\doc\web\99\08\nwasian.txt Please use this updated version June 17, 1999 To the Editor Northwest Asian Weekly KACHING KACHING KACHING = DIVERSITY JACKPOT! The Seattle media rejoiced when the Seattle Public Schools named 3 African American Women as the top finalists to fill in their number 2 spot. It was widely reported that when male Joseph Olchefske replaced Saint John Stanford, he lacked a background in education. But no one dared observe that as a white male, he was also lacking as a "diversity" candidate. So it would be no surpise that the announced winner, June Rimmer from Indianpolis, would provide racial "balance". Remarkably, given the huge outcry that Initiative 200 would ban all affirmative action, no one in the mainstream press, not the newspapers, not the TV stations, and not even conservative KVI radio or Seattle's arch-conservative Michelle Malkin dared to ask if this racially "desirable" outcome is really just is just a brazen violation of the law. Olchefske said he "intentionally" which is the same as "preferentially" sought a "diverse pool". This directly violates I200's ban on "diversity" preferences. Of the top 12 candidates, 60% were black and one was Hispanic. Only 33% were white and none were Asian. What is now trumpeted as "diversity" meets the old 1960s federal definition of segregation of being over 50% minority. On the telephone, Seattle Times reporter Lynne K Varner called me a racist for even suggesting that the best 3 candidates couldn't all be black women on the basis of merit. Sheesh, even 7-Eleven clerks know you don't insult your customers. Well, quoting Mr Spock, it is highly improbable. Since black women are only 1 in 20 Americans, any Standards Based Math assessment would put the random chance of all 3 being black women at 20 multiplied 3 times, or 1 in 8,000. That's much less likely than getting a 3 cherry jackpot on most slot machines with one pull. You would think that such a machine was rigged. Any Black under-representation is universally accepted as "proof" of discrimination. Yet the total absence of male or white finalists among the top 3 is simply "choosing the best qualified". But what does "diverse" really mean in Seattle where the 25 per cent who are Asian Americans outnumber the 23 percent who are African Americans as the most numerous minority students? Teacher "Mr Mak" sued the school district for failing to promote Southeast Asians like himself as principal, underlining the poor record the district has in hiring and promoting Asian and Pacific Islander staff. In San Francisco, where Asians are half the students, Asians are wondering why no Asians are top contenders for ther superintendent. Perhaps Seattle's Asians should be asking the same question. As a matter of fact, Rimmer's rival for the job in Providence Rhode Island is Diana Lam, a Chinese American who worked her way through Boston schools. She took the tough job of heading troubled Chelsea, and ended up heading San Antonio schools from 1994 to 1998. She is easily qualified for the job in either Seattle or San Francisco, yet made neither city's top list. Congratulation's Diana, you can thank the Asians in Seattle for your victory. As a non-traditional candidate, I would be happy to apply for the job if the current selection becomes invalidated by I200. I am already planning to run for the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2000. Rimmer promotes the disasterous "Standards Based Reform" which seeks to eradicate rigorous education as we know it rather than insuring that all children get the rigorous traditional education that white guys like Bill Gates got. Sure, we Asian Americans can just slide along and not "rock the boat". Or, we could demand justice and call for at least some diversity in selection if not enforcement of the will of the people when they said race and gender have no place in public hiring and promotion. Arthur Hu Kirkland WA "Fairness in Diversity" arthurhu@halcyon.com opinion@seatimes.com, fair-diversity@egroups.com,wa-ed-deform@egroups.com UW I200, but not Seattle #2 Superintendent? You guys really are really stuck on a one note tune when it comes to I200. So minority law students are down. Asians students might be down, but if they were 21 percent of students in a state that is only 3 percent Asians because of unjustified racial preferences, maybe that's a good thing. But the past 2 weeks, you and the rest of the Seattle press have been pretending that I200 never existed when you announced that the top 3 finalists for the #2 spot in the Seattle Schools were all African American women, and that 70% of the top finalists were nonwhite minorities. If minorities are even 1 or 2 points short, that's proof of unfair discrimination. Yet when minorities are above 70% or 100% of finalists, which meets the old federal definition of segregation, well, that's just "diverse". After trying to inform all 3 of your reporters, Lynn K. Varner even called me a racist to my face for even suggesting the possibility of a violation. The random chance of getting 3 black women in a row in a nation where they are only 1 in 20 Americans is 1 in 8,000. Those are worse odds than hitting a 3 cherry jackpot on a slot machine with one pull. When you quoted Joseph Olchefske as saying he "deliberately sought a diverse pool", that's all the legal proof anybody needs to show that women and minorities were in fact preferred over equally or better qualifed whites and men in open violation of Initiative 200 which bans hiring preferences on the basis of race or gender. Just because no organization sent out a press release with enough clout for local media doesn't mean this is not an issue, or that nobody else realizes somebody has rigged this slot machine. Even fewer people are asking why in Seattle, a city where the 25% of students who are Asian Americans are the most numerous minority, there were no Asians among the top candidates. Mr Mak's unsuccessful discrimination lawsuit highlighted Seattle's poor record in hiring and promoting Asians to administrative positions and showing that some minorities were more equal than others. In fact, the winner's rival in the race for a similar position in Providence Rhode Island was Diana Lam, a very highly qualified Chinese American who worked her way from Boston to leading Chelsea and San Antonio schools. If race did play an important role in the selection of one of the most prominent education hiring in the state, shouldn't the liberal media be openly celebrating the effective muzzling of I200 instead of pretending the issue does not even exist? What are they afraid of? That maybe it _is_ a violation of the law? Arthur Hu "Fairness in Diversity" 425-814-2183 (leave message) arthurhu@halcyon.com 12422 107th pl NE Kirkland WA 98034 Arthur Hu "Fairness in Diversity" Kirkland WA http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/ Net-Tamer V 1.11P - Registered