• January 23, 2023 – In an email to the OSPI, Associate Dean Nelson stated, “I’m meeting with Professor So on tomorrow”, which was January 24, 2023;

• January 31, 2023 – Prof. Connie So sent her “Recommendations for Chinese American Month” to Rep. Santos and other recipients, but no one from OSPI was included in the report’s distribution list, despite her claim that the research was commissioned by OSPI. In the background section of her recommendation, she states: “On January 11, 2023, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) asked Dr. Connie So, teaching professor at the University of Washington’s American Ethnic Studies Department, to evaluate whether January is the best month to honor ‘Americans of Chinese Descent’ –the title of the original bill. … Dr. So created a survey to obtain additional perspectives on the title of the month, and whether January or another month would be the best choice to honor ‘Americans of Chinese Descent’/’Chinese Americans’”;
• March 21, 2023 – Professor So told the panel of House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee members that “In January, OSPI has commissioned me to assess the appropriate month to honor Chinese Americans, yes, Chinese Americans, not just Americans of Chinese descent”. So claimed that “Americans of Chinese descent” is the wrong term to use, and insisted that based on her “research”, the commemorative month should be called “Chinese American Month” instead of “Americans of Chinese Descent History Month”;
• March 21, 2023 – The contract between OSPI and the UW College of Arts and Sciences was signed. In the OSPI contract, it specifically states,”Neither CAS nor any subcontractor shall enter into subcontracts for any of the work contemplated under this Contract without obtaining prior written approval of OSPI.”;
• March 31, 2023 – In their email to WA Asians For Equality, OSPI denied any association or involvement with Professor So’s project, stating that “OSPI has no record of a contract with Professor Connie So” and “OSPI did not contract Dr. So to produce any survey about finding the appropriate month for Americans of Chinese Descent History Month. Therefore, we have no knowledge of the creation of the survey, funding, or payment breakdowns.”;

The post Examining Professor So’s Problematic Research That Was Financed by Improperly Diverted Funds From the Proviso to OSPI appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Dear Dean Harris,

The College of Arts and Sciences has recently entered into an interagency agreement (#20230360) with the OSPI to produce materials and resources about the history of Americans of Chinese descent. However, due to Teaching Professor Connie So’s recent xenophobic comments regarding “Americans of Chinese descent,” we feel that she would be biased and is unsuitable for working on this project. Additionally, we have serious concerns about the quality of her work, judging from her poorly conducted research for the OSPI. Therefore, we would like to request that Professor Connie So be removed from the OSPI Americans of Chinese descent history project (interagency agreement # 20230360).

Exhibition #1:

During the House public hearing on March 21, 2023, Professor Connie So argued that the term “Americans of Chinese descent” does not include people of Chinese descent in the US who were banned from naturalization. She went on to argue that Chinese railroad workers of the 19th century and many others are not “actually Americans” (https://youtu.be/t2uHaXFUQJQ). So’s xenophobic comments should be condemned.

Regardless of our heritage, we can all agree that America is a country of immigrants. Our family roots in this country trace back to immigrants who came to this land. Being an American is not defined by one’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, but by shared values and contributions to this country. It is our responsibility to rectify historical injustices and acknowledge that our ancestors, who built railroads, dug canals, and worked on plantations, in this country, are Americans. Their stories are an integral part of American history, and they are identifiable as “Americans of Chinese descent.”

While our society commonly uses the terms “Chinese Americans” and “Americans of Chinese descent” interchangeably, Professor So insisted on drawing a distinction between the two terms. As a result, Professor So’s definition of “Americans of Chinese descent” is much narrower than the intent and scope of OSPI’s Americans of Chinese Descent History project. Therefore, her involvement in the OSPI project will inevitably leave out a large part of the history of people of Chinese descent in this country.

The OSPI project originated from a proviso in the 2022 state budget. Senator Keith Wagoner, the primary sponsor of the Americans of Chinese Descent History Month bill, requested $25,000 to the OSPI for developing educational and promotional materials for Americans of Chinese descent. We, representing many people of Chinese descent in Washington, requested Senator Wagoner’s bill. Our intent for such a bill is to promote the entire and complete history of Americans of Chinese descent, which includes the early immigrants since the 18th century, regardless of their naturalization status. The term “Americans of Chinese descent” is used in the bill because it acknowledges that we are Americans first and foremost and fights against the exact xenophobic views that Professor So has on immigrants.

Exhibition #2

According to Professor So, she was commissioned to “evaluate whether January is the best month to honor ‘Americans of Chinese Descent’ –the title of the original bill”. On January 31, 2023, she submitted a report named “Recommendations for Chinese American Month” based on poorly constructed “research” from a survey of 18 respondents out of a homogeneous group of 40 people. (See attached) Professor So justified her recommendation based on the answers of 18 people from her list of close friends and political allies, which lacks diversity in immigration background, social economical status, and geographic representation. There was no modern survey sampling technique at all in her “so-called” research, and the size of her survey would NOT be qualified as quantitative research by any standard.  The survey itself was confusedly designed with a bias towards their preferred name “Chinese American Month”. Professor So’s survey results can’t withstand any academic scrutiny. 

It is appalling to see such poor quality work come out of a professor at UW. Professor So demonstrated a lack of basic research skills. The 2022 proviso is for our community, the OSPI project is for our future generation, and we don’t have confidence that professor So will be able to deliver quality materials that are free of errors or biases. 

Copying OSPI and Senator Wagoner on this request.

Regards,

WA Asians For Equality

The post Letter to UW College of Arts and Sciences Dean Requesting Teaching Professor Connie So To Be Removed From the OSPI Contract Project appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

UW professor, Connie So, disavows Chinese Americans as Americans. Outraged Chinese American community plan to file a complaint with the UW Senate.

BELLEVUE, WA, March 27, 2023 – At the Washington State House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee’s public hearing on March 21, University of Washington teaching professor, Connie So, asserted that Chinese Americans are different from Americans. Because, according to So, only American citizens can be recognized as Americans. So went on to claim that the Chinese railroad workers of the 19th century “none of them are actually Americans“, because they were denied citizenship back then.

So’s testimony added salt to a more than century old wound that the Chinese American community is attempting to heal by asking the state’s legislature to pass SB 5000, a bill to establish January as Americans of Chinese Descent History Month, and correct the “perpetual foreigners” stereotype. The bill’s sponsor and supporters deliberately chose the words “Americans of Chinese Descent” over “Chinese Americans” to emphasize that they are part of American society.

In his email to the committee members, Kan Qiu, President of the Americans Coalition for Equality, told the legislators, “I’m appalled by the hurtful and discriminatory remarks made by a UW teaching professor, … belittling immigrants without naturalization as not being “actually Americans” ! We call America the melting pot. America is an inclusive country. I am confident that every member of this committee would stay distant from such a divisive view.”

In a tweet about So’s testimony, WA Asians For Equality tweeted, “Those Chinese railroad workers were wronged, denied recognition as members of American society. It is on us to right the wrongs and recognize them as Americans. Connie’s rant was hurtful and discriminatory to all immigrants in this country. Urge @uw to denounce her comments.”

Last year, the Americans of Chinese Descent History Month bill, which passed the Senate 48 to 0, was killed by Washington State House Democrats. Outraged, the Chinese American community ran large bill boards in Speaker Laurie Jinkins’ district, urging her to learn from history. So’s comments that disavow Chinese Americans’ history as American history came at a sensitive time when, after passing the Senate by 48 to 0 again this year, the Americans of Chinese Descent History Month bill has been stuck in the House since February 3rd and is facing uncertainty again.

“The Chinese immigrants who built the Pacific Railroad, as well as those who have been living in the US, may not have been citizens, but their efforts and contributions were instrumental in the development of the United States. To deny their place in American history is to overlook the profound influence they had on the country’s growth and to diminish their legacy. This viewpoint can be perceived as another form of racism.” Said, Jessica Xie, who was at the House public hearing on March 21, heard So’s testimony.

“We plan to file a complaint with the UW Senate. Such kinds of speech should not be tolerated.” Said Linda Yang, Director of Washington Asians For Equality, “We also hope that the House Democrat Caucus would distance itself from this kind of narrative and support establishing January as Americans of Chinese Descent History Month.”

###

The post Press Release – Community Members Are Outraged by UW Professor Connie So’s Claim That Chinese Americans Are Not Americans appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

• Tom is for fully funding education. Education’s share of the state’s operating budget has grown to 51 percent, and Tom said a top priority, if elected, is to guard against lawmakers backsliding on public-schools funding.
• Tom wants to allow principals to hire and fire teachers at their schools, and install merit-based raises. “We need to make sure we have the best teachers in the classroom, especially in some of our more difficult schools,” Tom said.
• Tom also wants to protect traditional education funding. He does not support putting some social programs—such as homeless school children—under the umbrella of more traditional education funding.
• Tom is passionate about making higher education affordable. Lowering tuition, offering some college books online at fraction of the cost are some of the ideas he constantly talks about.

中文链接

The post 48th LD State Senate Candidate Rodney Tom on Education appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

What is I-200?

The Washington Civil Rights Initiative, also known as Initiative 200, was on the November 3, 1998, ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the Legislature, where it was approved. The measure prohibited public institutions from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Voters approved the amendment by over 300,000 votes, making Washington the second state to enact such a measure. The approved ballot measure added a new section (RCW 49.60.400) to Law Against Discrimination (LAD), chapter 49.60 of Washington’s state code. RCW 49.60.400 , known and cited as the Washington State Civil Rights Act , states  “Discrimination, preferential treatment prohibited.”

University of Washington’s love of racial based admission

According to UW’s website, “For thirty years UW admissions decisions have taken race and ethnicity into account. In the fall 1998 freshman class, about two-thirds of the class-those with the strongest academic records-gained entry on the basis of grades and test scores alone. The remaining third was reviewed and admitted on the basis of several additional factors, of which race or ethnicity was one.”

Under I-200, the University can no longer use race or ethnicity as a “plus-factor” in admissions decisions. The result? One year after the passage of I-200, Asian American students planning to enroll in the Fall 1999 freshman class increased six percent (from 1,109 to 1,176). In other words, 6% of Asian American students were denied equal opportunity of getting into UW due to their race prior to I-200.  If we allow repeal of I-200 to happen so that UW can go back to use race and ethnicity in admissions decisions, Asian American students will once again be denied equal opportunity to get into UW due to their race.

The 2010 cohort of UW graduation data showed that Asian American students had the highest graduation rates at all three campuses. As an university, UW’s interest first and the foremost should be attracting the best, and most qualified students, rather than playing racial cards.

Source: National Center For Education Statistics

UW Seattle Campus

UW Bothell Campus

UW Tacoma Campus

Postsecondary enrollment in WA closely mirrored racial demographics in post I-200 era

The following table contains 2014 data from National Center for Education Statistics on the racial demographics of all higher education institutions in Washington as compared to the state’s general population. Among total postsecondary student population in Washington in 2014, 61.85% was White, 10.75% was Hispanic, 8.96% was Asian, 4.49% was Black. During that time, 65.75% of the state’s general population was white, 11.43% was Hispanic, 9.53% was Asian, 4.77% was Black, with other ethnic groups making up the remainder. Opponents’ claim that I-200 hurts diversity in higher education is groundless.  On the contrary, bringing back racial based admission policy, will definitely tilt the balance.

Finally, I’d like to end this post with thoughtful words from Mr. Ward Connerly:

[For me, one of the most troubling considerations about Asian discrimination is the tendency to excuse the argument that such discrimination is no big deal in view of the fact that Asians are so dominant, overall, when it comes to university admissions.

This argument, obviously, misses the most important point: The Constitution of the United States guarantees to every individual citizen a number of rights, to which we refer as “civil rights.”]

The post Repeal of I-200 Will Hurt Asian Americans in College Admission appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.