Mr. Eaton’s April 1st letter was sent to Chinese parents at Blackwell Elementary in response to their letter on March 21st. 62 parents from the Chinese American community at Blackwell Elementary co-signed the letter. We obtained Mr. Eaton’s letter from the District and confirmed that Mr. Eaton’s letter is the District’s official position on this incident. In Mr. Eaton’s letter, he said “I want to apologize for the impact that this incident has had on you. I have come to understand from our correspondence and meetings that the way one of our teachers wore traditional Chinese attire in celebrating the Lunar New Year was considered a form of appreciation. “

Dr. Ross also indicated in her response on June 8th that “all public records requests concerning this matter will be forwarded to you immediately. ” After some follow-ups, we received the first batch of PRA (Public Records Act) records. However, the internal investigation communications/documents are not included in the first batch. We are still awaiting the remaining PRA records. We will update the public on the PRA findings after we receive and review them.

The post LWSD Blackwell Elementary Chinese New Year Incident Update appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Dear Superintendent Holm and LWSD board,

We filed the below discrimination complaint against LWSD on March 31. On May 2nd, Mr. Richard Patterson sent us his response on behalf of the district (see attached).  We are not satisfied with the response and are filing a formal appeal against Mr. Patterson’s decision.  

Ground of our appeal:

1) Mr. Patterson’s investigation was flawed. He stated that Director Sue Anne Sullivan sent us a letter on March 23rd. We never communicated with Ms. Sullivan on the matter, not to mention receiving any communication from her. We are now questioning how thorough Mr. Patterson’s investigation was. Did he conduct the investigation himself? Did he talk to people who initially complained about Mrs. Nicholson? Did he talk to parents who complained about  the school and district’s decision? 

2) Mr. Patterson denied our complaints about the district withholding information. Yet he failed to provide supporting evidence. On the other hand, we have evidence that parents’ requests for information were not met. In Superintendent Holm’s 3/1 email, he stated that“I have asked Associate Superintendent, Matt Gillingham, to review the situation and provide a response to your questions. Given the time to evaluate the situation, you can expect to hear from Mr. Gillingham early next week.” Yet, no one received the requested information from Mr. Gillingham. Several parents filed PRA requests, yet none received any requested information back. One PRA request was filed as early as 2/18. If the district did not withhold information from the Chinese American community, please show the proof.

3) Mr. Patterson claimed that for our community members to get information, they should submit PRA requests. Is there a written district policy supporting this practice? If not, what is the district’s proof that all other community members are treated the same way and are requested to submit PRA requests in order to obtain information from the district?  

4) Mr. Patterson denied our complaints about Chinese culture being singled out. However, he failed to answer why Mr. Eaton wearing a turban posing for photos was OK, why teachers wearing Hawaii Hula outfits waving goodbye to students was OK, yet Mrs. Nicholson wearing a Chinese traditional outfit while teaching Chinese tradition was not allowed? 

5) Mr. Patterson claimed that our demand for a public apology was not a proper remedy under 5010. We would like to ask the district to clarify if the district still considers Ms. Nicholson wearing a Chinese traditional outfit while teaching Chinese tradition “cultural appropriation” and if the district still thinks that Ms. Nicholson should apologize. If the district now thinks the Blackwell Chinese New Year incident should not be labelled as “cultural appropriation” and Ms. Nicholson’s apology was unwarranted, we can work with the district and school to seek a mutually agreeable solution to heal the community wound and move forward.

Regards,

WA Asians For Equality

LWSD’s response to the discrimination complaint:

The post Appeal to LWSD’s Response to Discrimination Complaint appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Dear Mr. Patterson,

Recently, we received reports from the Chinese American community about a Washington Civil Rights Act violation at LWSD. After trying to resolve this violation concern with LWSD without success, we are now following the steps listed on the OSPI site (https://www.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/equity-and-civil-rights/complaints-and-concerns-about-discrimination ) and filing a formal discrimination complaint against LWSD for violating the Washington Civil Rights Act.

RCW 49.60.400 (Washington Civil Rights Act) states:
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” 

What happened at Blackwell Elementary School surrounding the incident of teaching Chinese culture and tradition during Chinese New Year clearly violated RCW 49.60.400. 

Background: 
On February 1st, the Chinese New Year, Mrs. Nicholson wore a Chinese gown to teach Chinese traditional culture to her class. According to the information we obtained, it was a very high-quality lesson. Mrs. Nicholson explained to her students that the outfit was gifted to her by a former student family. She talked about the student family and how she developed a relationship with them. The students watched Discovery Education videos about the Lunar New Year, then talked about Chinese tradition, talked about why things are red in Chinese culture, wrote numbers one to ten in Chinese, made Chinese lanterns, etc.  

The school and district leadership, none of whom are of Chinese heritage, not to mention having lived experience of Chinese culture, later claimed that Mrs. Nicholson’s act of wearing a Chinese gown while teaching Chinese traditional culture was “cultural appropriation” and offended the Chinese American community. Mrs. Nicholson was made to issue both a verbal and a written apology to her class on February 11th.  

Contrary to the school and district leadership’s false claim, “cultural appropriation” is a foreign concept to Chinese culture. Through its thousands of years’ development, Chinese culture has always been open and inclusive. Chinese culture actually welcomes people learning and experiencing their culture by wearing their traditional clothes, especially during the Chinese New Year. 

WA Asians For Equality website has more than 100 comments from the Chinese American community supporting Mrs. Nicholson wearing the Chinese gown while teaching Chinese traditional culture.  

More than 60 parents of the Chinese American students at Blackwell Elementary signed a letter supporting Mrs. Nicholson and requested the school and district issue an apology to Mrs. Nicholson and the Chinese American community.

We have identified the following violations of RCW 49.60.400:
1) Withholding information in an attempt to cover up discrimination against Chinese culture and the Chinese American community.
Evidence:
Many members of the Chinese American community have reached out to the school and district and requested detailed documentation on what has exactly happened since February 1st at Blackwell Elementary. None of them has received any documentation from the school or district.  Requests for clarification of the district’s standard policy and procedure were not answered either.  The school and district claimed that there were complaints against Mrs. Nicholson’s act, yet they were not able to provide sequenced details to back up their claim: When, where, and who complained? What were the exact complaints? How were the decisions made? Etc. The Chinese American community has not been treated fairly by the school and district. The school and district’s non-Chinese leadership made false claims about Chinese culture, damaged the reputation of Chinese culture, and threatened anyone who would want to experience Chinese culture, yet prohibited the Chinese American community from having equal access to the source of those false claims. 

2) Chinese culture was singled out and targeted, and the Chinese American community was made an example of. 
Evidence: 
1) Mrs. Nicholson wore the Chinese gown on the morning of February 1st. She spent most of the morning in the classroom teaching students about Chinese culture. It was a fully packed morning, and she was only in and out of the classroom very quickly.  In the afternoon, after Principal Eaton raised the concern with her, she changed back to her regular clothes. Given that not many people even had the chance to see what Mrs. Nicholson was wearing that day, and that she was cooperative after Principal Eaton talked to her, if the school’s goal was to address concerns, then anyone with common sense would agree that what Mrs. Nicholson did that afternoon timely and sufficiently addressed the concerns. Why did the school and district continue to make this an issue and make Mrs. Nicholson issue apologies to her class two weeks later? 
2) There are only two Chinese students in Mrs. Nicholson’s class. Neither the students nor their parents complained about Mrs. Nicholson wearing the Chinese gown that day. As a matter of fact, not one single student or parent from Mrs. Nicholson’s class complained about Mrs. Nicholson’s act that day. Why did the school and district make Mrs. Nicholson apologize to her class on February 11th?
3) According to many Blackwell Elementary parents, it is very common to see the school’s teachers and staff wear other cultures’ clothes. Last June, during the aloha parade, school teachers wore Hawaii Hula outfits when handing out goodie bags and waving goodbye to students on the last school day. Even Principal Eaton was caught wearing a turban while posing for a yearbook photo. No one was made to apologize in those incidents. Why was wearing a Chinese outfit for teaching purposes labeled as “cultural appropriation”, while wearing outfits from other cultures for fun or photo opportunities was acceptable?  Principal Eaton insisted that wearing a turban for a photo was acceptable, while wearing a Chinese outfit for teaching Chinese culture was not.

More than 48% of Blackwell Elementary’s students are Asian, and the majority of them are of Chinese heritage. Clearly, Chinese culture was singled out and targeted by the school and district.  They wanted to make an example out of the school’s largest minority student body. As a result, Chinese culture was portrayed as unwelcoming, and people are now scared away from even considering sharing or experiencing Chinese culture. The entire Chinese American community feels the chilling message: stay away from Chinese culture.

If the school and district truly cared about the feelings of the Chinese American community, and were truly interested in learning about Chinese culture, they would have consulted with the school’s large Chinese American community. The fact is that the school and district did not consult any members of the Chinese American student families before they made the false claim about Chinese culture. And the school even put up road blocks to prevent shocked Chinese American parents from finding out the facts afterwards.

The Chinese American community denounces the false portrayal of Chinese culture and strongly condemns the school and district for targeting Chinese culture and penalizing the Chinese American community for their own agenda. “Cultural appropriation” runs in direct contradiction with everything that Chinese culture represents and stands for.

What we demand:
1) The school and district should immediately release to the Chinese American community detailed documentation of the entire incident since February 1st. We request access to the same information that the school and district have. We request the names and contact information of every single one of those who claimed that Mrs. Nicholson’s act offended Chinese Americans and Chinese culture so that we can conduct a full interview with them;
2) The school and district should issue an open apology to Mrs. Nicholson and the Chinese American community for falsely portraying Chinese culture and for falsely labeling Mrs. Nicholson’s act and wrongfully making her apologize. The school and district should make it clear to everyone that Chinese culture is open and welcome. People are encouraged to live and experience Chinese culture. 

Regards,
WA Asians For Equality

The post Formal Discrimination Complaint Filed Against LWSD appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Not satisfied with principal Eaton’s “apology” letter, 62 parents from the Chinese American community at Blackwell Elementary sent LWSD a co-signed letter with their requests on March 21. Below is the full content of their letter.

Dear Principal Eaton,

We, members of the Blackwell Chinese community, are seeking redress regarding how you responded to Mrs. Nicholson wearing Chinese traditional clothing at Blackwell.

What happened in the classroom

On February 1^st, in recognition of the Chinese New Year, as you know Mrs. Nicholson introduced the holiday to her class while wearing a traditional Chinese gown and hat as part of her teaching materials. Mrs. Nicholson is well known to wear a variety of hats and costumes as part of her engaging and uniquely effective approaches to teaching. On this occasion she gave her students a wonderful lesson on Chinese tradition and culture in which she explained that the outfit was gifted to her by a former student family. She talked about that family and how she had developed a relationship with them. The students watched Discovery Education videos about the Chinese New Year and discussed Chinese traditions such the meaning of the color red. They wrote numbers from one to ten in Chinese, made Chinese lanterns, etc.  Mrs. Nicholson demonstrated and taught appreciation and respect for Chinese culture and the diversity our beloved neighborhood has to offer.    

The school’s response

Instead of praising Mrs. Nicholson’s culturally sensitive teaching and inclusive embracing of Chinese culture, you shortly thereafter determined to label her wearing of a Chinese gown while teaching Chinese culture as “cultural appropriation.” Citing a complaint of undisclosed origin, you apparently believed Mrs. Nicholson’s behavior would harm the Chinese community and caused her to believe she had committed an offence. You led her to apologize to the class and send a letter of apology recanting her behavior to parents of students in the class, none of whom complained. In all this, you did not consult with any members of the school’s Chinese American student families. It is hard to fathom what the children learned from this experience.

What it meant to the Chinese community

Had you involved us, the Chinese community, in your response, you would have learned that people of Chinese origin are open, inclusive, and proud of our culture, and as such are delighted when others celebrate it, whether through wearing our traditional clothing or in any similarly respectful manner, especially during the Chinese New Year. To us, Mrs. Nicholson’s wearing of this clothing and teaching were gestures of appreciation and inclusion to be welcomed. As done by a person of authority, such as a teacher, these gestures go even further in setting a positive example toward teaching children the importance of open mindedness and appreciation of diversity. Those of us who saw Mrs. Nicholson greeting students wearing a Chinese gown at Blackwell that day felt proud to see their school joining the celebration and valuing our traditions. Our hearts were warmed to learn how she had celebrated the Lunar New Year with her class including the wearing of these gifts from another Chinese family. We felt welcomed and included by this positive gesture of recognition of our tradition and celebration of the diverse culture of our community. We must assume that the family who gave her these gifts would have likewise wished her to feel completely free, as an American, to wear them in a public school. We felt reassured by Mrs. Nicholson’s cultural appreciation, all the more so in these difficult times in which hatred and violence toward Asians is increasingly evident.

On the contrary, we found the act of making Mrs. Nicholson apologize for this to be deeply disturbing and beyond our comprehension. Her letter sent a message opposite to what Mrs. Nicholson had conveyed in the classroom, effectively revealing a reprimand to those who show affinity to Chinese culture. While we can’t speak for other cultures and communities, this twisting of the definition of cultural appropriation to apply it to Chinese culture is baffling. It has been difficult to refrain from questioning the motive, having seen Blackwell teachers and staff wearing costumes or outfits of other cultures on many occasions. Even you, as the chief authority of the school, have worn a turban of another culture at a social function, as immortalized in the yearbook for all to see. In doing so we must assume that you had learned about, expressed appreciation for, and shared about the culture it represented, as did Mrs. Nicholson, or that it was for a teaching purpose, as it was for Mrs. Nicholson, and not merely for a photo op.  We in the Chinese heritage community at Blackwell assume only the best of intentions on the part of others when they celebrate others’ cultures. So receiving a letter effectively condemning this celebration of Chinese culture created for us not a feeling of belonging, inclusion, nor of being “protected,” but rather a feeling of stark alienation from the broader celebration of diverse cultures we have otherwise witnessed at Blackwell.

We moreover find it patronizing that others took it upon themselves to speak for and be offended on our behalf.  While we have heard that whatever person or persons complained about Mrs. Nicholson included an ”Asian American,” regardless of his/her background and heritage, whoever complained that this was “cultural appropriation” clearly has not lived nor truly understood Chinese culture. It is frankly stereotyping us as “minorities who must be offended,” and is a direct insult that the school took action against a teacher to protect our community without having heard the voices of the very community you supposedly intended to protect.  By excluding us from whatever conversation led to the apology you have effectively marginalized us.

Finally, we are confounded by the lack of transparency about the complaint and how the decision of the school was taken or how cultural appreciation got confused with cultural appropriation. What rule or policy did Mrs. Nicholson break to warrant such a public humiliation? If there is one, who was it designed to serve? Without understanding what happened, we are left to wonder and be afraid of whatever other actions of cultural suppression we and our children may be subjected to in the future.  Will our children be safe from persecution should they choose to wear Chinese clothing? What if they don’t “look Chinese” enough? Will Mrs. Nicholson feel compelled to further edit her collection of hats? 

How we can move forward, and what we expect to see from the school and district:

1. An immediate written apology to the Chinese community at Blackwell, acknowledging that Mrs. Nicholson’s behavior was appropriate, and her letter of apology unwarranted.  Come also to the classroom and explain to the children what was learned and why it was wrong to make Mrs. Nicholson apologize for it.  Make it clear the school fully supports such culturally appropriate expressions of appreciation as Mrs. Nicholson demonstrated. Rescind the previous judgement mislabeling Mrs. Nicholson’s clear actions of appreciation as appropriation. Recognize that it was insensitive to the Chinese community and wrong. Ensure teachers and students of all backgrounds, as our Chinese heritage children whether or not they “look the part,” are safe from harassment should they choose to embrace and respectfully display evidence of their cultural heritage through clothing or otherwise. Ensure culturally appropriate expressions of cultural appreciation are not suppressed, and no feelings of intolerance were given credence to fester by the school’s response.

2. Get to know Chinese culture and the Chinese community, one of the major ethnic groups in our district. We believe there is a lot more to be learned by engaging in dialog with other communities than by engaging in acts of imperious censorship or reprimands that effectively suppress the rare opportunities for learning about differences in minority cultures, cultural expression, and preferences of expression by those cultures. Educators and leaders charged with the responsibility of promoting diversity and inclusion should especially recognize the importance of understanding diverse cultures before jumping to potentially harmful conclusions counterproductive to DEI goals. Going forward, actively involve members of communities you serve before making judgements about how they might be offended or censoring respectful free expressions of culture by others.  

3. Have the district conduct a full and transparent investigation and report back to the community on what exactly happened (a time lined detail since 2/1) on how this happened, what principles or guidelines were applied, what process was followed, and who was consulted, so we can avoid such incidents in the future. Clarify school and district policies relating to cultural expression. What are the rules or guidelines by which teachers and students can celebrate culture and diversity?

4. Become familiar with, and educate staff about, the differences between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation. Appropriation involves taking an aspect of a culture not one’s own without consent or any cultural context or relationship to the item or practice—solely for personal interest, such as to gain popularity. Appreciation and sharing a culture being celebrated by respectfully wearing clothes, when seen as desirable by the community being celebrated, is not appropriation.  

5. Mrs. Nicholson is an exemplary teacher in her approach to inclusiveness and teaching in general. Her educational methods are greatly valued to broaden every child’s horizon, enhance their interest in learning and promote friendship. Please find an appropriate way to honor her contributions, ensure her record reflects this, and that she is left feeling fully respected and appreciated for her unique style and contribution to learning, including about other cultures. Ensure she and other teachers at Blackwell feel completely free to continue their own unique and respectful styles of teaching so that our children continue to learn to appreciate other cultures and feel the sense of belonging and inclusiveness that we are confident the school and district are trying to inculcate.

Respectfully, Families of Blackwell Students of Chinese Heritage:

The post Blackwell Elementary Chinese American Community’s letter to LWSD appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Dear Director Ortega,

As I mentioned in my letter to Mrs. Nicholson last night, we are requesting a formal investigation into the Blackwell Elementary Chinese New Year incident.

Background:
Upset Chinese parents contacted us, and sought our help in resolving the Chinese New Year incident at Blackwell Elementary School. According to the parents, Mrs. Carol Nicholson, a much loved first grade teacher, was forced to issue an apology letter for wearing a Chinese gown during Chinese New Year. According to the letter, In the letter, Mrs. Nicholson was made to say that she offended Chinese American culture by wearing the Chinese gown, which was gifted to her by a former student’s family. The irony is that the Chinese American community at the Blackwell actually welcomed Mrs. Nicholson’s gesture of cultural recognition and cultural appreciation. The Chinese American parents at the school only found out about this incident AFTER the apology letter was issued. And they have been trying to advocate on Mrs. Nicholson’s behalf, but they have hit the stonewall from the school and district. Their questions remain unanswered. The school and district’s only answer is to label Mrs. Nicholson’s cultural recognition gesture as “culture appropriation”. 

Request for investigation:
We’d like the school and school district to thoroughly investigate this incident and provide answers to the following questions: 

1) Who and what triggered the action to label Mrs. Nicholson’s action of honoring and recognizing Chinese American culture during Chinese New Year as “culture appropriation”?

2) Who and what parties were involved in the decision process? 

3) Who did the school and school district consult with? 

4) Did the school and the school district communicated/ consulted with the Chinese American community? If so, what was the reaction?

5) Who wrote the apology letter? Was Mrs. Nicholson threatened with losing her job if she did not issue the letter? 

6) On what ground is this labeled as “culture appropriation”? What is the school district’s definition and policy? Please show us the actual document.

7) What did the school and the school district do to recognize Chinese American culture during the Chinese New Year?

As the receivers of Mrs. Nicholson’s gesture of cultural recognition, Chinese American parents apparently do not feel her action was offensive. It is the school and school district’s decision that offended the Chinese American community. The school and school district’s decision sent a chilling message to everyone who celebrates and recognizes Chinese American culture – they may be punished for showing their recognition in the open. Being inclusive starts with understanding each and every culture. Chinese American culture welcomes people to wear their traditional dresses during Chinese New Year, regardless of race or background. The school and school district should learn to accept it. 

Copying ACE Foundation as they expressed interest in joining this investigation request.

Regards,
WA Asians For Equality

Update:

Culture Appreciation vs. Culture Appropriation

According to the comparison on the University of British Columbia’s website , Mrs. Nicholson’s decision to wear a Chinese gown gifted to her by a former student’s family during Chinese New Year, falls under the Cultural Appreciation category, NOT Cultural Appropriation.

Cultural Appreciation is appreciating another culture in an effort to broaden their perspective and connect with others cross-culturally, while cultural appropriation is taking one aspect of a culture that is not their own, such as culturally distinct items, aesthetics, or spiritual practices, and mimics it — without consent, permission, or any cultural context or relationship to that item or practice — solely for personal interest, make money, gain popularity, or because they like the way it looks.

The primary difference is that of consent or permission to share in a cultural exchange. For example, appreciating and sharing the culture being celebrated by wearing culturally appropriate clothing at a celebrated event — as opposed to appropriation, such as going to a music festival wearing a costume the imitates a culture that is solely intended to get attention or likes on social media.

Please scroll down to leave a comment.

If you’d like to keep receiving updates on this incident, please subscribe using the form below.

The post Request a formal investigation into the Blackwell Elementary Chinese New Year incident appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

We did a research on the book, and the students were right. This book contains the old racial stereotyping against Chinese immigrants. In the book, the author portrayed Chinese could not pronounce the letter “r” properly. “Very” was pronounced as “vely”, “truth” was pronounced as “tluth”, “cricket” was pronounced as “clicket”, etc. Chinese food was described as “funny”. The author even suggested that Chinese would eat anything: “[t]hey make soup out of bird’s nests and stew out of shark fins. They could make a soufflé out of a mouse”. In many places, the book described Chinese constantly bowing. An Amazon review called this book “Racist Book“.

We reached out to LWSD Superintendent, Dr. Jon Holmen on November 20th. Dr. Holmen quickly asked his team to look into the matter the next day. Associate Superintendent, Mike VanOrden, confirmed on November 22nd, that “[a]n excerpt from the book is included in a unit in our 4^th grade literacy curriculum that was adopted in 2012, and the book is available as an optional extension for this unit.” Mr. VanOrden copied Director of Teacher and Learning, Dr. Jennifer Rose, on the November 22nd email. According to Mr. VanOrden, Dr. Rose “can work with her team to review the book and make a determination about next steps, which may include replacing or pulling the text from the curriculum materials. We have conducted similar reviews in the past. ”

In the same email, Mr. VanOrden also provided the instruction for parents to file a formal complaint and challenge the material. After some internal discussions, we decided to first let the school district go through its review process.

On November 30th, we sent Mr. VanOrden an email and said “we’d like to wait till Dr. Rose and her team review the book and make their determination before we decide the next logical step. Normally how long will it take for Dr. Rose’s team to complete the review process? And how will  the decision be communicated to teachers and parents?” Dr. Rose was copied on the November 30th email.

We also provided below feedback we gathered from students and the community in the November 30th email.

1) Parents would like to see the excerpt from the book that is included in the 4th grade literacy curriculum. 

2) Chinese students would prefer that the offensive content is not used in classrooms. For example, through out the book, the author implied that Chinese could not pronounce the letter “r” properly. “Very” was pronounced as “velly” , “truth” was pronounced as “tluth”, and many more. It described Sai Fong “looked slyly at the boy”, and “his eyes became even narrower than they had been before”… There are many more content in the book that Chinese students feel uncomfortable with. 

3) Although Chinese students are feeling uncomfortable with the offensive content, many of them do not recognize this is a form of racial stereotyping and they should report to their teachers and schools.

4) None of the non-Chinese students we asked recognized that the content offended their Chinese peers. Some recognized after we explained, some still thought it was OK.

5) In some classrooms, teachers recognized racial stereotyping and pointed out to students. However in most classrooms, teacher did not point the racial stereotyping out.

6) Parents would like to use this as an opportunity to teach students that racial stereotyping against Chinese/Asian students has existed for a long time and is not acceptable. And students should learn to recognize and know their right to report. 

To Mr. VanOrden’s credit, he promptly responded on December 1st, and said ” I’m including Dr. Rose on this email and will ask her to follow up with you about the next steps and a timeline. Because she has direct responsibility for overseeing our curriculum resources and the reconsideration process, she will also be the best person to answer your questions via email or meeting. “

That was when the district’s communication on this matter ended. Despite two follow up emails, one on December 2nd, one on December 7th, Dr. Rose, never once responded on this matter.

With the widespread anti-Asian hate crimes are still going on in our region and through out the country, you’d think that the LWSD would take swift action to address anti-Chinese racial stereotyping curriculum concerns. Yet, we are disappointed to see that the school district’s leadership is not taking racial stereotyping against Chinese Americans seriously. Parents of Chinese American students should demand LWSD to provide welcoming and inclusive environment for their kids.

Please contact: JOHOLMEN@lwsd.org, boardmembers@lwsd.org, mvanorden@lwsd.org, and jerose@lwsd.org , and let them know that it is not acceptable to expose Chinese students in those racial stereotyping environment.

Update:

Thanks for everyone who contacted LWSD. We received an email from Dr. Rose on December 10th. We’ll provide more details on the next step soon.

The post A racial stereotyping book is used in LWSD classrooms, yet the district is slow in taking action to address Chinese community’s concerns appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

34.9% of the school district’s students board are Asians. The voices of Asian students deserve to be heard by the school district. It is critical that you comment on the Equity Policy. If you remain silence, as one board member admitted, Equitable Outcomes could mean “bring down our Asian students performance”; If you remain silence, Asian students may become target of social justice endeavor –  this year, the school district compiled a flyer for the Asian American history month. In that flyer, a personal opinion piece from 2017, which falsely portrayed Asian Americans as “anti-Blackness”, was listed under “Present Day issues including racism and stereotype”.  The school district later removed that link upon our request. 

We encourage LWSD families to send your comments regarding the Equity Policy directly to the board members at boardmembers@lwsd.org .

We recognize that many Asian families are also immigrant families. Language barrier may prevent them from actively participate in school district’s public comment opportunities. Hence, we crafted below letter to the board members to express some of the common positions the Asian community hold in regarding to the district’s Equity Policy. If you agree with those positions, and would like to join our petition to the district, please sign up using the form below the petition letter, and we’ll forward the letter along with your names to the school district as part of our petition.

Dear LWSD board members,

The board’s value statement that “The Board believes that each student has the potential to achieve excellence, learn at high levels and accomplish significant academic and personal goals.” resonates with many of us. We believe that the first priority of our schools is to serve every single one of our students. All students’ interests and needs should be the focus, not just addressing the current political climate, which will of course change over time anyway. We feel that a more long term and inclusive approach would be better. 

With that, we’d like to state our major positions on the Equity Policy:

1) Anti-racism: We respectfully request the board to make sure that Asian students are not forgotten, ignored or even falling victim of anti-racism discussions and practices. Without doubt, the Asian American community faces racism. From the Asian stereotypes, such as the model minority myth or Asians are’t athletic; to the perpetual foreigner perception, anti-Asian racism has long been carried out in many shapes and forms. Although we applaud the school district’s effort in combating racism, we want to point out that if we are not careful, Asians can fall victim of anti-racism efforts. Below are two recent examples:

In the board’s June Equity Policy study meeting, an associate superintendent talked about the importance of teaching history to combat racial injustice. He mentioned history of Black African Americans, history of Indigenous people, yet he forgot and failed to mention history of Asian Americans. More than 30% of the school district’s student body is Asian, yet those students did not come to his mind. 

Then at the board’s July Equity Policy study meeting, a board member said “THE WORD RACE DOESN’T JUST GO TO AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR LATINO OR WHATEVER”. Asian students fell into the ‘Whatever” category in this board member’s mind. He has been on the board for many years, yet he could not remember the second largest racial group in the district!! 

2) We believe the district’s equity policy should be broad and inclusive. Race is only one component of equity. Overly focusing on race would send a message to ELL, low income, special needs, LGTBQ, and many other kids that they are not important in this policy. We understand that race is a very hot topic right now. Yet, the school district should be reminded that ELL students, homeless students, low income students, and students with disabilities have consistently ranked at the bottom in performance, behind any racial group. Combined they represent 32.3% of the district’s student body. What would be the board’s justification for singling out “anti-racism” in the policy title, and listing it at the front? Data source: https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/100127

3) Equitable outcomes: The school district’s Equity Policy should not become the weapon to deprive Asian students from achieving their full potentials. Demanding equitable outcomes is questionable. Not all students are the same. How can schools deliver equitable outcome without holding some students back? Students should be encouraged to excel and be successful at their own pace. And across the country, a prevailing trend now is that Asian students are being targeted under the name of “Equitable Outcomes”. At the August 23rd board meeting, an interchange between two board members confirmed our fear:

Board member A: “WHEN YOU SAY EQUITABLE OUTCOMES ONE COULD INTERPRET THAT AS WE WANT TO BRING DOWN OUR ASIAN STUDENT PERFORMANCE.”
Board member B: “YES. IT IS A TORTUOUS INTERPRETATION, BUT YES.”

Some related national stories: De Blasio’s obsession with racial balance in schools has a clear victim: Asian students (https://thehill.com/opinion/education/521696-de-blasios-obsession-with-racial-balance-in-schools-has-a-clear-victim ); The purge of Asian American students at Thomas Jefferson High School has begun (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/02/purge-asian-american-students-thomas-jefferson-has-begun/ ).

4) Workforce diversity: We stand in strong support to hire the most qualified teachers and staffs regardless their race, gender, ethnicity, or any other identities. Although we support increased outreach effort to recruit, hire, and retain a diversified workforce, we do not support trading quality for diversity. To put things in prospective, if we were to demand 34.9% of the district’s workforce to be Asian Americans, many, including those on the district’s management team, would be replaced for identity reason. Will that be for the best interest of students? Perhaps not. A teacher can make or break a student’s life. And our students deserve the best education possible.

5) Washington Civil Rights Act: Voter approved and reaffirmed Washington Civil Rights Act ( https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.400 ) clearly bans discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. in public education or public employment. We would respectfully request the school district to make sure the Equity Policy is in compliance with the this state law.

Best Regards,

Names of the undersigned…

Update: LWSD board voted and passed the district’s Equity Policy (OE-14) on September 13th, 2021. We appreciate that the board listened to our concerns, and adopted some of our suggested changes.

The post Petition Regarding LWSD Equity Policy appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

There were other members from our community also waited for almost an hour, and did not get a chance to testify and make our voices heard. 

I contacted Senator Wellman’s office twice prior to the public hearing today, and made very clear that we signed up and were eager to testify.  Yet, we were ignored, and silenced.

Here is my prepared testimony:

Thank you, Chair Wellman and members of the committee. I am here today to respectfully request the consideration of clearly addressing racism against Asians in the bill as an amendment to help perfect SB 5044.

Although SB 5044 is a bill with good intentions, many Asian Americans are extremely concerned that Asians may be left out, or even unintentionally suffer negative consequences from the bill if we are not careful.

According to a 2018 Harvard Business Review article, Asian Americans are the least likely group in the US to be promoted to management; And a two year study found that Asian job applicants could almost double their chances of getting callbacks if they “whitened” their resumes. How many of you have heard above data?

And the most recently, Asian Americans have been hit the hardest by COVID 19. From New York to San Francisco, Asian Americans have been facing a very high fatality rate. Yet, have you seen those made headline news? An October 1st, 2020 NPR article titled ‘Overlooked’: Asian American Jobless Rate Surges But Few Take Notice. Why?

Under the term “model minority”, is an entire racial group that has been ignored by mainstream America. This is the systemic racism that yet to be recognized by many.

Last year, California lawmakers passed a bill that mandated California-headquartered public companies to have at least one director on their boards who is from an underrepresented community. The bill originally left out Asians. Only after multiple Asian organizations’ strong advocacy, Asians were added to the final bill.

And last November, North Thurston County School District excluded Asian students from their Students of Color category in their Student Growth Report.

In King 5’s recent documentary named “Facing Race”, they listed % of White, Black, Hispanic, Native American lawmakers. Yet, Asian lawmakers were lumped into not identified!!! There are only 147 lawmakers in Olympia, how hard is it to identify number of Asian lawmakers?

All those instances are not isolated cases. No one would even be thinking of omitting Black or Brown from underrepresented, minority, or people of color groups. Yet, it is all too often and convenient to ignore Asians – because no one cares. This is systemic racism.

The children of Asian families in Washington face many challenges in schools today. America has a long and dark history of discrimination against Asians. From the Chinese Exclusion Act to the internment of Japanese Americans to the current rise in violence and backlash against Asians, we are always the forgotten and silent minority group.

Because SB 5044’s stated goal is to fight against systemic racism, to avoid Asians being conveniently omitted from conversations, it is a logical step to clearly list Asians in SB 5044 as a group that has suffered long time systemic racism and effort should be made to correct racism towards Asians

Thank you!

What happened today was a perfect example that if SB 5044 is passed the way it is, Asians will very likely be negatively impacted via intentional or unintentionally omission from discussions.

The post Testimony for SB 5044 appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

My-linh Thai said on her campaign web site: “Helping Kids Succeed – As a Bellevue School Board Director and PTSA parent, I believe that Education is the key to opportunity. In Olympia, I will continue to advocate for investments in local schools, promote parent and community engagement, set high- expectations for excellence with culturally responsive curricula and instruction, and ensure an equitable and sustainable funding for our public school system.” However, Thai’s track records suggest differently.

Thai says that she will continue to “promote parent and community engagement”. Many BSD parents beg to differ.

My-Linh Thai’s push for racial equity met strong resistance from BSD parents. Instead of engaging in conversations with parents, BSD engaged many dirty tactics to suppress parents the voice, including inviting activists from outside of school district to dominate discussions at community cafes. Frustrated parents had to take their voices to Bellevue Reporter. Almost every week, there is a letter to editor complaining about BSD’s dirty tactics and failure to engage in parents and community.

Thai says that she will continue to “set high-expectations for excellence”.  However, quality of BSD has deteriorated since Thai became BSD board member in 2013.

OSPI data show that BSD 4 year graduation rate steadily declined from 91.6% in 2014 to 89.5% in 2016. BSD failed to lift up low income student graduation rate miserably. Low income students’ graduation rate dropped from 83.3% in 2014 to 76.5% in 2016! In the meantime, non-low income students’ graduation rate also declined from 94.2% in 2014 to 93.5% in 2016. To understand how Thai drove a top performing school district’s performance into this downward spiral, we need to exam what My-Linh Thai’s true agenda is to serve on BSD board.

My-Linh Thai’s true agenda as BSD board member is to advance her political career at the price of BSD students.

We published an article back in March about My-Linh Thai’s secret racial equity agenda .  Under Thai’s push, BSD established an Equity Department. In 2016 fiscal year, the Equity Department had a budget of $404,759, and only $49,500 was spent on Student Success. In other words, only 12% of the entire Equity Department’s budget was spent on improving student success. If you think that was bad, things have been getting even worse. $0 was spent on Student Success in 2017 and 2018 fiscal years.

Web site District41Election pointed out  “She (My-Linh Thai) pushed to establish an Equity Team of 14 employees, and after spending over one million dollars, Bellevue School District failed their promises to students: graduation rate is down, and absenteeism rate is up. From 2014 to 2016, 62% more black students, 41% more white students, and 30% more Hispanic/Latino students could not graduate.”

Why have an Equity Department that costs around $250K per year + staff salaries without budgeting a penny for improving student success? The Equity Department has built out programs that narrowly benefiting selected racial groups. A look at Thai’s political career explains everything.  My-Linh Thai has won many endorsements from organizations that promote racial preferential treatment throughout her political career. Most recently, labor union WALC AFL-CIO endorsed Thai. And on WALC’s web site, it clearly stated it “SUPPORT Initiative 1644 (to the people) and Initiative 981 (to the Legislature) — Repeals I-200, which prohibited affirmative action policies with regards to race and gender by state and local government. ”  Apparently, all those racial quota, racial preferential treatment policies that Thai has been implementing was not for the benefits of BSD students. Thai has successfully paved a political career path for herself. Praised as champion for racial preferential treatment, My-Linh Thai has bagged enough endorsements to run for 41st Legislative District State Representative. Racial preferential treatment is against WA state law. Thai can’t say it out loud on her campaign web site. However the organizations who endorsed Thai surely know that they can count on her to continue promoting racial preferential treatment under all kinds of covers.

Voters of 41st LD, on the other hand, should ask themselves “Can I trust My-Linh Thai?” “Can she truly be trusted to represent 41st District?” If you exam her entire political career, the answer is “NO”. My-Linh Thai has an honest and trustworthy problem.

The post 41st District My-Linh Thai’s Honest and Trustworthy Problem appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Not only Paul voted no on SB 6617, he was also introducing a bill to amend the state’s 40-year-old Public Records Act by removing a 1995 exemption for state legislators.  The exemption allows all state legislators, as well as the governor and lieutenant governor to refuse to disclose information requested by the public regarding their schedules, e-mails, and other communications. City and county officials and other public entities are required, by Chapter 42.56 of state law (RCW), to provide anyone who requests publicly available information with that information, within a reasonable timeframe.  Not surprisingly, the bill was killed, and he was facing a vote on SB 6617.

Paul Graves is running for re-election for his 5th Legislative District State Representative Position #2. I asked Paul to send us a brief introduction of himself. And here you go…

About Paul Graves, 5th LD State Representative:

“Paul Graves was born and raised in Maple Valley. One of five children, he attended Tahoma public schools and graduated from Western Washington University—where he served as the student body president—and earned his law degree from Duke University. After law school he served for a year as a law clerk to Washington Supreme Court Justice James Johnson. He then worked at Perkins Coie LLP, the state’s leading law firm. Now, when he’s not serving in Washington’s part-time legislature, he serves as an in-house lawyer for a family-owned trucking company. He lives in Fall City.

Paul is an engaged community member. He maintains an active pro bono legal practice, representing foster youth in legal proceedings. In 2011 he was named the pro bono attorney of the year by the Court Appointed Special Advocate organization, which represents the interest of foster children in court. He served as a board member of both an innovative college-prep non-profit for low-income kids, and on one of Washington’s first public charter schools, a high-performing school with a computer science focus on Kent’s east hill. He is active in both the state and King County bar associations. He is an active member of Snoqualmie Rotary and of Eastridge Church in Issaquah. Currently, he chairs the board of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (a bipartisan group doing cost-benefit analysis of government programs) and serves on the board of HopeLink (a community action network serving homeless and low-income children, families, seniors, and disabled people in East King County).

In his limited spare time, Paul spends his time with his wife Jenny and son Chad, and enjoys kayaking, playing and watching sports, and reading novels and biographies. “

I was very interested in his experience with the public charter school, and asked for details. And Paul responded back….

Paul Graves on the success of Excel Public Charter School

“Happy to provide more detail about Excel Public Charter School, whose board I sat on from startup in 2012 through my election in 2016. Excel is a home-grown public charter school that took the best ideas from some of the highest-performing charter schools across the country. Some of the key details included an extended school day and school year; a targeted focus on science, technology, engineering, and math; a focus on student character development; high levels of teacher professional development; strong family partnerships; data-driven instruction; and high expectations. You can read more here: http://wa.greendot.org/excel/the-excel-difference/. By relentlessly focusing on what’s been proven to work, the school was able to achieve higher test scores–both as an absolute level and as a function of student growth–that its peer Kent public schools (and the state as a whole) in just its first year.”

Paul is a strong believer of having high standards in education. He voted no on both HB 1046 and SB 5639 .  Both bills want to allow high students graduate without passing necessary assessment. “You don’t graduate from high school by simply attending school.”

Paul supports I-200. If you’d like to find out more about Paul, or help out with Paul’s campaign or donate, please visit Paul Graves’ re-election campaign website.

The post 5th LD House Position 2 – Paul Graves appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.