S\\doc\index\afact.htm Hu on Affirmative Action

=>AFFIRMATIVE ACTION INDEX

| Home >>Contents

Adoption
Asians
College
Cost
Crime
Decline in Applications
Definition
Dropout
Examination Schools
Filipino
Grade Weighting
Lottery
LSAT Law School Admissions Test
Mismatch
University of California Berkeley
University of California at Los Angeles
University of Michigan
University of Washington
Exclusion of whites
Quotas? What Quotas?

Affirmative Action Links

Summary

I'm probably one of the most provocative and outspoken Chinese American critic of Affirmative Action. I believe that the pursuit of equal numbers will lead people to realize that simply increasing the number of underachieving minorities such as blacks does nothing to fix differences in ability, while capping numbers to levels as small as 5 to 10 percent. A focus on equalizing numbers will eventually lead people to realize that if you do that, the next problem is that overachieving minorities such as Asians, Jews, and LBGTs are taking about 40-50 percent of the remaining positions in the most selective universities and schools. An emphasis on "merit" leads to giving most spots to overachieving minorities, not so-called "whites". My halfway fix proposal is to allow prefernces but 1) disclose who gets preferences and why 2) don't cap overachievers and 3) in recognizing that "whites" will be underrepresented, limit preferences so underachieving groups are no better represented than whites. I anticipate that once people understand this, they may be wise enough to dispose of them entirely.

Asian Americans are split on affirmative action. Liberals on the one hand side with under-represented minorities and point out that Asians are under-represented in some fields. They generally do not object to preferences of minorities over Asians as long as there are not preferences of Whites over Asians. They often argue that Affirmative action is not quotas or preferences, though they almost universally object to programs which seek to end quotas / numerical goals and ban racial preferences.

Conservatives observe that in most of the fields that Asians actively seek in elite universities and engineering schools, Asians are better qualified than even white students in terms of math test scores and grades, and thus stand to lose in a game which seeks to equalize outcomes. They have pointed out that many colleges in the 1980's appeared to act to limit numbers of Asians. In the 90's, they started to challenge desegregation decrees such as the one in Lowell in San Francisco which disallowed Chinese in excess of an aribrary 40% figure, and another one in Maryland which disallowed a transfer into a French immersion program because of desegregation concerns.

What Is Affirmative Action? There is no commonly agreed definition. In the absence of one definition, I propose a taxonomy that recognizes the existence of several types of race-based selection.

1) Discriminatory - Race is used to discriminate against a weaker group, such as blacks. Note - when used against a "stronger group" it is called "affirmative action". This was the original definition of what was disallowed in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it has since been interpreted to allow, and sometimes require preferential treatment of some minorities. In general, discriminating against blacks is bad, but discriminating against whites is ok as long as it helps nonwhites.

2) Race neutral - Act to remove race as a consideration, both positive and negative, common in high tech. This is the standard for CCRI "anti-affirmative action" initiative. Such strategies have been called racist and discriminatory, either on the basis that they are harmful to progress towards equal outcomes, or simply as a deceptive attack.

3) Preferential - Race is a positive, but not the only consideration. Numbers can be increased, but not equal to quotas based on numerical parity. This is the basis of the 1978 "Bakke" Supreme Court standard which was in effect throughout the 80s, but is falling out of favor.

4) Quota - Race is used up to parity to population, or some qualified percentage, regardless of how much standards must differ. Quotas can be caps, as with Chinese at Lowell High School in San Francisco, or floors such as were effectively used at UC Berkeley when blacks and Hispanics met the 8% and 20% population based goals. Quotas are generally not allowed under the 1978 Bakke ruling which first spelled out that racial preferences could be legal, however newer rulings have effectively repealed this doctrine.

5) Maximizing - Preferences are used to increase numbers far beyond parity. Thus San Jose hired two black fire chiefs in a row, and their highest fire department ranks is 25% black in a city that is only 4% black. UC Berkeley admitted up to 12% blacks even though goals called for parity with 8% high school graduate population.

6) Exclusionary - Certain groups like white men are nearly or completely excluded. San Jose hired only one white male out of 22 new firefighters, neighboring Union City hired zero. An oral fire promotion test passed every black, but flunked 75% of whites. Although one would think this would be illegal, such practices were widely accepted, and rarely succesfully challenged. When Seattle Schools came up with 3 finalists for Academic Officer just after passing I200 banning preferences in 2000, all 3 were black women - the same odds as a slot machine since they are only 1 in 20 of the US population.

Hu's Laws Affirmative Action

(1) No two groups are equal unless they are stastically identical
(2) The level of inequality goes up with the level of selectivity
(3) The only way to impose equality is to use different selection levels, and amount of difference goes up with the level of selection
These laws are upheld for almost every observable case of affirmative action.

The Politically Correct Laws of Affirmative Action

1 ) All groups are naturally equal in the absence of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
2) Any differences are due to racism by the White Race (TM) and only the White Race (TM), in particular, religious, rich, conservative straight white males, can cause these differences. For differences between classes, see Karl Marx.
3) Affirmative Action does not require any preferences for any group at any level for any group.
These laws are consistent with any orthodox piece ever written about or defending affirmative action.

Top 10 most stupid defences of affirmative action 1 - Affirmative Action is not racial preference. But they won't tolerate a ban on prefereces. And if it's unfair to not attack veterans and alumni preferences, then doesn't that prove that it is also preferential? 2 - Affirmative Action is not quotas. But the only acceptable evidence of discrimination is numerical quotas - "minorities are under-represented". No other criterion - test scores, grades, experience are acceptable if they don't result in diversity. 3 - Affirmative Action does not lower standards of excellence. But the only standard of excellence that has any value is skin color and ethnicity. The same people who say that there are no differences in standards often refer to MINIMAL, not average standards. 4 - Affirmative Action does not admit unqualified people. But it is admitting lesser qualified people. This is a circular defintion if you define minimally qualified by the worst person hired. Minimally is not equally or best qualified. 5 - Affirmative Action is not reverse discrimination. Some cite that only whites can be racist since only they have power. They say that it is impossible to discriminate against whites, even if a program completely excludes whites, or causes whites to be under-represented. Many admit that affirmative action is preference for some races, which is by the dictionary defintion, discrimination. 6 - Discrimination still exists. It will always exist. But discrimination against innocent parties does nothing to eliminate discrimination against minorities, it only creates more discrimination, and affirmative action is discrimination sanctioned by law. 7 - Selection without regard to race amounts to unfair discrimination. This is the most outrageously and blatant twisting of the word discrimination, which used to mean selection with race AS a factor. The definition of discrimination is now unequal outcomes, as opposed to unequal treatment. 8 - No white man has ever been discriminated against. There are books and newspapers full of the stuff, but it is rarely reported, and when it is challenged, they often lose because the courts often rule discrimination against Whites to be legal. -------------------------------------------------------- Affirmative Action Spectrum ----------------------------- WA const contract w1.00 b-3.53 h-45.18 a-18.72 n-3.23 Berk ugrad dropout w1.00 b-2.13 h -1.81 a 1.84 n-2.32 @@AADAP Mailing list for Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences started by Tom Wood, original author of CA Prop 209. Excellent links to diversity and affirmative action articles. Archives http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/aadap-l.html @@accreditation doc941:accpc.txt @@ACT doc924:minact.txt Floors on ACT illegal in Mississippi @@Adoption IJ Case Leads Tennesee To End Racematching in Adoption Liberty and Law March 1998. Case in Maryland used race to award custody to a child's birth mother, who had previously pled guilty and served time for murdering another one of her children rather than a white foster mother that had cared for the child virtually since birth (another example of Lauria Grace philosiphy that loving white parents are not appropriate, but black parents liable to murder their children ARE) The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 had a provision that allowed race to be used as a "factor" in placement. New federal law passed in Aug 96, effective 1997 prohibits discrimination in placements based on race. Under settlement, state may only use a "compelling reason" why a particular child needs a same-race placement, cannot use race, color, or national origin to delay or deny adoptive placment. \clip\98\08\adopt1.tif http://www.ij.org/Publicopinion_folder/press_releases/individual/TNAdopt_02_03_98pr.html \doc\web\98\05\racemat.txt Tennessee Settles Adoption Case, Agrees to End Race Matching in Infant Adoptions PRESS RELEASE: February 3, 1998 @@Advance Placement @@AP AP PREFERENCE = RACIAL DISCRIMINATION? \clip\99\10\hentoff.txt A Different Kind of Discrimination By Nat Hentoff Washington Pt ost Saturday, April 17, 1999; Page A19 Jesus Rios, 18, ranked in the top 4 percent during his senior year at San Benito High School in Hollister, Calif. Nonetheless, he was refused admission to the University of California at Berkeley. The lawsuit emphasizes that more than 50 percent of applicants admitted to the Berkeley campus come from only 5 percent of the state's 2,600 high schools. These are schools that have a number of advanced placement courses for which the Berkeley admissions office gives extra grade point credit to an applicant. And these high schools have largely white enrollments. @@Advertising RACE QUOTAS FOR ADVERTISERS?? Advertisers Discriminate Against Minority Radio-Post http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/wires2/0113/n_rt_0113_35 .sml January 13, 1999 Reuters "Advertisers regularly discriminate against minority-owned radio stations and stations that have large black or Hispanic audiences, the Washington Post reported Wednesday, quoting a new study. The study by the Federal Communications Commission, to be released later Wednesday, found that stations owned by ''majority'' firms collected about 29 percent more revenue per listener than minority-owned stations targeting largely minority audiences, the Post said." @@against %%Organizations z63\clip\2003\03\befight.txt http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i30/30a02201.htm From the issue dated April 4, 2003 Behind the Fight Over Race-Conscious Admissions Advocacy groups working together helped shape the legal and political debate The Center for Individual Rights, a Washington-based nonprofit legal organization with an annual budget of about $1.7-million The American Civil Rights Institute, a Sacramento-based group with an annual budget of more than $1.4-million The Center for Equal Opportunity, which is based in Sterling, Va., and has an annual operating budget of about $1-million, \clip\98\09\building\building.htm ORMS Today - August 96: Affirmative Action [URL: lionhrtpub.com/orms/orms-8-96/building.html] August 1996 Volume 23 Number 4. Building Equal Opportunity On Firmer Footing. A Case Against Affirmative Action. By Arnold Barnett. Proposition 1: It appears that extreme affirmative action is widespread in the United States. Last year, The New York Times published mean SAT scores for four groups of undergraduates admitted to the University of California-Berkeley in the fall of 1993: Mean Scores (on scale 400-1600) Asians 1293 Whites 1256 Hispanics 1032 Blacks 994 Using statistics from the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE), Herrnstein and Murray reported in "The Bell Curve" [1994] that, among students entering 26 high-prestige colleges in 1990-91, the average white-black disparity in SAT scores was 182 points. At none of the schools was the mean advantage for whites less than 95 points. affirmative-action.against.New-Republic "The End of Affirmative Action" New Republic July 3, 1995 p. 7 "If federal racial prefernces are ended, and we think they should be ended, this historic decision should be announced not by Sandra Day O'Connor but by the Congress of the United States filed 10-9-95 @@Alternate Criterion %%Class Rank Texas will require admission of all who are in the top 10% of their high school class, no matter how good or bad that is. The thinking is that this will help increase minorities when they have dropped race as a consideration since many high schools are dominated by blacks. But even pro-affirmative action people wonder if this will result in selecting the unprepared. It was to be signed by their republican governor. I don't think it's a good idea. Either you go by merit or you don't, this is kind of nuts. Chronicle of Higher Education May 23, 1997 p. 29 @@Asian against z68\clip\2003\06\malkum.txt http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030625.shtml Asian-Americans have nothing to celebrate Michelle Malkin (archive) June 25, 2003 There was only one thing that disturbed me more than President Bush's mushy comments praising socially engineered campus "diversity" this week. ASIAN AFACT DIRECTOR SUES FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT BY SEATTLE SD \clip\2000\08\yasu.txt GOOD JOB, BAD JOB Disgruntled Employee Sues School District Over Racism and Retaliation by Allie Holly-Gottlieb the former affirmative-action director for the Seattle School District feels. John Yasutake claims in a July 6 federal lawsuit that the district discriminated and retaliated against him for doing his job too well. (Yasutake also thinks it didn't help that he's Japanese.) \doc\web\98\06\washdeb.txt 20/049l-062098-idx.html For Asian Americans, a Barrier or a Boon? Washington State Debate Over Affirmative Action Reveals Ambiguities on the Issue By Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, June 20, 1998; Page A09 With blacks and whites, this issue is a lot more simple. Blacks benefit from affirmative action and whites don't," said Arthur Hu, a Seattle engineer and a leader in the Initiative 200 effort. "But Asians basically break the rules." http://www.asianweek.com/112097/cover_story.html Anything for the Cause: Susan Au Allen has her own ideas about political empowerment BY JAMES CARROLL AND FRANK WU "But at the Oct. 22 hearing on the nomination, the committee heard from just one Asian American, and her testimony was far from supportive of the appointment. "By and large, Mr. Lee has devoted his entire career to litigation on behalf of liberal civil-rights advocacyy groups. " "Making It In America: Why I Support Prop 209" Lester Lee Nov 1, 1996. Points out that he has experienced housing and business loan discrimination, but that companies generally have more Asian engineers, White marketing types and Hispanic shippers, while NFL players tend to be black, while hockey players are white.He calls the Lowell quotas a new Chinese exclusion act, and says his daughter was denied a transfer into Berkeley engineering because it already had too many Chinese. doc90:victory.doc Feb 19, 1990 Quotas over at Berkeley? doc913:excelbal.doc,txt - Breaking the Balance doc921:scadmit.doc - Asians and admissions for U Santa Clara doc923:admit92.doc Filipinos and Santa Cruz doc924:berklaw, berklaws.doc : Boalt Hall quotas doc935:takagi.doc - The Retreat From Race Harvard, UCLA, Berkeley Hu \priv\95\07\ucberk95.txt wall street journal about Berkeley would be over 50% Asian on test scores alone @@Asian benefit Asians are the least likely to benefit from Affirmative Action http://www.seattletimes.com/education/affirmative/pretty_good_job.html City of Seattle:'I guess we're doing a pretty good job' Seattle Times 2/10/98 By Tom Brune Seattle Times staff reporter Asian Americans are the most underrepresented group, lagging in four of the eight job categories. @@Asians For Affirmative Action Most Asians advocate affirmative action not because it benefits Asians but because it benefits other minorities for the same reasons that liberal whites also support preferences that harm their own group. Henry Der effectively supported quotas against Chinese at Lowell by refusing to oppose them. Chancellor Tien of Berkeley staked his career on preferences for other minorities over better qualified Asians. The other tack is that "we're under-represented among contractors and staff", so it's valid as long as any field does not have "enough" Asians. CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AGAINST REAL CHINESE z68\clip\2003\06\caanow.txt http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7311004374dc3160c1f2869bcb144509 Controversy in the Capital of Chinese America AsianWeek, Douglas S. Chan, Jun 12, 2003 "in the 1990s that Chinese for Affirmative Action was losing touch with new Chinese Americans in San Francisco. CAA was perceived to have been on the wrong side of issues that were important to substantial segments of the Chinese community, particularly homeowners on the city's west side. The organization opposed the federal court action filed against public school quotas by Chinese parents in Ho v. SFUSD. Several years ago, an acting director of CAA supported the successful effort at San Mateo County building trade unions to require "project labor agreements" for S.F.O. construction projects, which, in effect, reduced participation in airport expansion jobs by minority contractors" z63\clip\2003\04\naras.txt http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1853216 Houston Chronicle April 6, 2003, 7:52PM Debunking a myth: Asians for affirmative action By KAREN K. NARASAKI Narasaki is the president and executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. z49\clip\2001\05\asafac.txt Asian Week www.asianweek.com May 2001 Reversed!: U.C.'s Ban on Affirmative Action Regents decision may improve diversity in school system, but does not change state law By Neela Banerjee "Fong went on to suggest that more studies need to be done on Asian American students in higher education and why exactly their numbers are so high." [Says Asians are discriminated against in hiring and staff] ASIAN HARMED BY AF ACT WANTS PREFERENCES TOO, NOT FAIRNESS \clip\99\06\count.txt Newsweek, February 8, 1999 I Don't Count As 'Diversity' Successful? Sure. But sometimes Asian-Americans need affirmative action, too. By Angelo Ragaza "A Moral Snootful" Wall Street Journal Dec 11, 1997 "we'll enforce a system that ensures that some of these qualified Asian Americans will get rejection letters from California's universities, and if they complain, we'll send them into talk to Beill Lann Lee, who of course, got his job purely on merit". \images\972\1228\p01.tif zip#28\images\972\1208\p03.tif "Not Strange Bedfellows" Mitchell Change PhD Asian Week Dec 4, 1997 p. 9 [says admissions wars was about anti-asian bias, not affirmative action] \doc\95\14\forwmove.txt "Forward Movement" Asian Week Oct 20, 1995 J.D. Hokoyama quietly advocates ceiling quotas against Asians "every group should have equal representation" \doc\95\11\morelaw.txt "We Need More Lawyers" Asian Week August 4, 1995. Frank H. Wu (professor Howard University, predominantly black, Washington D.C.) Under the traditional mode, there would be nothing wrong when Asians "receive", I would say "monopolize" 35 up to 55 percent of freshmen spots Wallac Loh, former UWash Law school had S Times full page defence of AFAC Dana Takagi says class won't replace race Henry Der Chinese for Affirmative Action says there is "no evidence" of discrimination against Chinese as result of a quota. Chang Lin Tien UC Berkeley - NY Times pits him vs. Ward Connerly, black conservative against affirmative action \priv\95\09\victover.txt Victimized Over-Achievers? Emil Guillermo SFC 7/31/95 - says Asians are used as poster children, argues that there are too many Asians, and affirmative action allows administrators to create their vision of racial perfection. @@Asians harmed z48\clip\2001\03\yelmen.txt http://www.thenewrepublic.com/archive/1996/09/090996/lee090996.html September 9, 1996 ANGRY YELLOW MEN By Kenneth Lee Exploiting Asian discontent. This past March, Bob Dole delivered his only anti-affirmative action speech of the primaries. Dole was speaking in Little Saigon, in the heart of Southern California's Vietnamese-American community. "Life with Prop 209" Emil Guillermo Asian Week Nov 6, 1997 p. 7 Asian enrollment at UCLA law school was up by 70% when preferential admissions were dropped. \clip\96\02\afacasla.txt Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 00:45:40 -0400 From: NewsHound@sjmercury.com (NewsHound) Affirmative Action Study Draws Criticism From Asians and Latinos OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Asian and Latino businesses have accused Oakland's race-preference affirmative action policies as unconstitutional in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court. [favoring blacks and whites, but excluding Asians and Hispanics] @@Asians White z52\clip\2001\09\aswhite.htm How the Asians Became White by Eugene Volokh L.A. Times, April 9, 1998, p. B9 (published under another title) Asians are now white. [Asians are included when celebrating diversity, but left out when decrying decline in minorities. Stephen Thernstrom also noted this] under the headline "Making Hay With Shifty Labels"). Excerpted in Washington Times, April 10, 1998, at A6. @@athletics BIG ADMISSIONS EDGE FOR ATHLETES z47\clip\2001\01\collath.txt U.S. News: College Admissions Unfair 1/2001 Former Princeton University President William G. Bowen and coauthor James L. Shulman analyzed data from 90,000 students from the classes of 1951, 1976, and 1989. varsity athletes at the University of Michigan, were only 3 percent of students. But at Williams Collegea full 36 percent of the student body. The winning edge. At a "representative coed liberal arts Division III college" in 1999, a minority applicant had an 18 percent better chance of getting admitted than the general pool, a legacy student had a 25 percent edge-and a recruited male athlete had a 48 percent better chance. For female athletes the advantage was even sweeter: 53 percent. @@ban %%against preferences I200 prop 209 UWASH: WE'RE ALL FOR BANNING PREFERNCES AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALLOWED z68\clip\2003\07\i200tw.txt http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/135132761_deans01.html July 01, 2003 Guest columnists Affirmative-action ruling suggests tweaks to I-200 By Denice D. Denton, George S. Bridges, W.H. Knight and Yash Gupta We urge that I-200 be revised to codify the Supreme Court standards. It's the smart thing to do. "Breakdown of vote on I-200 by county" \doc\web\98\10\i200cty.txt NO MORE PLUS 3 OR PREFERENCES GOVERNOR'S DIRECTIVE No. 98-01 \doc\web\98\10\i200imp.txt Seattle Times map of neighborhood vote Minorities and liberal urban whites opposed I200, but nobody else did.

Relative Admission Rates at Berkeley for Filipinos 1980-96
Filipios Have Highest Admit Rate at UC Santa Cruz 1992

Highlighting Filipino admission rates at UC Berkeley Filipino + higher than whites (preferential) - lower than whites (discriminatory) ---- Getting racial preferences Year Index Chart 1981 1.42 ++ 1982 1.19 + 1983 1.16 + ---- 1994-89 Filipinos, other minorities boosted 1984 1.44 ++ 1985 1.58 +++ 1986 1.46 ++ 1987 1.64 +++ 1988 1.53 ++ 1989 1.76 +++ ---- 1990-92 Taken off preferences, slightly < neutral 1990 -1.30 -- 1991 -1.25 - 1992 -1.33 - ---- 1993-96 Discriminatory Rates, worse than foreign admits 1993 -2.07 ----- 1994 -2.28 ------ 1995 -2.24 ------ 1996 -2.22 ------ ---------------------------------------------- UC Santa Cruz Admissions Study Office of Admissions Analysis by Arthur Hu Admit percent Am Indian 1.5% 1.1% Black 3.8% 3.0% Asian 21.5% 18.5% White 51.8% 55.8% Mexican 9.4% 8.6% Spanish 4.8% 4.2% Pilipino 3.6% 2.9% Minority 42.9% 37.4% State population of Filipinos is 2% Sorted Admit Rate 1991 1992 Pilipino 1.45 Pilipino 1.21 Spanish 1.35 Am India 1.14 Am Indian 1.34 Mexican 1.13 Black 1.31 Spanish 1.12 Mexican 1.31 Black 1.07 Minority 1.21 Unknown 1.05 Thai/Other 1.20 Minority 1.02 Asian 1.13 Thai/Oth 1.00 E.Indian/Pa 1.11 White 1.00 Chinese 1.11 Other -1.04 Other 1.07 Asian -1.05 Unknown 1.03 E.Indian -1.06 Japan 1.03 Pac Isla -1.06 White 1.00 Chinese -1.08 Pac Island -1.02 Japan -1.10 Korean -1.06 Korean -1.26 Most Asians >= White in 1991, Most are < White in 1992 Because of this the Minority rate went from 1.2 (net > white) to 1.02 (implies affirmative action balanced by reduced Asians? ) 1.0 = White (-2 means 1/2 or 0.5) WHEN AND WHO DID BERKELEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ASIANS AND OTHER GROUPS? Conclusion - UC Berkeley has discriminated (as defined by admissions rates lower than whites, any group higher than whites is "affirmative action", and presumed to be legal) * against non-filipino Asians from 1982 to 1981, * against Asians overall from 1984-1986, 1990 and 1992-95 * against Filipinos from 1990 to 1996 * against "other" races and other Asians almost every year since 1981 when these numbers were made available. Ranked by Fall 1994 UCLA Admission Rate (Higher rates associated with affirmative action preferences) Group Ad Rate Index Am Ind 78.3% 1.59 Chicano 60.9% 1.24 All Latino 58.4% 1.18 African Am 57.7% 1.17 Unknown 55.8% 1.13 Asian Am 53.4% 1.08 Total US 52.2% 1.06 Latino 52.1% 1.06 Total 51.1% 1.04 All As/PI 51.0% 1.03 Caucasian 49.3% 1.00 Other 47.7% -1.03 Pac Islander 36.4% -1.36 Filipino 34.4% -1.43<- Discrimination Internationa 25.7% -1.92 \clipim\98\01\filip.tif Filling the Filipino Pipeline Asian Week Feb 28, 1997 p. 14. Report from the second Pilipino Ameirican Collegiate Conferene Corey Takahashi. Since 1989, the number of Filipino undergraduates at UC Berkley has decilnd from a high of 961 to last fall's low of 485. Berkley's numbes are particularly significant given that Flipinos have becom one of the state's fastest growing groups. Benito de Lumen is Berkeley's only tenure Fil-am professor. doc\94\12\whitney.wk1 HS District Index White 24.0% 22.6% 1.06 Black 1.9% 7.6% -4.25 Asian 57.1% 35.5% 1.51 Filipino 7.1% 7.6% -1.14 Hisp 9.2% 28.8% -3.32 AmInd 0.2% Portugues 0.4% 1.9% -5.76 ABC Unified / Whitney High School magnet school @@Firefighter US Policefire 90 W1.00 B-1.27 A-2.7 Seattle 1996 W1.00 B 1.09 H-1.2 A-2.8 LA Men 1995 W1.00 B-1.88 H-2.7 A-3.0 San Jose 1995 W1.34 B 1.62 H-1.2 A-5.4 Seattle Official 96 W0.92 B 3.01 H 2.3 A 0.0 Seattle Clerical 96 W0.81 B 2.07 H 2.8 A 1.1 -> Note Asians most under, Blacks near parity %%Anaheim Firefighters allege discrimination in suit against Anaheim http://www.ocregister.com/archives/1998/05/01/politics/sue001w.shtml COURTS: The three men say they were singled out and harassed after they spoke out about Fire Department hiring policies. May 1, 1998 By DANIEL CHANG The Orange County Register "Three current or former members of the Anaheim Fire Department have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleging that they were maligned and discriminated against after complaining about the department's hiring practices. Jimmie Lee Cox, John Lynn Cox and Gregory J. Mowad contend their colleagues and supervisors began harassing them after the three spoke out against the department. The three say they had complained about "granting