Join us for a free community seminar featuring Tony Guan, Vice Chair of Equal Rights for All PAC (ERFAPAC) and SVCA board member, as he shares how he uses OpenClaw AI to build powerful workflows and web interfaces that advance civic engagement and legislative advocacy.

Event Details

• 📅 Date: Saturday, April 4, 2026
• ⏰ Time: 6:00 PM Pacific Time (PDT)
• 💻 Format: Zoom (Free · Open to All)
• 🎤 Speaker: Tony Guan — Vice Chair, ERFAPAC · SVCA Board Member

🔗 Register here (free)

About the Speaker

Tony Guan is an SVCA board member and Silicon Valley tech company engineering manager who has long been active in community service and civil rights advocacy. Since 2016, he organized multiethnic residents in Sunnyvale and Cupertino to oppose unfair aircraft noise relocation, coordinated with local governments and the FAA, and helped establish the Santa Clara County aviation roundtable.

During the pandemic in 2020, he launched the #StrongerTogether initiative, organizing volunteers to distribute masks to the community — receiving coverage from multiple mainstream media outlets. He was also deeply involved in the campaign against Proposition 16, founded StopProp16.org, and assisted Ward Connerly in creating Equal Rights for All PAC (erfapac.com), where he serves as Vice Chair. In 2026, he is once again stepping forward to oppose ACA-7.

What You Will Learn

• Real-World OpenClaw Workflows — End-to-end automation pipelines for civic outreach
• Custom Web Interfaces — Tools that help communities engage with legislation
• From Idea to Impact — AI-powered campaigns for legislative advocacy goals
• Live Demo & Q&A — Interactive demonstration with audience questions welcome

🔗 Click here to register — it’s free!

Presenters Chunhua Liao, Sam Li, and Rich Liu walked attendees through live demos, real workflows, and practical insights on getting started with AI agents. Here is a recap of the key highlights.

📊 View the full slides: SVCAF OpenClaw Seminar — March 7, 2026

🎬 Watch the full recording: SVCAF OpenClaw Seminar — March 7, 2026 (YouTube)

From Chatbot to AI Agent: What Is the Difference?

The seminar opened by drawing a clear distinction between traditional chatbots and modern AI agents. While chatbots respond to single questions, an AI agent like OpenClaw takes multi-step actions autonomously — managing email, calendar, files, and web browsing on your behalf, all through a simple chat interface on Discord, Telegram, or WhatsApp.

Chatbot vs. AI Agent — the key differences

Key Insight #1: Your Agent Is Only as Good as Its Configuration

One of the most valuable takeaways: out of the box, an AI agent is a blank slate. What makes it powerful is how you configure it. SVCAF uses plain-text files — SOUL.md (the agent’s values and limits), AGENTS.md (operational rules), and MEMORY.md (long-term memory) — to give our agent a clear identity, workflow, and institutional knowledge.

“ChatGPT gives you a smart stranger. OpenClaw lets you build a smart colleague.” — Chunhua

How SVCAF configures the agent to reason with evidence and first principles

Key Insight #2: Automation Without Constant Prompting — Heartbeats and Cron Jobs

SVCAF’s agent runs proactively without anyone having to ask. Two mechanisms make this possible:

• Heartbeat: Every ~30 minutes, the agent wakes up and checks for urgent emails, upcoming calendar events, and anything that needs attention.
• Cron Jobs: Scheduled at exact times — a Daily Learning Brief runs every morning at 7 AM (pulling AI news and policy updates into a Gmail draft), and a Daily Self-Reflection runs at 2 AM to review the day and improve the agent’s own rules.

Heartbeat vs. Cron Jobs — when to use each

Key Insight #3: Real SVCAF Use Cases in Action

Chunhua demonstrated several live workflows SVCAF already uses today:

• Event Flyer Design: Share a reference flyer, the agent analyzes the style, generates a new flyer using AI image generation, and iterates based on feedback. Four versions in minutes, not hours.
• Website Management: Post to svcaf.org via WordPress API with a single message. No CMS login needed.
• Semantic Search: Query across 900+ SVCAF documents — meeting minutes, Drive files, website posts — using meaning, not just keywords. Example: searching “漂流活动” (rafting activity) instantly found relevant archived posts.
• WeChat Article Pipeline: A 9-step multi-agent workflow that takes an idea and produces a fully illustrated, fact-checked, WeChat-ready article draft in 5–10 minutes.
• Google Workspace Integration: Full Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Sheets, Docs, and Slides access — all accessible through a single conversation.

How the agent designed an event flyer from a single reference image

Semantic search across 900+ SVCAF documents — finding meaning, not just keywords

The 9-step multi-agent WeChat article pipeline

Key Insight #4: Skills — Extending the Agent Like App Plugins

OpenClaw supports “skills” — modular plug-ins that give agents specialized capabilities. The community registry at clawhub.com offers free, open skills you can install with one command. SVCAF has already contributed several skills to the community, including a Docker setup guide and a WeChat article writer.

Key Insight #5: Multi-Agent Collaboration — Sam Li’s Demo

Sam Li presented an innovative demo: a cooperative AI game designed for OpenClaw agents, where multiple agents work together like a band — each with different capabilities (writing poetry, drawing, speaking). The demo showcased how multiple agents can collaborate on creative tasks, with each agent contributing its specialty to a shared goal.

Key Insight #6: Security and Privacy First — Rich Liu’s Perspective

Rich Liu shared practical safety advice for new users:

• Avoid sharing real personal information with AI agents until you trust them
• Use a separate email account when experimenting
• Install agents in a sandbox environment, especially for sensitive operations like financial tasks
• Start simple — build trust before delegating complex workflows

The honest truth about getting started — and what makes OpenClaw click

Getting Started with OpenClaw

There are three paths to running OpenClaw:

• Easiest (Cloud): DigitalOcean Marketplace — $12/month, 5-minute setup
• Free: Oracle Cloud Always Free Tier — 4 ARM CPUs, 24GB RAM, $0/month forever
• DIY: Your own Mac, Linux, or Docker setup with free OpenRouter models

Want to try SVCAF’s public AI agent? Join our Discord: discord.gg/yXnx9xnP

What Is Next for SVCAF

SVCAF’s AI roadmap — what’s already working and what’s coming next

We are building an AI-first nonprofit — not because it is trendy, but because it lets our volunteer team serve the Chinese American community at a scale that was previously impossible.

Thank you to everyone who attended and participated. Special thanks to Sam Li and Rich Liu for their presentations and demos. Stay tuned for future SVCAF events and seminars.

📧 Questions? info@svcaf.org  |  🌐 svcaf.org

Watch the Event Promo

If you or someone you know has received a UC rejection letter, you are not alone — and you are not out of options.

SVCAF, in partnership with SARD (Students for Admissions Reform and Diversity), is hosting a free community forum featuring a nationally recognized expert on college admissions policy.

Event Details

• 📅 Date: Sunday, April 5, 2026
• ⏰ Time: 8:00 PM Pacific Time
• 💻 Format: Zoom (Free · Open to All)
• 🎤 Featured Speaker: Professor Richard Sander — UCLA School of Law, Founder of SARD
• 🎙️ Host: Jason Xu — SARD Board Member & Former SVCA Foundation President

About the Speaker

Professor Richard Sander is a law professor at UCLA School of Law and the founder of SARD. He is one of the nation’s leading researchers on college admissions policy and has spent decades advocating for transparency and fairness in university admissions.

What You Will Learn

• Why UC rejections happen — and what the data really shows
• Your rights and options after a rejection
• How to appeal, transfer, or explore alternative pathways
• Policy context: what is changing in college admissions and what it means for you

Register Now — Free!

This event is open to all community members. Register via Zoom to secure your spot:

👉 Click here to register on Zoom

Learn more about SARD at sard.law.

About SVCAF

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a California nonprofit focused on civic education, engagement, and community empowerment. Learn more at svcaf.org.

Co-presented with SARD — Students for Admissions Reform and Diversity.

TL;DR

SVCAF hosted a community info session with the Children’s Educational Opportunity (CEO) Act team about a proposed Education Savings Account (ESA) program that would provide $17,000 per TK–12 student annually in California. Funds could follow the student to approved providers (private, faith-based, homeschool, online) and unused funds roll over, earn interest, and are usable for college or trade school. The team aims to qualify the measure for the November 2026 ballot through a statewide signature drive. Volunteers—including SVCAF members—can help with outreach and signature collection.

This Summary is Generated by AI. It may contain errors.

What the CEO Act Proposes

• $17,000 per TK–12 student placed in an Education Savings Account (ESA) each year.

• Eligible uses include tuition, curriculum, tutoring, textbooks, and online courses.

• Rollover + Interest: Unused funds carry forward, accrue interest, and remain available for college or trade school.

• Goal: “Equal funding and real educational choice for all families,” ensuring funds follow the student across approved educational pathways.

Highlights from the Discussion

Why ESAs, why now?

Speakers emphasized growing interest among families in diversified education paths (private, faith-based, home, online) and the desire for funding mechanisms that follow student needs. The Act’s proponents argue that the policy can expand access, particularly for families who can’t afford alternatives to their assigned public schools.

Implementation & timelines

• The initiative text is with state offices for review.

• After receiving Title & Summary (expected late October), the team will launch a statewide signature drive to qualify the measure for the Nov 2026 ballot.

• If passed, the CEO Act would take effect without a long phase-in, with a vision that new and existing schools (including smaller private/faith-based and homeschool pods) could serve students as early as January 1, 2027.

Signature-gathering strategy

• Target: 1.0–1.2 million signatures to comfortably exceed the requirement of 874,000 valid.

• Distribution to private and faith-based schools, churches, mosques, synagogues, and broader community networks.

• Digital outreach plans include email, SMS, and targeted social campaigns to reach likely supporters, drive downloads/printing of petitions, and coordinate local volunteers.

Digital tools & outreach

• Discussion included data-driven outreach and modern campaign tooling to communicate with registered supporters.

• The team plans to utilize digital marketing and analytics to optimize volunteer efforts and signature collection, bolstered by established media/data partners.

Perspectives from the community

• Participants shared experiences with public school pathways and acceleration options, citing interest in more individualized instruction and alternative models.

• The Act’s supporters believe competition and choice can encourage improvements across the system while expanding opportunities for families currently priced out of alternatives.

Action Items & Next Steps

Children’s Educational Opportunity (CEO Act) Team

• Continue the initiative process and finalize materials following Title & Summary issuance.

• Distribute the petition to statewide supporters and print vendors; coordinate signature-collection teams across California.

• Provide a full initiative overview deck to SVCAF and community partners for local briefings.

Salem Media / Digital Support

• Offer digital marketing and data analytics services to support volunteer recruitment and petition circulation.

• Share information on tools that can help with audience targeting and campaign reporting.

SVCAF & Community Volunteers

• Organize volunteers to help with signature collection for the 2026 ballot.

• Coordinate local informational briefings and help connect parents, educators, and community leaders to initiative resources.

• Interested in helping? Email info@svcaf.org to join the SVCAF volunteer group.

Frequently Asked Questions (from the session)

Q: Is the ESA limited to private or faith-based schools? A: ESAs can be used with approved providers, which may include private, faith-based, homeschool, or online programs that meet eligibility and compliance standards.

Q: Do funds roll over year to year? A: Yes. Unused ESA funds roll over, accrue interest, and remain available for post-secondary education.

Q: What about accountability and oversight? A: The program includes provider eligibility requirements, auditing, and consequences for misuse, including removal from eligibility lists.

Q: How soon could families use ESAs if the measure passes? A: The initiative’s backers expect immediate effect upon passage, with a target to begin serving students starting January 1, 2027.

Q: How can I help with qualification for the 2026 ballot? A: Volunteer to gather signatures, host an info session, or help with outreach. See Get Involved below.

Get Involved

• Visit EducationOpportunity.org to learn more about the CEO Act.

About SVCAF

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation focused on civic education, engagement, and recognition of community contributions in Silicon Valley and surrounding areas. Learn more at svcaf.org.

On September 21, 2025, the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) proudly hosted the AI4Legislation 2025 Award Ceremony, celebrating remarkable achievements in artificial intelligence applications for legislative processes and civic engagement. The virtual ceremony brought together innovative students, industry experts, and civic technology enthusiasts to recognize groundbreaking projects that demonstrate how AI can enhance democratic participation and legislative transparency.

Competition Overview and Impact

The AI4Legislation 2025 competition represents SVCAF’s commitment to fostering innovation at the intersection of technology and civic engagement. With $10,000 in total prize pool, the competition attracted talented individuals and teams from across the United States, particularly encouraging participation from high school and college students.

Watch the full award ceremony recording: YouTube Event Recording

Take a look at the slides for the ceremony: pdf

The competition focused on five key categories:

• Legislative Tracking: Tools to monitor bills and legislative changes

• Bill Analysis: AI-powered summaries and impact analysis

• Civic Action & Advocacy: Platforms connecting citizens with representatives

• Compliance Monitoring: Tools tracking government spending alignment

• Other innovative solutions enhancing public participation in legislative processes

Celebrating Our Winners

🥇 First Place Winner ($3,000)

Oliver Fan – Predictive Bill Tracker A sophomore at James E. Taylor High School, Oliver created a comprehensive Congressional Bill Tracker that uses AI to predict bill outcomes and provide analysis. His project combines his passion for STEM with civic engagement, demonstrating sophisticated use of machine learning for legislative analysis.

• Live Demo: Predictive Bill Tracker

• Project Repository: GitHub

• Demo Video: YouTube

🥈 Second Place Winner ($2,000)

DebateSim Team – Legislative Analysis and Debate Simulation Platform Led by Alex Liao and Mrinal Agarwal, with team members Arnav Kakani, Shely Jain, and Sanjana Gowda, this Emerald High School team created an innovative platform that combines real-time Congressional data with AI-powered debate simulations to enhance civic education and engagement.

• DebateSim  GitHub Repository

• Category: Legislative Analysis and Simulation, Debate Simulation

• Team Name: DebateSim  YouTube Demo Video

• Live Product Online

• Presentation Slideshow

🥉 Third Place Winners ($1,000 each)

Lina Iyer – Behind the Bill A University of Michigan computer science student with a political science minor, Lina created an AI tool that makes legislative content more accessible to the general public through simplified explanations and impact analysis.

• GitHub Repository: https://github.com/linaiyer/behind-the-bill

• YouTube Demo Video: https://youtu.be/pG4KonR68Fk

• Technical Documentation (Project Report): link

Ian Lee – Billinguo An MIT master’s student specializing in robotics, Ian developed a multilingual legislative analysis tool, addressing accessibility challenges in civic engagement for diverse communities.

• GitHub Repository: https://github.com/tylenode/billingo

• Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiKJ857K9gI

Mark Garcia – LegisCompare AI A recent Data Analytics graduate turned Junior AI Software Engineer, Mark created a comparative analysis platform that helps users understand differences and similarities between legislative proposals.

• Live Demo: Legal Tool

• GitHub Repository: https://github.com/mgkram4/LegisCompare-AI

• Live Demo: https://legal-tool.vercel.app/

• YouTube Demo Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGX1UlBpBgA

People’s Choice Award ($500)

Rigorous Judging Process

The competition featured a comprehensive evaluation process with both human and AI judges, ensuring fair and thorough assessment. Projects were evaluated across five key criteria:

• Innovation & Creativity (25%)

• Impact & Relevance (25%)

• Technical Excellence (20%)

• Usability & Accessibility (15%)

• Ethics & Fairness (15%)

Human judges included Mr. Liang Guo, Ms. Karen Suhaka, and Mr. William Tsui, with AI judges providing consistent validation of results.

About SVCAF’s Mission

Founded in 2014, SVCAF is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting civic engagement, political participation, and legal education within Chinese-American communities in Silicon Valley and beyond. The organization’s mission centers on empowering communities through events, education, and innovation.

The AI4Legislation initiative perfectly embodies SVCAF’s commitment to:

• Civic engagement and political participation

• Education and community empowerment

• Innovation in legislative processes through AI technology

Looking Forward

The success of AI4Legislation 2025 demonstrates the incredible potential when young innovators apply cutting-edge technology to solve real-world civic challenges. These projects represent more than just technical achievements—they embody the future of democratic participation and government transparency.

SVCAF continues to foster this innovation through regular seminars, community building, and ongoing support for civic technology initiatives. The organization invites continued collaboration and participation from anyone interested in the intersection of AI and civic engagement.

Get Involved

Stay Connected:

• Website: www.svcaf.org

• Email: info@svcaf.org

• Discord Community: Join our Discord

• GitHub: AI4Legislation Repository Contains details of submitted projects and grading info.

Questions or want to collaborate? Contact us at info@svcaf.org

Together, let’s build a more informed and innovative civic future!

🧠 Submitted Projects

• Behind the Bill – An AI-powered bill explainer that makes legislative language accessible to the public. Video | GitHub Repo

• Congressional Bill Tracker – A machine learning dashboard that predicts the success of U.S. congressional bills using real-time data. Video | GitHub Repo

• DebateSim – A multi-agent AI debate simulator that re-creates legislative debates with real-time perspectives and an AI judge. Video | GitHub Repo | Live Demo

• Billingo – An interactive and fun platform for learning about bills, using AI-generated quizzes and games. Video | GitHub Repo | Live Demo

More project details can be found here: 

* https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public/tree/main/submissions

🏆 What’s Next?

Our judging panel is currently reviewing all submissions. Final results will be announced between August and September 2025.

In the meantime, we’re inviting the public to help select the People’s Choice Award winner — a separate $500 cash prize will go to the project that receives the most community votes!

🗳️ Vote Now

Cast your vote for your favorite project on our official GitHub discussion:

👉 Vote in the People’s Choice Poll

Voting is open until September 1, 2025. Feel free to leave a comment to explain your choice!

Thank you to all participants for your creativity, technical excellence, and dedication to civic innovation.

Stay tuned for the final results and highlights of these inspiring projects.

*Digital Democracy: AI For Good * by Prof. Foaad Khosmood

Slides: Link

Summary Generated by Zoom AI Companion

Seminar Format and Presentation Planning

Chunhua and Foaad discussed technical issues with screen sharing and confirmed that Foaad could present his slides. They agreed on the format of the seminar, which would include a presentation followed by a Q&A session. Foaad mentioned he would include a pop quiz at the beginning of his presentation, and Chunhua approved of this idea. They noted that while some people had registered for the seminar, others might forget, but the session would be recorded for those who couldn’t attend.

AI for Legislation and Democracy

Chunhua, the co-founder and president of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, introduced the 5th seminar on AI for legislation and projects, aiming to attract submissions from across the United States. Foaad, an expert in AI and legislation from Cal Poly, discussed the concept of digital democracy, a philanthropically funded research project hosted by CalMatters, which uses AI to enhance government transparency and aid citizens and journalists. Foaad shared the project’s history, achievements, and future plans, including a new tip sheet system for reporters, and invited questions and collaboration opportunities.

Enhancing Government Transparency Through AI

Foaad discussed the lack of accessible transcripts for California state legislature proceedings, highlighting how this gap in information has been exacerbated by the decline of local news coverage. He explained that the initial goal of his project was to record legislative discussions, which evolved into a broader mission to save democracy by enhancing government transparency. Foaad also provided a brief history of the project, noting its expansion from California to other states and the development of tools like Robot Reporter and AI tip sheets to aid in legislative tracking and reporting.

Government Transcript Annotation System

Foaad discussed the challenges of creating accurate and comprehensive transcripts of government proceedings, highlighting the limitations of automated transcription systems and the need for human verification. He explained their development of a web-based transcription annotation system that allows a remote workforce to review and correct transcripts while also identifying speakers and their affiliations. Foaad also described their use of face and voice recognition tools to assist in speaker identification, though these methods are less effective for the general public compared to legislators. The system integrates various sources of information, including bills, financial data, and lobbying activities, to provide a more complete context for the discussions.

Digital Democracy Platform Overview

Foaad presented a comprehensive overview of Digital Democracy, a platform that provides access to legislative information and generates news tips for journalists. He demonstrated how the site offers detailed profiles of legislators, including their voting records, financial disclosures, and alignments with interest groups. Foaad explained the tip sheet system, which helps reporters identify newsworthy events by analyzing factors such as statistical anomalies and previous news coverage. He also highlighted ongoing research efforts to improve the platform’s predictive capabilities and expand its reach to other states.

Challenges in Legislative Data Tracking

Foaad discussed Digital Democracy’s work in tracking legislative data and the challenges they face, including occasional corrections needed for accuracy and pushback from legislatures. He explained that while they have considered expanding to cities, the cost and complexity of adapting their system for different municipal processes make it difficult. Foaad also mentioned that Digital Democracy helped pass a ballot measure in 2018 that allowed them to use legislative videos and included a requirement for bills to remain unchanged for 72 hours before the final vote.

Legislative Data Analysis for Journalists

The meeting focused on discussing a project that analyzes legislative information and provides insights to journalists. Foaad explained that journalists often rely on press releases for tips, which can be biased, and highlighted the challenges of funding and staffing for such projects. He shared that their system uses limited AI for summarization and presentation, not for generating content, and suggested exploring digital humanities approaches for analyzing documents. Chunhua inquired about AI tools for ballot measure analysis and updating systems with new AI models, to which Foaad recommended using existing voter guides and considering generative AI cautiously due to its speculative nature.

AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.

Guest: Prof. Foaad Khosmood

Why you’ll want to meet him

• Forbes Endowed Professor of Computer Engineering at Cal Poly SLO

• Research Director, Institute for Advanced Technology & Public Policy (home of Digital Democracy)

• Co-founder & past president of Global Game Jam —the world’s largest game-creation event

• Emmy-winning data-journalism collaborator (2025 Northern California Emmys) for Digital Democracy reporting with CalMatters & CBS News

• Visiting Scholar, Imperial College London

What might he reveal?

(We’re keeping the agenda under wraps, but expect one or more of these treats…)

• How Digital Democracy turns legislative events into actionable intelligence for reporters.

• Practical tips for plugging legislative data into your own AI projects.

• Lessons from running global hackathons—and what makes projects stand out.

• The future of AI-powered transparency in state politics.

• Behind-the-scenes stories from his Emmy-winning investigation.

Zoom registration link https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/al3ey4RVQ0uaBSjLNdu3kw  

Or scan the QR Code Below:

👨‍💻 Presenters: Alex Liao, Arnav Kakani, Sanjana Gowda, Shely Jain, and Mrinal Agarwal (Award-winning hackathon participants and experienced student developers)

💡 What You’ll Learn: When to use which AI tool for speed, privacy, or review Live demos with GitHub Copilot, OpenAI tools, Claude Code, and more How AI makes coding easier, smarter, and more fun—without replacing you.

Seminar slides

• Seminar 4: Introduction

• AI Coding Tools

🎯 Seminar Focus:

Learn how to boost your coding skills using modern AI coding tools. We’ll introduce 6 beginner-friendly tools and walk through 2 real-world coding challenges. Perfect for students, beginners, and the AI-curious!

👨‍💻 Presenters:

• Alex Liao, Arnav Kakani, Sanjana Gowda, Shely Jain, and Mrinal Agarwal (Award-winning hackathon participants and experienced student developers)

💡 What You’ll Learn:

• When to use which AI tool for speed, privacy, or review

• Live demos with GitHub Copilot, OpenAI tools, Claude Code, and more

• How AI makes coding easier, smarter, and more fun—without replacing you

👥 Who Should Attend:

• Beginner coders

• Students learning Python or web development

• Anyone curious about AI and the future of code

🔗 Registration:

📅 Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025

🕚 Time: 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM Pacific Time 🕒 Time: 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM Eastern Time

📍 Online via Zoom

Reserve your spot now:

👉 https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/XctlHhR4R6SMk462umcxIw

Or scan the QR Code below:

You’ll receive the Zoom link in your confirmation email.

We encourage all AI4Legislation participants to attend—and please invite friends or classmates who might want to join the competition. This is a great way to stay connected, inspired, and involved!

Let’s build a more informed and innovative civic future—together.

AI in Programming: Opportunities and Challenges

The meeting began with Chunhua promoting an upcoming competition and introducing the AI for Legislation Tech Seminar. Cynthia hosted the seminar, introducing speakers and managing the presentation flow. Leon, an expert in large language models, discussed the evolving role of computer science and the impact of AI on programming. He highlighted how AI tools like GitHub Copilot have revolutionized coding by reducing the need for manual debugging and API documentation reading. However, Leon also noted limitations of AI, such as high operational costs, slow processing speeds, and the potential for hallucinations and errors. The session concluded with an open invitation for questions, which attendees were encouraged to submit via chat.

AI Model Cost and Performance Comparison

Leon presented a comparison of AI language models, focusing on cost and performance. He highlighted that the latest Gemini model is more affordable than OpenAI’s GPT-3, with input tokens costing $1.25 to $2 and output tokens $10, compared to OpenAI’s $10 input and $40 output tokens. Leon also demonstrated a visualization tool he created to compare different AI models across companies, showing that 2025 is a significant year for AI advancements, particularly from Google. Finally, Leon discussed the use of Python for data analysis, noting its advantages over traditional BI software like Power BI, particularly in handling large datasets and performing mathematical operations accurately.

Data Scraping and Visualization Tools

Leon presented on data scraping and visualization tools, highlighting Python libraries like requests, Selenium, and Scrapy Spider for web data collection. He introduced several public datasets, including Ledger Scan API and US government data, and demonstrated how to use Google Gemini for data visualization prototyping. Leon also discussed the capabilities of Grok, emphasizing its real-time data features and comparison to other tools like ChatGPT and Claude.

AI Tools for Developers

Leon demonstrated the capabilities of different AI tools, particularly focusing on GitHub Copilot’s debugging and code generation features, which he noted costs $10 per month and offers more advanced functionality than ChatGPT. He explained that different AI models serve different levels of developers, from beginners to professionals, and emphasized that learning Python is still valuable for problem-solving, though he suggested a practical approach of starting with specific problems rather than a formal course. Chunhua agreed that Python knowledge is beneficial for verifying AI outputs and guiding the process, while the conversation ended with Jeff expressing appreciation for the presentation despite not being in the tech field.

AI Agent Customization and Limitations

Leon explained the capabilities and limitations of AI agents, particularly focusing on large language models and their ability to handle specialized tasks. He clarified that while current models have a knowledge cutoff date and cannot learn from ongoing user interactions, they can be customized for specific industries or fields through tools like MCP (Model Context Protocol) and fine-tuning. Jeff inquired about the feasibility of building small, specialized models for specific tasks, and Leon discussed the costs and challenges involved, including the risk of obsolescence due to advancements in AI technology. Jason asked about the possibility of non-computer-savvy individuals creating agents for repetitive data input tasks, to which Leon suggested using retrieval-based agents or platforms like Replit for smaller, more focused problems.

McP: Evolution and Business Opportunities

Leon explained the functionality of MCP, an interface between language models and APIs, and demonstrated how it can be used to create tools for non-programmers. He also discussed the evolution from GPT to MCP, noting that while GPT was easier to use, MCP is more powerful. The group explored potential business opportunities around non-code MCP development tools and AI cursor functionality for presentations. Leon shared a benchmarking website (beta.lm-arena) to help users choose models for different tasks, and SVCA requested Leon to share his slides for future reference.

Summary prepared by Zoom AI Companion

Hosted by the AI4Legislation Team of SVCAF

We are excited to invite all teams and individuals—especially those who have submitted a Letter of Intention for the 2025 AI4Legislation competition—to join us for an insightful seminar focused on AI programming and data analysis.

Whether you are a high school student, college student, or an AI-curious innovator, this session will help you understand how to integrate large language models into meaningful civic tech and policy analysis projects.

🗓 Event Details

• Topic: AI Programming for Data Analysis

• Date: Sunday, June 8, 2025

• Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time / 2:00 PM Eastern Time

• Location: Zoom (Registration Required)

• Register Now: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/OIJgJMgZS_WZNadPBuimXQ

Registration Required: After registering, you will receive a confirmation email with details on how to join the Zoom session.

🎙️ Featured Speaker:

Mr. Liang Guo

AI programming and data analysis expert, with a strong background in large language model (LLM) applications, public datasets, and real-world data workflows.

📚 Tentative Agenda

• What Programming Paradigm Do Large Language Models Address?

• Limitations of LLMs Compared to Traditional Programming Paradigms

• Choosing the Right LLM Model for the Right Problem

• Where to Find High-Quality Public and Government Datasets

• Using LLMs for Data Collection

• Using LLMs for Data Presentation

• Q&A Session

🎯 Who Should Attend?

• Individuals or teams who submitted a Letter of Intention for the AI4Legislation competition

• High school and college students interested in AI, data science, or civic tech

• New participants considering submitting a project to the competition

• Anyone curious about using AI to solve public policy challenges

💡 The session will be recorded and made available to the public later.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Yesterday, our guest Karen Suhaka, founder of BillTrack50, presented with us on using AI to analyze legislative data, highlighting how her platform provides bill summaries, tracks legislation, and aids public understanding. She discussed the complexities of the U.S. legislative process, the technical and ethical considerations in building policy-focused AI tools, and advice for entrepreneurs creating civic tech solutions.

Karen has generously shared both her BillTrack50 API and her slides for the presentation with us. To access the API (until August 1, 2025), you must reach out to Karen@LegiNation.com as a competitor in AI4Legislation. Thank you, Karen!

Featured: Karen Suhaka, serial entrepreneur and founder of BillTrack50

Missed the webinar? Watch it here!

Introduction

SVCAF invited Karen Suhaka, founder of BillTrack50, to present in our second webinar in AI4Legislation. Karen is a serial entrepreneur with two previous successful ventures, and founded BillTrack50 in 2011 to make legislative data more accessible. Since her prior background was in physics and mathematics rather than legislation, the journey this time involved learning deeply about a new field.

Legislative Process Refresher (from a data perspective)

Karen started off by explaining how a bill becomes a law:

• An idea from a citizen, lawmaker, or interest group is brought to a legislator for sponsorship.

• The legislator submits the idea to a bill drafter, who formats the proposal into a compliant legislative draft. Some states allow access to draft bills but most do not, which hinders early data collection.

• Once finalized, the bill is introduced to the legislature, read at the House or Senate where it originated from, and requires the support of a committee to proceed to floor voting.

• If its originating chamber’s floor vote passes the bill, the process must be repeated at the other chamber. Any amendments must be agreed upon by both chambers until a final version is approved. The floor vote data are typically made available

• The Governor or President can sign the bill into law, veto the bill, or let it sit until it becomes a law automatically or dies (pocket veto). If vetoed, the legislature may override the veto with a higher vote threshold. Veto and override data are typically publicized.

Across the 50 states, each legislature functions a little differently, and the data (such as votes, bill texts, and committee summaries) that are available generally vary in format as well. These inconsistencies add up, resulting in a highly complex process to track legislative bill processing across the nation.

Building Legislative Tools with AI

Key areas that developers should consider include defining the painpoint, knowing your audience, addressing data challenges, choosing AI models, and considering ethical standards. Karen emphasized that a majority of the project occurs before any programming happens, because the most important aspect of a successful business venture is making sure people have a need for your solution, and you have a way to market your solution to that target audience. Legislative AI entrepreneurs must also consider variances in data formats (HTML vs. PDF, structured vs. unstructured, costs and reliability), test different AI models or vector databases, and honor the ethics of AI usage (such as privacy, partisanship, bias, human error, misinformation).

Demo: How BillTrack50 Uses AI

Next, Karen demonstrated how AI generates plain-language summaries for bills. Vectorization can be used to show similar bills across states. BillTrack50 also includes user tools like flagging inaccurate summaries, which helps improve the product. Karen acknowledged that occassional weird AI outputs may appear, and explained that they are filtered or corrected in different ways.

Project Ideas for AI4Legislation Participants

Karen raised a few project ideas for competing in AI4Legislation:

• Predict the likelihood of bill passage

• Analyze intent or sentiment of a bill (e.g. anti vs. pro gun control)

• Explain amendments and their impacts on existing laws

• Track model bills that spread across multiple states

• Compare how legislators vote vs. constituents’ actual values

Tips on Entrepreneurship

Karen had three main tips for successful entrepreneurship:

• Build a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) – what is the smallest feature set that someone will pay for? You want to get your first non-friend customer quickly, and sometimes that means the product might not be completely “finished” yet.

• Form a team that fits your company’s culture, not just filling in gaps in skillsets.

• Differentiate between “dumb money” and “smart money”

“dumb money” – your family and friends might help fund your project, but that’s usually a one-time thing with no buy-in or further benefits attached.

• “smart money” – find investors with industry knowledge and not just money! They can connect you to other resources that can help you grow your business.

• Building legislative technology, including identifying a need, choosing your data and method, and navigating ethical considerations

• Her own legal tech company, BillTrack50, as a case study from starting up to scaling and customer feedback

• Project ideas for the Summer 2025 AI4Legislation competition (details found here)

• Tips for entrepreneurship

Event Details

• Date & Time: Monday, April 28, 2025. 12:00pm – 1:00pm Pacific

• Location: Online on Zoom – RSVP here!

• Speaker: Karen Suhaka (Founder of BillTrack50)

• Host: Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

• Format:

Brief Introduction by SVCAF President Chunhua Liao (5 min)

• Presentation by Karen Suhaka (30 min)

• Live Q&A (15 min)

Why Should You Attend?

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the legislative landscape, influencing everything from policy drafting to legal decision-making. This seminar offers a unique opportunity to explore how AI is being integrated into legal documents analysis and the new opportunities it presents to civilians. By attending, you will gain insights from experts actively shaping the intersection of AI and governance, engage in thought-provoking discussions, and participate in a live Q&A session to deepen your understanding. Whether you are a legal professional, tech researcher, or simply curious about the future of AI in legislation, this event will provide valuable knowledge and resources to help you stay informed in this evolving field.

Missed the 1st Webinar?

Don’t worry, we clipped it for you!

Earlier this month, we had the opportunity to interview William Tsui about his legal tech document analysis startup, Legalese Decoder. The seminar recap and recording can be found here.

Important Links

• RSVP to access the public seminar Zoom invitation

• Recorded Webinars on YouTube

• AI4Legislation Competition Home

• AI4Legislation Competition Discord Server

• Call for Volunteers

• Donate to SVCAF or AI4Legislation

About the Organizer

Incorporated in April 2015, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a nonprofit grassroots organization working to promote the involvement of Chinese communities in public affairs and public policy in the United States. As an integral part of the Chinese communities in Northern California and with strong ties across the United States, we are making meaningful progress in providing education to Chinese communities on the legal and political systems in California and the nation. We also encourage active civil engagement and political participation by Chinese communities, through events and projects open to the public, such as AI4Legislation.

Written bySVCAF AI Agent

The webinar covered discussions on an upcoming project, the AI for Legislation competition, and the potential of AI in legal and legislative processes. Participants shared their experiences and insights on AI technology, its applications in simplifying legal matters, and its potential impact on various industries. The conversation also touched on the challenges and opportunities of AI, including its limitations, potential biases, and the importance of focusing on solving real-world problems with passion.

Featured: Chunhua Liao, SVCAF President & Computer Scientist; William Tsui, Founder of Legalese Decoder and serial entrepreneur

Missed the seminar? Watch it here!

Speakers Introduction

Cynthia (host) and Chunhua discussed the AI4Legislation project and the progress of their outreach to Carnegie Mellon University. Chunhua expressed interest in asking the seminar speaker about his startup company’s competition with big tech companies. William, the seminar speaker (founder of Legalese Decoder), joined the meeting and introduced himself as an entrepreneur with experience in starting businesses, including a Fintech project. He shared his experience with simplifying the payment process, but faced challenges with adoption due to regulatory issues. Chunhua, the president of Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, discussed the organization’s mission to promote civil engagement among Chinese Americans in Silicon Valley. He also introduced the AI for Legislation project, which aims to leverage AI technology for legislative processes. Cynthia, the project’s part-time manager, expressed her enthusiasm for AI4Legislation and her desire to continue working on it. William, a seasoned entrepreneur, shared his experiences and expressed his admiration for the project’s potential.

William Examines the Roots and Goals of Legalese Decoder

William, the founder of Legalese Decoder, shared his background in technology and problem-solving, highlighting his interest in AI. He recounted a personal experience with an API company, which led him to develop a tool that could analyze text and assist with legal and tax matters, particularly for small business owners and individuals dealing with government paperwork. William expressed excitement about AI’s ability to analyze large amounts of data and summarize complex information, suggesting that AI could help draft bills more efficiently and identify inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. William also proposed the idea of implementing expiry dates for laws to address outdated legislation.

Governing Programs with Code, Governing Society with Laws

Chunhua discussed his background in computer science and his realization of the importance of laws and legislative processes, particularly in the context of his status as a US citizen. He emphasized the competitive edge of a country’s constitution and laws in fostering good behaviors and reducing bad ones. Chunhua also highlighted the revolutionary impact of large language models and AI, predicting their widespread adoption and potential for extracting knowledge from various inputs. He jokely expressed regret over not investing more in Nvidia stocks related to this technology. Chunhua discussed the potential of combining legal processes with AI technology. William agreed, highlighting the current limitations of AI in solving all legal problems but its potential to assist lawyers and legislators. He shared examples of AI’s positive impact on society, such as helping individuals navigate legal issues without professional assistance.

Startups vs Big Tech

Chunhua then asked about positioning the startup in the competitive AI landscape, to which William advised against direct competition with larger tech companies like Google. William discussed the company’s specialization on legal matters for small business owners, leveraging foundational models from Google and OpenAI. He emphasized the importance of user engagement with AI tools and the need for affordable solutions.

Evaluating AI as a Tool

Cynthia raised concerns about bias in AI, particularly in legal advice, and William acknowledged the issue, noting that it’s not unique to their company. William and Chunhua discussed the challenges and improvements in AI models for legal interpretation. They acknowledged that AI is not a complete replacement for human judges or lawyers but is getting better with time. They emphasized the importance of establishing a baseline for AI performance, comparing it to human capabilities, and focusing on the quality of services provided. They also expressed optimism about the potential of AI in the future, with the belief that it will lead to a society with abundance.

Passion Over Prizes: Advice for Young Entrepreneurs

William and Chunhua discussed the potential of AI technology, with William emphasizing that it is not hype but a real game-changer. He shared his experience of using AI to produce articles at a fraction of the cost and time it would have taken with human writers. Chunhua agreed, noting that AI could replace human labor in many areas. They also touched on the future of jobs, with William suggesting that entrepreneurs should focus on their passion and use AI to build prototypes quickly, rather than waiting for funding or a team. In the meeting, William and Chunhua discussed the importance of finding a problem that people are passionate about and building a solution to it, regardless of winning a competition. They emphasized the need to focus on what one is passionate about and not just try to win a prize. Chunhua also shared his belief that with the help of powerful AI tools, even high school students can take on complex projects. The conversation ended with a discussion about the potential for small teams to become billion-dollar companies.

For more information about this competition:

• /posts/call-for-volunteers-for-ai4legislation-using-ai-to-enhance-civic-awareness-and-action/

• https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public

Event Overview

The AI4Legislation seminar series is recurring during the first week of each month, with the purpose of providing project guidance, inspiration, and current information about legislative AI tools to our competitors and the general public. As AI becomes increasingly capable, we need to harness its power and efficiency to make processes more equitable and effective. Legislation is no exception.

In each seminar, a different guest will share with us how their company or product is utilizing AI to address key challenges in lawmaking, and what the future of AI-driven governance might look like. The topics of our seminar may be most interesting to policymakers, legal professionals, AI researchers, and students interested in law or technology— but all are encouraged to attend and ask questions!

Event Details

• Date & Time: Wednesday April 2, 2025. 6:30pm – 7:30pm (Pacific Time)

• Location: Online (Zoom). RSVP Here

• Speakers:

Chunhua Liao (President of SVCAF and veteran Computer Scientist)

• William Tsui (Founder of Legalese Decoder)

• Host: Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

• Format:

Brief introduction by President Chunhua Liao

• Hosted interview with our speakers

• Live Q&A (~10 min.)

Why Should You Attend?

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the legislative landscape, influencing everything from policy drafting to legal decision-making. This seminar offers a unique opportunity to explore how AI is being integrated into legal documents analysis and the new opportunities it presents to civilians. By attending, you will gain insights from experts actively shaping the intersection of AI and governance, engage in thought-provoking discussions, and participate in a live Q&A session to deepen your understanding. Whether you are a legal professional, tech researcher, or simply curious about the future of AI in legislation, this event will provide valuable knowledge and resources to help you stay informed in this evolving field.

Important Links

• RSVP to access the public seminar Zoom invitation.

• AI4Legislation Competition Home

• AI4Legislation Competition Discord Server

• Call for Volunteers

• Donate to SVCAF or AI4Legislation

About the Organizer

Incorporated in April 2015, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a nonprofit grassroots organization working to promote the involvement of Chinese communities in public affairs and public policy in the United States. As an integral part of the Chinese communities in Northern California and with strong ties across the United States, we are making meaningful progress in providing education to Chinese communities on the legal and political systems in California and the nation. We also encourage active civil engagement and political participation by Chinese communities, through events and projects open to the public, such as AI4Legislation.

A Project by Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF)

Introduction

The Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is committed to empowering civic engagement, particularly among Chinese American communities. We believe that technology, especially artificial intelligence (AI), can bridge the gap between citizens and the legislative process.

With this vision, we are launching AI4Legislation, an open competition that invites innovators to develop and submit open-source, public domain AI tools that make legislation more transparent, understandable, and accessible to the public. The competition will engage participants nationwide, encouraging youth, civic leaders, technologists, and legal professionals to contribute AI-driven solutions that foster greater civic participation.

This document provides an overview of the project, including goals, competition structure, volunteer roles, and how you can get involved.

1. Project Goals

AI4Legislation seeks to:

• Simplify complex legal texts using AI-powered tools to make legislative documents accessible to all.
• Enable better tracking of laws and policies by developing tools that monitor bill progress, amendments, and implementation.
• Encourage civic action by making it easier for citizens to engage with lawmakers and participate in the legislative process.
• Foster open-source solutions that remain publicly available for communities and organizations to use freely.
• Be open to US individuals and teams: The competition is open to all U.S. individuals and teams, but we especially encourage students and young professionals to participate and engage in civic technology.

Through this initiative, we aim to empower individuals and organizations with AI-driven tools that enhance democratic participation.

2. Competition Structure

The AI4Legislation competition is structured in three main phases:

📌 Phase 1: Planning and Fundraising (March-April, tentative)

• Define project milestones, competition categories, and rules.

• Develop a fundraising strategy to secure sponsorships and donations beyond SVCAF’s initial funding.

• Identify potential partners such as civic organizations, legal experts, and AI developers.

📌 Phase 2: Marketing, Outreach, and Submission Phase (May-July, tentative)

• Launch the official competition website and registration.

• Promote the competition via social media, community groups, and educational institutions.

• Conduct webinars, online Q&A sessions, and mentorship programs to support participants.

• Accept and process AI tool submissions.

📌 Phase 3: Judging, Awards, and Post-Competition Showcase (Aug-Sept, tentative)

• Assemble a panel of judges with expertise in AI, law, and civic engagement.

• Evaluate submissions based on impact, usability, and innovation.

• Announce winners and distribute awards.

• Host a showcase event (online) where winning solutions are presented and made open-source.

3. Categories of AI Solutions

Participants will compete in one or more of the following categories:

Legislative Tracking

• AI-powered tools to monitor the progress of bills, amendments, and key legislative changes.

• Dashboards and visualizations that help the public track government actions.

Bill Analysis

• AI tools that generate easy-to-understand summaries, pros/cons, and potential impacts of legislative texts.

• NLP-based applications that translate legal jargon into plain language.

Civic Action & Advocacy

• AI chatbots or platforms that help users contact their representatives, sign petitions, or organize civic actions.

• Compliance monitoring tools, including these that ensure government spending aligns with legislative budgets.

Other Innovations

• Any other AI-driven solutions that enhance public understanding and participation in legislative processes.

4. How Volunteers Can Help

To make AI4Legislation a success, we need dedicated volunteers in various roles. No matter your background, there’s a way for you to contribute! This opportunity is open to **U.S. citizens and permanent residents **only.

Project Management Team

• Lead and coordinate different phases of the competition.

• Develop and track project timelines and milestones.

• Ensure smooth communication among volunteers, participants, and partners.

Marketing & Outreach Team

• Manage social media and online campaigns to attract participants.

• Create promotional materials (flyers, videos, blog posts).

• Conduct outreach to tech communities, legal professionals, and student organizations.

Fundraising & Sponsorship Team

• Identify and reach out to potential donors, corporate sponsors, and grant programs.

• Organize fundraising events or online donation campaigns.

AI & Tech Mentors

• Provide guidance to competition participants on AI development and best practices.

• Help evaluate technical feasibility of AI submissions.

Judging & Evaluation Team

• Review and score competition submissions based on defined criteria.

• Ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process.

5. Initial Funding & Prize Pool

To support the AI4Legislation competition, SVCAF has allocated $10,000 in seed matching funds to the award prize pool. This funding will serve as the initial foundation for the competition’s prizes, with the goal of attracting additional sponsorships and donations to further expand the prize pool.

We welcome contributions from individuals, organizations, and corporate sponsors to help increase the impact of this initiative. All donations will be matched up to $10,000 by SVCAF, effectively doubling the total prize pool and providing more support to participants who develop innovative AI solutions for civic engagement.

If you or your organization are interested in supporting this initiative, please reach out to us. Every contribution helps empower civic awareness through technology!

6. Why You Should Join Us

By volunteering with AI4Legislation, you will:

• Be part of an innovative civic tech initiative that uses AI for social good.
• Work with like-minded professionals, technologists, and civic leaders.
• Gain hands-on experience in project management, marketing, AI development, or legal tech.
• Make a real impact by helping communities better understand and engage with legislation.

📢 Ready to get involved?

📌 Email: info@svcaf.org

📌 Google Sign-up Form for Volunteers: Link

📌 Competition Details: https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public

📌 Discord server to hangout and chat：https://discord.gg/wXwFDWTdqc

Let’s bridge the gap between citizens and legislation with AI—together! 🚀

AI4Legislation：用人工智能提升公民意识与行动

硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF）项目

1. 项目简介

硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF） 致力于推动公民参与，特别是增强华裔群体在美国社会中的政治与法律意识。我们相信，人工智能（AI） 可以成为连接公民与立法过程的重要桥梁。

基于这一愿景，我们正式启动 AI4Legislation 竞赛，邀请创新者开发并提交 开源、公共领域的 AI 工具，让立法信息更透明、易懂、可行动。本次竞赛面向全美范围内的个人和团队，特别鼓励青年、科技爱好者、公民领袖和法律专业人士共同参与，贡献 AI 解决方案，推动公民对立法的广泛参与。

AI4Legislation 旨在：

• 简化复杂法律文本，利用 AI 技术让立法文件易于理解。
• 提升法律和政策的可追踪性，开发工具帮助公众跟踪法案进展、修正案和实施情况。
• 促进公民参与立法，为公众提供便捷的方式与政策制定者互动。
• 鼓励开源贡献，让竞赛产出的 AI 工具向全社会免费开放。
• 推动青年群体参与，激励学生和年轻专业人士利用 AI 赋能社会。本次竞赛对所有美国个人和团队开放，但我们特别鼓励学生和年轻专业人士参与，积极投身于公民科技领域。

我们希望通过这一项目，让公民更容易理解和参与立法，提高民主意识和行动力。

2. 竞赛流程

AI4Legislation 竞赛分为三个阶段：

📌 第一阶段：规划与筹款（3-4 月，暂定）

• 确定竞赛规则、类别和时间表。

• 设计 筹款策略，吸引更多企业、机构及个人捐助。

• 确定 合作伙伴，包括公民组织、法律专家和 AI 研发人员。

📌 第二阶段：宣传推广 & 作品提交（5-7 月，暂定）

• 启动竞赛官网和报名系统。

• 通过 社交媒体、社区组织、教育机构 进行推广。

• 开展 线上研讨会、答疑会和导师指导计划 支持参赛者。

• 开放并接受 AI 方案提交。

📌 第三阶段：评审、颁奖与成果展示（8-9 月，暂定）

• 组建 专家评审团（涵盖 AI、法律、公民参与领域）。

• 评估参赛作品，根据影响力、实用性和创新性打分。

• 公布获奖名单，颁发奖金。

• 举办 线上成果展示会，向公众开放优秀作品。

3. 竞赛类别

参赛者可选择以下类别之一或多个提交作品：

立法追踪（Legislative Tracking）

• AI 工具帮助跟踪法案进程、修正案和立法进展。

• 以可视化方式展示政府决策和政策变化。

法案解读（Bill Analysis）

• AI 生成 简明法案摘要、优劣势分析和潜在影响评估。

• 结合 NLP 技术，将法律术语转化为通俗易懂的语言。

公民行动 & 倡导（Civic Action & Advocacy）

• AI 互动平台，帮助用户 联系议员、签署请愿书或组织活动。

• 监督法律的执行，包括跟踪政府开支，确保 财政预算与立法规定相符。

其他创新（Other Innovations）

• 任何能提升公民理解立法、推动社会参与的 AI 解决方案。

4. 志愿者招募：我们需要你的加入！

AI4Legislation 的成功需要 热心志愿者 的共同努力。无论你的背景如何，都能在不同岗位贡献力量！

项目管理团队（Project Management）

• 负责竞赛整体策划与执行。

• 制定时间表，确保各阶段顺利推进。

• 维护志愿者、参赛者与合作伙伴之间的沟通。

市场推广 & 社区宣传团队（Marketing & Outreach）

• 负责社交媒体运营，扩大项目影响力。

• 制作 宣传材料（海报、短视频、博客文章）。

• 联络 技术社区、法律界人士、学生组织 进行推广。

筹款 & 赞助团队（Fundraising & Sponsorship）

• 开拓潜在捐助者、企业赞助和基金支持。

• 组织筹款活动，提高资金支持。

AI & 技术导师（AI & Tech Mentors）

• 为参赛者提供 AI 技术指导和咨询。

• 评估 AI 方案的技术可行性。

评审 & 评估团队（Judging & Evaluation）

• 参与作品评审，确保竞赛公平透明。

• 依据创新性、影响力和可行性进行评分。

5. 初始资金与奖池

为了支持 AI4Legislation 竞赛，SVCAF 已拨款 $10,000 作为种子匹配资金，用于奖池。这笔资金将作为竞赛奖金的基础，我们同时也希望通过额外的赞助和捐款进一步扩大奖池规模。

我们欢迎个人、机构和企业赞助，以增强本次竞赛的影响力。SVCAF 将提供 1:1 匹配捐款，最高匹配 $10,000，也就是说，每一笔捐款都会被 SVCAF 等额匹配，从而有效增加竞赛的总奖金，支持参赛者开发创新的 AI 解决方案，促进公民参与立法。

如果您或您的组织有兴趣支持本次活动，请与我们联系。您的每一份贡献，都将助力 AI 技术推动公民意识和行动！

6. 为什么加入我们？

加入 AI4Legislation 志愿者团队，你将：

• 参与 AI+公民科技的前沿项目，推动社会变革。
• 结识志同道合的专业人士，拓展人脉。
• 积累项目管理、技术开发和社会创新的宝贵经验。
• 为推动立法透明度和公民参与贡献实际影响。

📢 **立即加入我们！**Email: info@svcaf.org

📢 志愿者报名表：Link

📢 竞赛细则：https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public

📢 Discord: https://discord.gg/wXwFDWTdqc

让我们携手用 AI 连接公民与立法，推动更透明、更公平的社会进步！🚀

We are excited to launch AI4Legislation: AI for Civic Awareness and Action, an open competition inviting innovators to develop and submit open-source, public domain AI-based tools that simplify and enhance public understanding of and engagement with legislation in the USA. This project has the potential to make a real impact on civic awareness and participation nationwide.

Project Overview:

AI4Legislation aims to solicit and award prizes for publicly accessible AI tools that address key areas of civic engagement with legislation. The competition will focus on categories such as:

• Legislative Tracking: Tools to monitor bill progress and amendments.

• Bill Analysis: AI to simplify and explain legislative text (summaries, pros/cons, impact).

• Taking Action: Tools for public influence, advocacy, and compliance monitoring of existing laws, including ensuring that government spending aligns with legislative budgets.

• Others: Other innovative solutions related to legislative education and awareness.

The target audience for submissions includes individuals and teams across the USA, especially encouraging youth participation. Winning solutions will be open-source and publicly available, benefiting communities across the nation.

We are seeking a highly organized and motivated Project Manager to lead and execute this exciting competition from planning to completion.

Responsibilities:

As the Project Manager, you will be responsible for the entire lifecycle of the AI4Legislation competition, including:

• Phase 1: Planning and Fundraising (March-April, tentative timeline):

Develop a detailed project plan with timelines, milestones, and budget.

• Develop and execute a fundraising strategy to secure additional donations beyond initial SVCAF funding.

• Identify and cultivate relationships with potential volunteers, donors and sponsors.

• Phase 2: Marketing, Outreach, and Submission Phase (May-July, tentative):

Develop and implement a comprehensive marketing and outreach plan to attract participants (technologists, civic leaders, public, youth).

• Manage social media and online presence for the competition.

• Conduct outreach to relevant communities, organizations, and educational institutions.

• Phase 3: Judging, Awards, and Post-Competition Showcase (Aug-Sept, tentative):

Recruit and manage a panel of judges with relevant expertise.

• Organize and execute the awards process and prize distribution.

• Plan and potentially organize a post-competition showcase event (online) to highlight winning projects.

• Overall Project Management:

Serve as the primary point of contact for the project.

• Manage project communication and updates with SVCAF and stakeholders.

• Recruit and manage volunteers, track project progress against timelines and budget.

Required Skills and Experience:

• Proven experience as a Project Manager (3+ years preferred).

• Experience managing projects from inception to completion, including coordinating volunteers.

• Strong organizational, time management, and communication skills.

• Ability to work independently and proactively, taking ownership of the project.

• Experience with online project management tools and communication platforms.

• Comfortable working in a remote environment.

• Passion for civic engagement and technology for social good.

• Excellent written and verbal English communication skills.

Preferred Skills:

• Experience with non-profit organizations or civic tech projects.

• Experience with fundraising and donor relations.

• Marketing and outreach experience, particularly in the technology or civic space.

• Familiarity with AI and open-source principles.

• Experience organizing competitions, events, or online challenges.

• Knowledge of US legislative processes (basic understanding is helpful).

Compensation and Incentives:

• Managerial Budget: The managerial budget is flexible and will be determined based on experience and the proposed scope. 

• Performance Bonus (Optional): To recognize exceptional fundraising efforts, we are open to discussing a performance-based milestone bonus structure, contingent upon meeting agreed-upon fundraising goals in alignment with non-profit best practices.

• Additional Context: Beyond the managerial budget, SVCAF has allocated a $10,000 Donation Matching Fund. All matched funds and additional fundraising contributions will be dedicated to expanding the prize pool, covering project expenses such as platform costs, outreach, and volunteer engagement.

To Apply:

Please submit your proposal to info@svcaf.org , including:

• A cover letter outlining your relevant experience and why you are a good fit for this project. Specifically, highlight your experience in project management, fundraising (if applicable), and any relevant experience with similar projects or organizations.

• Your resume or portfolio showcasing your project management skills and experience.

• Your proposed approach to managing the AI4Legislation project, including how you would approach planning, fundraising, marketing, and competition execution.

• Your overall compensation expectation.

• If you are interested in a performance-based bonus, please briefly outline your thoughts on a potential structure.

We are eager to find a dedicated and passionate Project Manager to help us make AI4Legislation a success! We will review applications on a rolling basis and encourage you to apply as soon as possible.

Thank you for your interest!

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF)

SVCA (Silicon Valley Chinese Association) Foundation wishes you a prosperous and happy Lunar New Year 2024!

Join us for an unforgettable in-person event at Chinese Performing Arts of America, San Jose on 2/10 3pm-7pm. 

Get ready to immerse yourself in the festive spirit of the Lunar New Year, filled with vibrant cultural performances, delicious food, and exciting activities. 

Meet the elected officials, community leaders and community volunteers that we helping shape our community for the better!

Whether you’re looking to reconnect with friends or make new ones, this party is the perfect opportunity to embrace the traditions and customs of this joyous occasion. Don’t miss out on this incredible celebration! 

Mark your calendars for 2/10 and get ready to welcome the Lunar New Year in style!

Date & Time: **2/10/2024 3:00-7:00PM ** Location: 6148 Bollinger Rd, San Jose, CA 95129 (Chinese Performing Arts of America)

Admission $10 (Pay via PayPal: donations@svcaf.org or by cash at entrance, free for kids below 18 years old)

RSVP asap (helpful for food arrangement) and help us circulate this event: tinyurl.com/svca2024party

Agenda: 3:00-4:00 Check-in 4:00-4:45 SVCA 10 Year Keynotes Speech, Guest Speeches, Volunteer Recognition 4:45-5:30 Performance 5:30-6:30 Dinner and Social Time 6:30-7:00 Closing

click to RSVP

（点击图片进行在线签名）

我需要更多帮助来阻止加州立法机构的权力扩张：上周，我在Instapundit向读者请求在反对加州立法机构试图削弱第209号提案的新努力方面提供“X/Twitter”帮助。你们做到了！感谢所有帮助的人！你们太棒了！

我有另一个请求。幸运的是，这仍然不会花费你一分钱。（如果这个愚蠢的法案通过了全民公投，那时我会开始要捐款，但我们有很大机会在加利福尼亚参议院就阻止它。）

我们的“反对ACA7”的请愿（change.org/VoteNoOnACA7）需要至少25,000个签名才能引起注意。我们可能还需要更多。幸运的是，我们还有一段时间。今天是我们第一个认真收集签名的日子。您不需要是加州人就可以签名。（但如果您是加州人，请务必包括您的邮政编码。在过去，一些立法者要求我们提供来自他们选区邮政编码的签名人数。）

如果您还能将请愿书与您的朋友或通过社交媒体分享，那将会很棒。（我们使用的社交媒体Hashtags：#KeepDiscriminationIllegal #NoACA7 #NoACA7photoparade #ACA7 will be defeated the same way as #prop16.）

(我们人民10倍行动！）

对于那些还没有关注这个问题的人来说，209号提案于1996年通过修宪，其中包括这些措辞：“州不得因种族、性别、肤色、种族或国籍而对个人或群体进行歧视或给予优惠待遇……”加州的深蓝色立法机构一直在争取废除它。他们三年前试图通过第16号提案废除它。但是加州人的压倒性投票选择了保留了宝贵的209提案内容，这让加州左派立法者们感到震惊。那是一个真正的大卫与歌利亚对战时刻；尽管对手的支出超过了我们的14倍，我们仍然赢得了胜利。

（加州宪法中209号提案内容）

对我来说，他们这么快又再次尝试令我感到惊讶。但我想我应该已经预料到了。加州赔偿问题特别委员会今年早些时候发布的报告要求削弱209号提案。它阻碍了他们的提案。就如期待的那样，加州议会投票支持了ACA7。

这次的新尝试更加狡猾。它不是试图直接废除，而是创建了一种操作，另州长可以制定“例外”。纽森州长（以及未来的州长）所需要的只是能够指出（或创建）显示种族偏好（和歧视）将是一件好事的“研究”。但在目前这个社会，任何颠覆现实，指鹿为马的“学术”研究成果都有可能横空出世，对于政府支持的种族歧视项目来说，这样的限制条件将是不值一文。

（Gail Heriot教授）

Prof. Gail Heriot “NO on ACA7 ”主席 （2024） “No on Prop 16″ 联合主席 （2020） “Yes on Prop 209″ 联合主席 （1996） 圣地亚哥大学法学教授 美国民权委员会成员

请大家尽快签署NoACA7在线情愿书（https://www.change.org/VoteNoOnACA7），并传播给至少10个朋友，更多ACA7内容，请移步https://noonaca7.org.

具体来说，Santa Clara County ROV选务总部的负责人单方面决定, 无论是Vote in person(VIP), 即现场投票，或者是Vote by Mail (VBM)就是邮寄选票，如果是under vote 的选票都要经过人工审核。那么**什么是under vote 呢？举例来说，一个职位或提案你空着没选, 就是under vote。**比如在学区委员的选项中，如果有多个候选人竞选三个职位的话，选票中写的是选择no more than three就是不能超过三人，但是如果你只选其中一位心仪的候选人，空着其他两个选择的话，这样的选票也属于under vote。Under vote是非常正常, 合法的选票，选民的意图非常的明确。特别是在Vote In Person (VIP)现场投票的过程中，如果你的选票中有under vote的情况，在经过扫描机时，扫描机会自动提示，让你确认是不是你有意这么选的，你有机会去确认或者修改。然而对于这些under vote 的选票却在选务总部ROV, 在选民们毫不知情的情况下被挑出来，先搁置，再经过人工审核—-即审核人员审核整个选票从而再次确定选民的意图！

加州的选举法明确规定under vote 的选票是应被选举系统按选民意愿接受而不被更改的。对于ROV 这种令人难以置信，明显违反选举法规的做法我们强烈反对并坚决曝光。如果您也认为ROV 无权对我们的合法，正常选票进行人工审核，垦请您加入我们一起对Santa Clara County ROV 的这个违规做法说“不！”。 我们反对ROV 对under vote 的选票进行人工审核的主要原因如下： 1.违反加州选举法规。 2.侵犯选民应被保护的选举隐私，以至影响选民对选举完整性的信心。 3.引入不必要的人工干预和出错机率。特别是现场投票己被确认过。 4.显著增加计票时间。 5.浪费纳税人的钱。

选举过程的正义，是美国民主制度的保障，是选民对美国政治制度的信心所在，这高于任何的政治党派和团体的利益，我们硅谷华人协会基金会强烈建议所有圣县的注册选民都行动起来，向圣县的参事质疑SCCROV的做法， 督促Santa Clara County ROV做正确的事：停止对Under Vote进行人工干预！

请在我们准备好的抗议书上上签名。强烈要求SCCROV尽快改变做法，停止对under vote 的选票进行人工审核

如果您是Santa Clara县的注册选民，请点击链接https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym进行签名。希望所有关心加州选举系统公平、公正、完整，透明的朋友们加入我们，献计献策，出力参与，力促这件事情的成功！

以下是签名过程的具体图示：

步骤1: 点击 https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym

步骤2: 点击 “Continue” 按钮开始签名过程：

步骤3: 点击 “Click here to sign”,并在弹出窗口输入您注册选民的时候用的名字，再点击”Apply”按钮,您的电子签名和姓名会被自动填入电子文档。

步骤4: 点击文档末尾的 “Click to Sign”按钮，并在弹出窗口输入您的电子邮件地址。

**步骤5: **查看您的电子邮箱，搜索刚刚收到的email，其标题为: “Please confirm your signature on Adjudication Demand Letter”, 来自”Adobe Sign”:

**步骤 6: **点击email里面的 “Confirm my email address“，然后会看到一个绿色的消息： “Your e-signing of Adjudication Demand Letter has been verified. A copy of the signed document is being sent to you.” 此时便大功告成!

欲了解更多详情，请访问SVCAF网站。

Sep 22, 2023

Are You OK with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Second Guessing Your Vote?

For the last four years, Group of Santa Clara County Citizens been Citizen Observers of the Ballot Processing and Vote Tabulation Processes at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (SCCROV). They have discovered during our observations that the SCCROV unilaterally has made the executive decision to suspend and manually **“Adjudicate and Determine the Voter’s Intent” **for Under-Votes on all Voters’ Mail-In and Vote-in-Person Ballots.

The SCCROV’s actions are especially egregious for the In-Person Voter who fills out a paper ballot and scans their ballot using the ICP scanner/tabulator machine. The scanner allows the Voter to review their voting choices on its LCD screen. The ICP scanner/tabulator machine informs the Voter of an **under-vote **condition. It provides the Voter option to confirm or redo their choices. In this case, manually Adjudicating a ballot when the Voter has confirmed their vote in person on the machine is clearly unacceptable.  

The SCCROV’s actions are in Violation of California Election Code Section 19101, California Code Regulation 20982, California Voting System Standard Section 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3 and other relevant election codes and laws. The SCCROV’s unilateral decision violates Voters’ Constitutional Rights to choose not to vote for a particular ballot contest without interference. It creates the opportunity for the Voter’s vote to be tampered with and changed without the Voter’s knowledge.

Federal, State and Local laws do not grant the SCCROV the right to review and suspend Voters’ ballots before tabulating their votes. The SCCROV’s “**Adjudication” **process to determine Voter Intent when the Voter’s Intent by No Vote decisions are clear on their ballots. The ROV’s actions deprive all Santa Clara County Voters of their Constitutional and Civil Rights to a safe, secure, private and accurate voting process. 

An Under-Vote is defined as a No Vote. The Voter decides not to vote for any of the Candidates running in one or more contests, or Proposition and Referendum Measures, by not marking the ballot accordingly. Also, when there are multiple candidates running in a contest, such as in School Board, State and County Judicial Offices, City and Town Council contests and the ballot instructs the Voter to vote for two, three, four or five and the Voter votes for less than the number instructed for the contest.

All Santa Clara County Voters need to contact the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and demand that they direct the SCCROV to cease and desist the **Adjudication **process for under votes for any future elections, and especially fix the vote tabulating for this 2024 election.

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) firmly supports this cause, to make sure Santa Clara’s citizen’s voice get heard by Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and SCCROV, and resolve any election code violation issues.

SVCAF calls for every Santa Clara voter to sign this demand letter to urge Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to stop SCCROV from the manual adjudication process for under votes. If you are a Santa Clara voter, please follow the link https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88y and e-sign the demand.

Below are step-by-step illustration.

Step 1: Click this link (https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym)

Step 2: Click “Continue” Button to start the E-sign in the opened doc

Step 3: Click “Click here to sign”, in the popup window, input your full name, click “Apply”, then your Signature and Printed Name will be automatically filled into the doc.

Step 4: Press “Click to Sign” button and input your email address

**Step 5: **Check your email inbox for the confirmation with title: “Please confirm your signature on Adjudication Demand Letter”, from “Adobe Sign”:

**Step 6: **Click “Confirm my email address” link within the email, and when you see the green banner with text: “Your e-signing of Adjudication Demand Letter has been verified. A copy of the signed document is being sent to you.” done!

**Please help spread the word, and collect more signatures. The follow-up updates will be posted on this page as well, so please do visit this page from time to time. **

For media contact: info@svcaf.org

2023 年2月12 日，星期天，中午，硅谷华人协会基金会的部分新老理事在Fremont举行疫情以来的第一次新年茶话会。

大家一起回顾了基金会从2014年以来的维护华人宪法平等权利的各项义工活动，也展望了新一年的工作。 主要重点是继续跟进最高法院的状告哈佛/北卡大学歧视亚裔的诉讼。同时加强对加州大学隐形打压亚裔学生入学的违宪行为的监督和披露，不排除发起相关诉讼的可能。

特约嘉宾Catharine Baker 也应邀参加。​Baker在 2014 年至 2018 年期间是加利福尼亚州议会的代表第16选区（三谷地区）的共和党议员。 自 2021 年以来，她一直在加州公平政治实践委员会任职。 

Baker 分享了她近几年在加州公平政治实践委员会（California Fair Political Practices Commission）中的各项工作，包括加强惩罚挪用选举捐款用于私人利益的违法行为，设置委员会对举报处理的时间限制等等。Baker 披露，委员会发现有的政客挪用十万美元装修在夏威夷的私人别墅，或者花在私人的国际度假旅行之中。但是加州检察官对这种行为只是从轻处理。另外对这种举报的调查处理经常拖延5年以上，让嫌疑人继续可以没有顾虑的担任公职。Baker 推动了委员会对这些挪用行为的惩罚力度（三倍罚款和监狱），也把委员会对违法行为举报的处理时间限制在两年之内。

参会人员讨论如何继续推动华人社区对立法部门和政府的监督，和积极入籍投票的主人翁行为。例如基金会可以协助更多的华人进一步担任各级公职。具体可以从本地城市的各种水务局，公园等委员会开始担任理事，逐步拓展自己的人脉和简历。特别是每年选举后，很多委员会有空位产生，是加入的好时机。各地的商务协会Chamber of Commerce 也有专门针对对公共服务职位感兴趣的人的课程，应该推动华人积极报名参加培训。

结束语：SVCAF作为硅谷华人的一个草根组织，致力于通过切实的行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华人， 研讨华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象。如有华人朋友有意参与本地政治，SVCAF愿助一臂之力，让我们携手共建更美好的加州。

大家好！美国2022年至关重要的中期选举基本尘埃落定了，由于邮寄选票众多，很多我们关心的选举结果是在选举日过去好多天才最终出炉。聚焦到我们Santa Clara County，选举日过去了十几天才有结果，大量的邮寄选票在ROV（Registrar of voters)，即选务总部被处理，数算。

然而我们绝大多数选民不知道的是，我们的选票有可能正在选举总部被人工审核(manual Adjudication)。具体来说，Santa Clara County ROV选务总部的负责人单方面决定, 无论是Vote in person(VIP), 即现场投票，或者是Vote by Mail (VBM)就是邮寄选票，如果是under vote 的选票都要经过人工审核。**什么是under vote 呢？举例来说，一个职位或提案你空着没选, 就是under vote。**比如在学区委员的选项中，如果有多个候选人竞选三个职位的话，选票中写的是选择no more than three就是不能超过三人，但是如果你只选其中一位心仪的候选人，空着其他两个选择的话，这样的选票也属于under vote。Under vote是非常正常, 合法的选票，选民的意图非常的明确。特别是在Vote In Person (VIP)现场投票的过程中，如果你的选票中有under vote的情况，在经过扫描机时，扫描机会自动提示，让你确认是不是你有意这么选的，你有机会去确认或者修改。然而对于这些under vote 的选票却在选务总部ROV, 在选民们毫不知情的情况下被挑出来，先搁置，再经过人工审核—-即审核人员审核整个选票从而再次确定选民的意图！

加州的选举法明确规定under vote 的选票是应被选举系统按选民意愿接受而不被更改的。对于ROV 这种令人难以置信，明显违反选举法规的做法，我们在经过多人,多次观察，取证，书面核实后，对ROV 正式发函提出要求，敦请ROV 负责人改变做法，立即停止对under vote 选票进行人工审核。信函于2022年10月24日用验证邮件certified mail方式寄到ROV。ROV 在10月31日给我们的回复中对undervote 的选票执行人工审核的做法没有提出任何法律、法规的依据却无意改变此操作。对于这次中期选举的under vote 的选票，无论是现场投票VIP, 还是邮寄选票VBM, 都会在ROV 被人工审核, 即manually adjudicated。

如果您也认为ROV 无权对我们的合法，正常选票进行人工审核，垦请您加入我们一起对Santa Clara County ROV 的这个违规做法说“不！”。 我们反对ROV 对under vote 的选票进行人工审核的主要原因如下： 1.违反加州选举法规。 2.侵犯选民应被保护的选举隐私，以至影响选民对选举完整性的信心。 3.引入不必要的人工干预和出错机率。特别是现场投票己被确认过。 4.显著增加计票时间。 5.浪费纳税人的钱。

对此，您可以直接找ROV 质疑，反对。也可以在我们给ROV 的信（petition letter） 上签名。要求其改变做法，停止对under vote 的选票进行人工审核。

签名的步骤如下：(需是Santa Clara County 注册选民）

• 下载并打印 this petition letter (PDF)。

• 在信末尾部分写下您的姓名，地址，日期并签字。

• 将信寄到 Alice Kao, P.O. Box 10472，San Jose, CA 95157， 由我们统一送到ROV

• 在此处登记, 以便统计有多少人签名。签名情况会定期公布、更新。

欲了解更多详情，请访问SVCAF网站。

选举过程的正义，是美国民主制度的保障，是选民对美国政治制度的信心所在，这高于任何的政治党派和团体的利益，我们硅谷华人协会基金会强烈建议所有圣县的注册选民都行动起来，督促Santa Clara County ROV做正确的事：停止对Under Vote进行人工干预！

希望所有关心加州选举系统公平、公正、完整，透明的朋友们加入我们，献计献策，出力参与，力促这件事情的成功！

Election Integrity Project® California (EIPCa) 是一个由美国公民志愿者组成的无党派团体，旨在通过保护我们的自由和方式的投票过程的完整性来履行我们积极参与我们州/国家治理的责任。 EIPCa 志愿者通过在政府部门中保持积极作用来保护我们的共和国，一个民有政府，民有政府，民享政府，赋予公民我们最基本的权利——通过公平和诚实的选举选择我们的代表的权利。

最近（2022年11月21日）加州第九巡回法院裁定：选举诚信项目®加利福尼亚州有资格挑战加利福尼亚州的选举法律、法规和程序。法庭认为：选举诚信项目®加利福尼亚州 (EIPCa) 以及最近和未来的国会候选人有权挑战加州选举法律、法规、政策和程序的合宪性，因为它们涉嫌 削弱或消除选举过程中的诚信。尽管宪法赋予州立法者通过法律来管理选举和处理选票的权力，但 EIPCa 声称他们没有全权通过降低合法选票价值的法律的权力。

该决定将诉讼发回下级法院取证，这是诉讼的下一阶段。

在过去十年中，加利福尼亚州通过的法律、行政命令和法规导致了大量违规行为，在 2020 年大选中达到顶峰，当时纽森州长授权向选民名册上的所有“活跃”登记人邮寄选票，前国务卿亚历克斯帕迪拉废除了签名验证要求。 EIPCa 收到了 700 多份受过 EIPCa 培训的观察员签署的宣誓书，如果作伪证将受到处罚，这些观察员一直报告说选举工作人员没有充分核实签名，在某些情况下，还对没有签名的选票进行清点。

由于州立法机关和亚历克斯帕迪拉都不规定统一和安全的投票和计票程序，因此各县采用的投票程序参差不齐。 EIPCa 及其共同原告对纽森州长、司法部长、国务卿和 13 个县登记官提起了诉讼。

“这起诉讼具有里程碑意义，因为它是第一次挑战加州选举法和程序的合宪性，而我们是第一个取得诉讼资格的人，”为信仰与自由倡导者工作的首席律师玛丽亚·贡代罗 (Mariah Gondeiro) 说。 “如果我们赢了，加州将被要求执行安全和统一的投票和计票程序。”

“十多年来，选举诚信项目®California EIPCa 主席琳达·潘恩 (Linda Paine) 说：“我们研究并记录了加州选举过程的各个方面，并确定了这些法律如何将选举日变成了充满易于操纵程序的 60 天选举季。” “我们现在看到全国各州的加州风格法律造成了同样的问题，这些问题多年来在加州由接受过 EIPCa 培训的观察员已经目睹和记录过。”

关于 Election Integrity Project®California, Inc. (EIPCa) (www.eip-ca.com)：捐款链接： https://www.eip-ca.com/donate/ 需要配捐的请发送收据到 info@svcaf.org 。

Election Integrity Project®California, Inc. (“EIPCa”) 是一家加州501C3非营利性公益公司，致力于通过教育捍卫自己的利益、研究和倡导美国公民根据联邦和州法律充分参与选举过程的公民权利。

The Election Integrity Project® California (EIPCa) is a nonpartisan group of U.S. citizen volunteers seeking to fulfill our duty to actively participate in the governing of our state/country by helping to ensure the integrity of the voting process that protects our freedoms and way of life. EIPCa volunteers seek to protect our Republic, a government of, by, and for the people by maintaining an active role in that part of government which empowers citizens with our most fundamental right ~ the right to choose our representatives by fair and honest elections.

11/21/2022, Santa Clarita, California – The Ninth Circuit has ruled that Election Integrity Project®California (EIPCa) and recent and future congressional candidates have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of California’s election laws, regulations, policies and procedures that have weakened or removed integrity from the election process. Though the Constitution gives authority to state legislators to pass laws to manage elections and process ballots, EIPCa asserts they do not have carte blanche authority to pass laws that diminish the value of the lawfully cast ballots.

The decision remanded the lawsuit to the lower court for discovery, which is the next phase of the litigation.

Over the last decade California has passed laws, orders and regulations that have led to massive irregularities, culminating in the 2020 election, when Governor Newsom authorized mailing a ballot to all “active” registrants on the voter rolls and former Secretary of State Alex Padilla gutted signature verification requirements. EIPCa received over 700 affidavits signed under penalty of perjury from EIPCa-trained observers who consistently reported election workers not adequately verifying signatures and, in some cases, counting ballots without signatures.

Because neither the state legislature nor Alex Padilla required uniform and secure vote casting and counting procedures, uneven procedures were applied across counties. EIPCa and its co-plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Governor Newsom, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and thirteen country registrars.

“This lawsuit is monumental because it is the first to challenge the constitutionality of California’s election laws and procedures, and we are the first to get past standing,” says Mariah Gondeiro, the lead attorney who works for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “If we win, California will be required to enforce secure and uniform vote casting and vote counting procedures.”

“For over a decade, Election Integrity Project®California has researched and documented every aspect of California’s election process and identified how these laws transformed an Election Day into a 60-day election season fraught with easy to manipulate procedures,” says Linda Paine, President of EIPCa. “We are now seeing California Style laws in states across the country creating the same problems that have been witnessed and documented by EIPCa-trained observers in California for years.”

Donation Link: https://www.eip-ca.com/donate/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dec 04, 2022

A group of Santa Clara citizens contacted the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County (SCCROV) during 2022 election season, and they have discovered and confirmed with SCCROV that all the under votes are being manually adjudicated.

Below is a summary of the discovery, by Mr. Ronald J. Meyer.

Are You OK with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Second Guessing Your Vote?

For the last three years, a Group of Santa Clara County Citizens and I have been Citizen Observers of the Ballot Processing and Vote Tabulation Processes at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (SCCROV). We have discovered during our observations that the SCCROV unilaterally has made the executive decision to suspend and manually **“Adjudicate and Determine the Voter’s Intent” **for Under-Votes on all Voters’ Mail-In and Vote-in-Person Ballots.

The SCCROV’s actions are especially egregious for the In-Person Voter who fills out a paper ballot and scans their ballot using the ICP scanner/tabulator machine. The scanner allows the Voter to review their voting choices on its LCD screen. The ICP scanner/tabulator machine informs the Voter of an **under-vote **condition. It provides the Voter option to confirm or redo their choices. In this case, manually Adjudicating a ballot when the Voter has confirmed their vote in person on the machine is clearly unacceptable.  

The SCCROV’s actions are in Violation of California Election Code Section 19101, California Code Regulation 20982, California Voting System Standard Section 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3 and other relevant election codes and laws. The SCCROV’s unilateral decision violates Voters’ Constitutional Rights to choose not to vote for a particular ballot contest without interference. It creates the opportunity for the Voter’s vote to be tampered with and changed without the Voter’s knowledge.

Federal, State and Local laws do not grant the SCCROV the right to review and suspend Voters’ ballots before tabulating their votes. The SCCROV’s “**Adjudication” **process to determine Voter Intent when the Voter’s Intent by No Vote decisions are clear on their ballots. The ROV’s actions deprive all Santa Clara County Voters of their Constitutional and Civil Rights to a safe, secure, private and accurate voting process. 

An Under-Vote is defined as a No Vote. The Voter decides not to vote for any of the Candidates running in one or more contests, or Proposition and Referendum Measures, by not marking the ballot accordingly. Also, when there are multiple candidates running in a contest, such as in School Board, State and County Judicial Offices, City and Town Council contests and the ballot instructs the Voter to vote for two, three, four or five and the Voter votes for less than the number instructed for the contest.

As Concerned Santa Clara County Citizens, we are alerting All Santa Clara County Voters to contact the Santa Clara County ROV and demand that they cease and desist the **Adjudication **process for under votes for any future elections, and especially fix the vote tabulating for this 2022 election.

Ronald J. Meyer, 11/03/2022

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation firmly supports this cause, to make sure Santa Clara’s citizen’s voice get heard by SCCROV and resolve any election code violation issues.

SVCAF calls for every Santa Clara voter to send petition letter to urge SCCROV to stop the manual adjudication process for under votes. If you are a Santa Clara voter, please follow these steps:

• Download this petition letter (PDF)

• Print and sign it wet (sign on paper)

• Mail it to our dedicated PO BOX:

Alice Kao, P.O. Box 10472，San Jose, CA 95157

• (Our volunteer will send it to SCCROV in batches. This is to have a final count on how many signed petition letters have been sent to SCCROV for any further legal actions).

• Click this link and fill in the survey to help our volunteers for progress.

Please help spread the word, and collect more signatures. The follow-up updates will be posted on this page as well, so please do visit this page from time to time.

For media contact: info@svcaf.org

By  Mr. Chunhua Liao, VP of SVCAF 

In Support of Students for Fair Admissions’s Landmark Lawsuits against Anti-Asian Racism at Harvard and University of North Carolina, 

When: Sunday, Oct. 30, 2022, 1:30 – 4:00 PM EDT

Where: Steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.

Good afternoon, my fellow Americans. I am Chunhua Liao, the co-founder and Vice President of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation. When I first started fighting against SCA5 in California in February 2014, I never thought we could make it this far, standing in front of the US Supreme Court, side by side with the giants who are also safeguarding the equal constitutional rights of everyone.

At this moment, I am thinking about the fellow volunteers in Silicon Valley who have spent lots of hours and dollars on our cause. They are among the heroes who have made this historical trial happen.

I would like to take this opportunity to share three lessons I learned throughout my journey over the past 8+ years.

First of all, I learned to change my mindset from being directed by others to thinking and acting as an owner of myself, my community, my state, and my beautiful country, the USA. Because if you don’t take ownership, others surely will. Their interests may not always align with yours. If you are not at the table deciding things, you may be on the menu. This new mindset has motivated me to speak out against unconstitutional policies, stand up for the unfortunate, and keep volunteering even when I am as busy as anyone next to me.

Secondly, I learned that we are actually the majority side in this fight. Numerous polls or elections have proved it again and again: Americans do not want to treat each other differently based on our skin colors. Some people on the other side may have good intentions. But their race-based preferential policies are textbook racism and are already having disastrous consequences. Fixating on skin color also distracts us from the real problems. We must convince as many people as possible to do the right and hard thing together: fix the root causes of the social problems we are facing today by demanding accountability from parents, educators, government officials, and social policies.

The very last, but not least, the fight to defend the US constitution will never end. Even if the US Supreme Court rules in our favor today, there will be a lot of work to do to actually enforce the ruling. For example, California already has a state constitution banning the use of race as a factor in college admissions. However, the University of California openly defies people’s will and uses all kinds of tricks to implement hidden racial quotas, including relying more on subjective criteria instead of objective standardized tests. We have to keep filing lawsuits to safeguard the equal rights of everyone. We also must pass the torch to the next generation and beyond.

With that, I will end my speech. To recap the three lessons: 1) think and act as an owner; 2) unite to address root causes of problems; and 3) keep defending the constitution with your children, grandchildren, and beyond.

Thank You. 

中文版

《用主人翁心态捍卫美国宪法》

“人人享有平等教育权”集会 未删减完整演讲稿 

作者： 廖春华 先生

支持”学生公平录取组织” 里程碑式诉讼：控诉哈佛大学和北卡罗来纳大学的针对亚裔的种族主义

时间：星期日2022 年 10 月 30 日，美国东部时间下午 1:30 – 4:00

地点：华盛顿特区美国最高法院台阶

下午好，我的美国同胞们。我是硅谷华人协会基金会的联合创始人兼副会长廖春华。 2014 年 2 月，当我第一次在加利福尼亚开始与 SCA5 抗争时，我从未想过我们能走到这一步，站在美国最高法院前，与同样维护每个人平等宪法权利的全美国各大巨头并肩作战。

此时此刻，我在想硅谷的志愿者们，他们为我们的事业花费了大量时间和金钱。他们是促成这一历史性的审判的英雄之一。我也想借此机会分享我在过去 8 年多义工的旅程中学到的三个教训。

首先，我学会了将自己的思维方式从受他人指导转变为作为自己、我的社区、我的州和我美丽的国家， 美国的主人来思考和行动。因为如果你不拥有所有权，其他人肯定会。他们的利益可能并不总是与您的一致。如果你不在餐桌上决定事情，你很可能在菜单上被人任人宰割。这种新的心态促使我公开反对违宪的政策，为不幸的人挺身而出，即使我和身边的任何人一样忙，也要继续做志愿者。

其次，我了解到我们实际上是这场斗争中的多数派。无数的民意调查或选举一次又一次地证明了这一点：美国人民不想根据肤色来区别对待彼此。和我们意见不同的另一边的一些人可能是出于好意。但他们基于种族的优惠政策是教科书式的种族主义，已经造成了灾难性的后果。专注于肤色也会使我们从真正的问题上分心。我们必须说服尽可能多的人一起做正确而艰难的事情：通过要求家长、教育工作者、政府官员和社会政策承担责任，共同解决我们今天面临的社会问题的根源。

最后，但同样重要的是，捍卫美国宪法的斗争永远不会结束。即使美国最高法院今天做出有利于我们的裁决，要真正执行该裁决还有很多工作要做。例如，加利福尼亚州已经有一部州宪法，禁止将种族作为大学录取的一个因素。然而，加州大学公然违抗加州人民的意志，使用各种手段实施隐藏的种族配额，包括更多地依靠主观标准而不是客观标准化测试。我们必须不断提起诉讼，以维护每个人的平等权利。我们还必须将火炬传递给下一代。

至此，我将结束我的演讲。最后回顾三个教训：1）以美国主人翁的心态的思考和行动； 2）团结起来解决社会问题的根源； 3) 继续与您的孩子、孙子及其他人一起捍卫美国人人平等的宪法。

谢谢！

Edward Blum先生在主题演讲中预计最高法院今年十一月在华盛顿特区终审开庭，明年六月发布判决结果。被告的两所大学财力雄厚，据说北卡罗来纳大学花了25 million 律师费，哈佛大学花了 50 million律师费。幸运的是目前最高法院保守派法官占大多数，乐观期待未来判决SFFA可能取得胜诉，因为按肤色搞优待，搞配额的两所大学违反了美国平等保护每一个人的宪法条款。最终判决将历史性的影响全美，全面禁止大学在入学录取过程中考虑学生的肤色。

随着最高法院准备审理指控哈佛大学有种族意识的招生政策歧视亚裔美国人申请人的诉讼，哈佛实际已经被迫提高了录取的亚裔学生比例，最新数据是27.8%。对比诉讼发起前的17-20%，上升幅度不小。合法权益真的是争取来的，做哑裔只会被逐步蚕食权益。他在演讲中举了一个例子，让大家了解种族这个因素在哈佛入学占的重要性。一个正常亚裔申请者被哈佛录取的机率是２５％；其他因素不变改成白人录取机率是３６％；改成西裔录取机率是７７％；改成非裔录取机率是95% 。

Blum先生盛赞硅谷华人协会对SFFA的帮助。他提到，硅谷的华人不知道自己对这个案子的重要性。2015年第一次应邀到硅谷后， SVCA几乎一夜之间帮助SFFA拉了一万五千名新会员，完全改变了诉讼的局面。有名有姓的会员名单呈交给法庭后，征服了法官接受审理此案。

目前华人社区能够帮助哈佛訴訟的渠道主要有捐款和加入SFFA该组织成为会员。两件事情都可以访问官网完成：https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/ 

硅谷华人基金会主席Jason Xu 介绍了基金会在哈佛官司方面的系列行动。基金会从2015年开始就支持Blum 先生和哈佛官司。2015年和2018年分别举行过同样论坛。2018年派出7人团队去了波士顿参与哈佛官司的开庭。基金会主席也曾经担任过SFFA的理事。基金会为官司捐过近10万资金。2021年，基金会和犹太人组织Branteis 中心一起合作“法庭之友“文件，揭露哈佛在100年前对犹太人歧视的动机，手法和宣传都是一样的。由于角度新颖，这份文件受到纽约时报的关注和报道。

AACE 的主席赵宇空发言，提到今年被加州大学大规模拒绝的亚裔学生应该站出来，帮助发起法律诉讼。AACE能够找到律师团队，但是缺学生原告。在被问到，如何做一个合格的公民，宇空指出，大陆第一代移民要摈弃三个心态。即小农心态，只看到自己的一亩三分地，只看到自己的小家，看不到自己的社区和学区。第二是过客心态。很多人到美国只为赚钱。绿卡不入籍，入籍不注册，注册不投票，投票还投给损害自己利益的候选人。第三是难民心态。难民被一个国家收容了，就整天劳作，怕一闲下来生存就没着落。难民从来不可能像那个国家土生土长的公民一样，因为难民是从一个比别人低的基点开始创业的。他们认为美国提供了很好的生活环境，受点歧视问题不大。这批人没有做美国公民，主人翁精神，不知道参加社会规则的制定是民主社会的公民权利。

赵先生回顾了SFFA起诉哈佛，AACE申诉哈佛的八年前，亚裔受左翼误导，很多支持平权法。美国社会都不知道我们受到歧视。而通过SFFA和我们亚裔社区的共同抗争，现在美国社会都知道我们受到了不公正歧视，同情我们。而且，美国参众两院，立法都涉及亚裔受入学歧视案。起诉哈佛案打到了最高法院。迫于压力之下，哈佛增加了亚裔的录取。这些都说明了我们亚裔勇于抗争所取得的巨大成就。所以他呼吁亚裔要勇于发声，给为yy抗争的组织捐款，并支持捍卫亚裔合法权益的政治候选人。

ERFA PAC的副主席Tony Guan指出看到經過長時間的努力积极改变正在发生。2020年的反对16号提案就是以华人为主导力量的一场选战，在及其微弱的财力下却获得了压倒性胜利，这充分说明华人的领导力和执行力。还有目前全国此起彼伏的罢免案，都不乏华人草根领袖和志愿者的身影。三藩市的罢免DA和罢免学委两件事，ERFA PAC的理事都有积极参与，结果非常让人振奋，新上任的学委直接促成了Lowell高中恢复择优录取的政策；洛杉矶的罢免DA就在会议当天还有华人志愿者在做最后一天的努力，而且他们也收集到了足够的签名。这些成就都鼓舞人心，是华人草根领导力在政治方面的集中体现。Tony请大家继续努力，积极参与，为美国未来而持续努力。

在讨论中，提到了加州大学公立系統，为了对抗加州憲法不能以種族作為入學許可衡量因素的209法案，多年來做了非常多的动作。比如说实施隐形比列，并且取消了SAT。 209法案通過後，柏克萊加大對亞裔的錄取率一直維持40%上下，取消SAT後, 加大系統新生去年申請比2020年大幅增加16.8%。加州大学对于加州的华人孩子有重要的影响，而哈佛官司是具有全国性影响。嘉宾们呼吁有被加州大学歧视的华裔子弟出面為自己爭取權益，挑战加州大学的入学流程。哈佛官司里面，已经有四位公开的亚裔年轻人。

CFER 基金会理事 Tony Xu 谈了基金会为维权及教育（反对CRT, 支持哈佛官司）等方面的活动。

嘉宾里面的唯一的学生，Rutvij Holay, 17歲还在读高中。 他的血统是印裔美国人， 是南加过来的印度裔美国人。他明确反对族裔优待。他在 2020 年领导了 Ritesh Tandon 的青年团队，并为在选举期间反对 Prop 16 的加州选民创建了选民指南。 2021年，他创立了美国人平等基金会，并担任创始董事会成员。 PAC 在从德州到纽约的各州建立了支持网络，甚至参与了格伦·扬金 (Glenn Youngkin) 赢得州长职位的競選，并貢獻力量促成通过 HB127 禁止在弗吉尼亚州的族裔优待。Rutvij 在會中有提到印度也有類似的AA平權法案但是有時間的限制不能像現在美國的平權法案從1961年開始到現在60年過去還在繼續。

在现场提问环节中，有忧心忡忡的亚裔家长，也有跃跃欲试的当地候选人，也有正在政府服务的亚裔官员，包括：Cupertino副市长赵良方，Pola Alto市委员Greg Tanaka, Fremont市委员邵阳，San Jose Orchard学区委员唐玉鸿，前州众议员朱感生，三藩市第四區市参事候选人雷千红，CA17国会议员候选人Ritesh Tandon, AD24的州众议员候选人Bob Brunton等人。

部分参加论坛的嘉宾和听众合影

会场花絮：因为这个案子的历史意义。Blum先生被一个纪录片团队全程跟踪录像。华人社区的各种支持也会在纪录片中体现。SVCA基金会也收到 Blum先生邀请，参加十一月最高法院庭审的庭外声援活动。

“The significance of Harvard Lawsuit and the Reality in California – A Forum on Combating Racial Discrimination in College Admissions” (title in Chinese: “黎明前的黑暗：哈佛官司的意义和加州的现状” )

Time: 2-5pm PST, Saturday, June 25, 2022

Location: Sunnyvale Theater 550 E Remington Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94087

What to expect:

• Keynote from Mr. Edward Blum (President of Students for Fair Admissions)- Panel discussion on racial discrimination in college admissions- Interactive Q&A

**To register for free tickets, please click **https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-significance-of-harvard-lawsuit-and-the-reality-in-california-tickets-348551666417 (Forum will be in English)

Co-host and sponsor organizations and individuals are welcome, for more info, please send email to info@svcaf.org.

Recording included after the meeting:

Related links:

• SFFA诉哈佛录取歧视案宣传片
• SVCA基金会恳请华人社区继续捐款支持SFFA
• Harvard Amicus Brief Filed by SVCAF
• SVCA基金会5/30 Blum教育论坛语音整理2-Consovoy
• Boston Rally Live

2014年，反对加州立法院的SCA5（肤色法案）的积极义工创办成立SVCA基金会。 该法案试图推翻加州宪法中的不得按肤色搞特殊照顾的平权条款 （prop. 209），在教育中引入肤色特权。

2015 和2018年SVCA基金会分别两次在湾区请SFFA负责人 Blum 先生代表原告做论坛主题发言，并组织讨论。同时吸引SFFA正式会员。听众反映强烈；2018年底，SVCA基金会派代表团(一行7人)去波士顿参与声援 SFFA状告哈佛的庭审活动，基金会主席在发起大会上发表演讲。

2021年初，应 SFFA要求，SVCA基金会联合一家犹太组织向最高法院提请了正式“法庭之友”文件，支持哈佛官司上诉到最高法院。这份法律文件从哈佛在上世纪20年代歧视犹太人证据出发，发现目前哈佛歧视亚裔的手法和说辞和100年以前如出一辙。这份文件在最高法院决定接受本案件起到积极作用。

我们提交给最高法院的文件：全文链接

2022年，Ed Blum先生将择期来加州跟大家见面，一旦行程敲定我们会立刻广而告之！

Harvard Discrimination Trailer

Harvard Discrimination Full Length

请大家帮忙转发以上视频，支持SFFA对哈佛的诉讼案！

准备直接提交给选民的公投提案

加利福尼亚州总检察长编制了以下用于传播的主题和摘要，说明拟议措施的主要目的和要点：

**（21-0006A1）.要求加州资助宗教和其他私立学校教育。倡议推动宪法修正案和法规的推出。**要求州政府每年向就读宗教学校和其他私立学校的K-12学生的教育储蓄账户每年提供代金券（最初为14,000美元，每年调整一次）。通过通用财政收入和目前分配给公立（包括特许）学校的地方财产税收入支付资金。取消加州宪法中对宗教学校和其他私立学校使用公共资金的禁令。阻止州政府要求学校满足某些要求（包括教师资格认证、课程或监管政策）作为资助条件。教育储蓄账户中的任何多余资金均可用于符合条件的高等教育/职业学校。立法分析人士和财务总监对州和地方政府财政影响的预估摘要：为目前就读于私立学校或家庭学校的学生提供州资金资助，预计会增加州政府的年度支出，大概在47亿至70亿美元之间。根据州政府具体实施措施方式的不同，费用可以通过削减公立学校的资金和/或削减州预算中的其他项目来获得。州政府每年增加的支出费用大概至少有几十亿美元，支付给那些从公立学校转到私立学校的学生。降低公立学校的支出大致可以抵消这些支出费用。可能会降低州政府的教育公债费用，在未来几十年内每年可能达到两亿美元。（21-0006A1）

尊敬的加利福尼亚州州务卿：

我们（以下签名、已注册、合格的加利福尼亚州选民）是本请愿书签名页提及的本县居民。我们特此对加利福尼亚州宪法提出修正请求，以及对各种法规的各种修正和补充，并请求州务卿将其提交给加利福尼亚州的选民，以便他们在下一次大选或在该次大选之前举行的任何全州特别选举中投票通过或拒绝，或按照法律规定予以通过或拒绝。拟议的宪法和法定修正案及增补内容如下：

教育自由法

倡议内容

第1部分 调查结果说明和目的声明

加利福尼亚州人民发现并声明如下：

• 我们的未来取决于我们的孩子从幼儿园到高中的教育，对于那些想要接受教育的学生来说，还要完成大学或职业培训。但是，许多家长觉得他们的孩子被陷在表现不佳的学校，也没有能力为高等教育存续费用。- 教育非常重要，它能够赋予个人力量、打破世代相传的贫困死循环、减少收入不平等现象。不同种族，拥有不同经济条件的父母都希望有替代方案来取代失败的公共教育体系。但是，只有那些能够负担得起私立、教区、宗教或家庭学校学费，能够自由选择的人，才能为他们的孩子取得更好的发展成功。- 加利福尼亚州政府实际上垄断了K-12教育，学生没有就学计划可选择。教育领域缺乏竞争和创新，使得该州的K-12教育成本迅速上升，质量恶化。- 加利福尼亚州目前在K-12公立教育方面的预算约为每位学生2.1万美元，支出源自联邦、州和地方资金，用于约590万名儿童在公立学校教育。在这些款项中，州政府根据《加利福尼亚州宪法》（第98号提案）中的最低资金保障提供了大约800亿美元，即每个学生大约14,000美元。在过去十年中，K-12公立教育的花费几乎翻了一番，而我们公立学校的总入学人数却下降了。- 尽管学术考试的标准已经被逐年降低，但无论以何种标准衡量，学生的表现都在稳步恶化。加州公立学校曾经是最好的学校之一，现在是全美最差的学校之一。家庭正以创纪录的速度离开这里的教育体系。研究表明，在加利福尼亚州的许多城市人口普查区，近三分之一的公立学校教师将孩子送到私立学校。- 有人声称，向这个破败的体系投入更多资金将产生更好的结果。但事实证明，这种说法是错误的。在现有体制上增加支出并不能解决教育危机。所有儿童必须毫不拖延地平等接受优质教育，尤其是我们当中最贫穷和最脆弱的儿童，他们在当前体制下遭受的痛苦最大。只有教育竞争才能确保所有公立和私立学校追求卓越，每个孩子都能获得最适合自己需要的教育。- 目前有许多私立学校、特许学校和家庭学校为儿童提供优质教育。这些学校通常每个学生支出的费用要低得多。但是，对于许多家长来说，即便是私立教育的适度支出也超出他们的能力范围。- 现行制度损害了家庭，妨碍了父母为子女选择最佳教育机会，家长也没余力存钱支持子女接受大学或职业教育。父母是孩子的首个教育者。因此，他们必须能够在不受政府干预或经济胁迫的情况下给子女传授关于道德、知识和宗教的信息。因此，教育资金必须投入为孩子选择的学校。

因此，加州人民特此通过《教育自由法》，以实现以下所有目标：

(1) 应每个学龄儿童的家长或法定监护人的要求，或在年满18岁或已获得独立的、符合条件的学生本人的要求下，为每个学龄儿童创建一个教育储蓄账户；

(2) 为每个学生的教育储蓄账户提供1.4万美元的资金，来源于加州目前立法规定必须用于公共教育的资金，纳税人不承担额外费用；

(3)  授权家长使用教育储蓄账户中的资金，家长可以用来选择任何合格的私立学校进行注册，支付学费和其他教育费用；

(4) 确保资金只能用于符合条件的学生用于教育需要的费用，用于就读受官方认可的、满足要求的私立学校；以及

(5)  允许教育储蓄账户中任何未使用的资金以及这些资金的投资收益用于未来学年费用，并允许学生账户中的任何储蓄资金用于高等教育。

第二部分 建立教育储蓄账户计划

第19.1条（从第69995节开始）添加到《教育法》第3编第5分册第42部分第2章，内容如下：

第19.1条 教育储蓄账户计划

69995.

（a）本条也被称为，被引用为《2022年教育自由法》。

(1) 本法应按字面本身的意思进行解释，以实现其立法意图。本法的目的和所有与授予的权力有关的规定应作广义解释，以实现该意图和目的，不对权力作任何限制。

(2) 特此设立加利福尼亚州机构，名为教育储蓄账户信托（Education Savings Account Trust，“ESA信托”）。

(3)每位有资格进入公立幼儿园（“K”）和1-12年级（含）的合资学生，都有权获得一个教育储蓄账户，申请人可以是该学生的家长或法定监护人，也可在学生本人年满18岁或已获得独立的资格的情况下，要求申请账户。

(4) 每个创建教育储蓄账户并提交参与合同的人都可在其账户中获得K-12年级的存款资金，由父母、法定监护人或受益人 （如果受益人已年满18岁或独立）酌情使用， 用于支付合规的K-12费用，大学学费以及其他合规的教育费用。

(5) 自本法颁布后的第一个财政年度开始，财政部应于每年7月1日确定下一学年的年度教育储蓄账户存款金额。2023-2024学年的教育储蓄账户存款金额应为14,000美元。此后，财政部应按照《加利福尼亚州宪法》（第98号提案）第十六条第8款的要求，调整年度教育储蓄账户存款金额，调整幅度应该按照当前财政年度支出用于支持K-12教育，计算每名学生资助资金的百分比增加或减少。

(6) 对于每个学年，州财务长应从通用财政支出资金中向ESA信托基金转账，金额等于教育储蓄账户存款金额乘以根据第（c）小节建立的账户的数量。根据第69995.2（b）节第二句中的规定，学生允许学年中创建账户，所以存款金额可能低于全额调整金额。州财务长应在每个财政年度向ESA信托基金进行两次相等数额的转账，第一次转账发生在8月1日，第二次转账发生在12月31日。此类转账的金额应该调整到确保ESA账户中有足够的资金按照本法案每月支付给合资的学校。州财务长应在每年6月15日或之前向财政部和立法机构报告转账总额。本法案中没有任何规定禁止立法机构向ESA信托基金追加另外金额。

(7) 在ESA信托内，应设立两个基金，分别为ESA信托项目基金和ESA信托行政基金。尽管有《政府法典》第13340条的规定，基于本条的目的，ESA信托项目基金可以连续拨款给教育储蓄账户信托委员会用于本条规定的用途，不考虑财政年度。ESA信托中的资金只能用于本法案的目的，不得被挪用，借用，或者抵押用于任何其他目的。

ESA信托委员会

权利和责任

69995.1.

(a) ESA信托的目的、权力和职责归教育储蓄账户信托委员会（“ESA信托委员会”）所有，并应由该委员会行使。

(b)ESA信托委员会组成成员包括：根据第69984节第（a）小节第（2）段第（B）分段规定的学者共享（Scholarshare） 投资委员会成员， 无投票权的州学监，以及由积极参与以下机构/人群且被提名的一名成员组成：特许学校，非宗派私立学校、教区/宗教学校，以及在家接受教育的儿童的家长或法定监护人。每个成员都由州长任命，任期最长为四年。

(c)根据第19条（从第69980节开始），ESA信托委员会授予学者共享投资委员会所有必要的权利和责任，包括但不限于以下所有事项：

• 为了该计划的利益以及信托中的账户受益人的利益，对ESA信托中的资金进行投资，对投资和投资表现进行公开报告。投资策略应确保保留必要的资金，以充分资助本法中确定的每个ESA信托账户。
• 从符合条件的个人ESA账号分发资金，并对账户进行审计，以确保支付给符合条件的学校的所有资金都由账户受益人使用，并为账户受益人的利益而使用，促进项目的实施；
• 接受联邦、州或地方政府任何单位或任何其他个人、公司、合伙企业或公司的任何赠款、礼品、拨款和其他款项，存入行政基金或项目基金；
• 为本法案规定的目的，在ESA信托基金内重新分配无人认领的资金；
• 通过法规来实施本条款。

(d). 州财务长根据第69995节第（f）小节转账的资金应由ESA信托委员会分为项目基金和行政基金。所有支付给项目基金的款项应立即进行投资，并在每个ESA中单独核算。ESA信托的所有管理费用，包括投资管理费，均应从行政基金中支取，每年不得超过项目基金总额的百分之一（1%）。

(e)“尽管有上述条款的明确表述，但本协议授予的权力和义务不适用于ESA以外的任何账户的创建、管理或处置。本授权也不适用于与本法案的明确表述或隐含目的相冲突的任何权力或义务的行使。”

创建和管理符合条件的K-12学生账户申请

69995.2.

(a) ESA信托委员会应根据本条为家长或法定监护人创建在线申请，以申请教育储蓄账户和参与协议。ESA信托委员会也应通过邮件接受申请和协议。

(b) 根据第69995（f）节，应接受申请，并持续执行参与协议。必须在4月1日前完成参与协议的申请和签署，才能获得下一学年的全额ESA存款资金。4月2日至10月1日之间签署申请和参与协议，申请人于12月31日收到ESA存款资金，金额按从1月开始的学年剩余月份的比例计算。10月2日至次年4月1日期间收到的所有申请均在下一学年获得的全额ESA存款金额。

(c) 家长或法定监护人应确定合格学生为账户受益人，并签署参与协议。

(d) 一旦申请和参与协议完成，ESA信托委员会应将确认申请人资格所需的信息发送给负责人，负责人应确认申请人有资质或是正在合规学校就读的合格的学生，并在确认后将参与协议副本发送给合规学校。只要受益人仍有资格根据本条获得教育储蓄账户存款金额并规划资金支出，则无需额外申请或协议。但是，如果受益人在另一所符合条件的学校就读，则家长或法定监护人应修改申请和协议。

(e) 加州学监应为所有人或合规学校创建一个在线流程，方便报告不再合格的受益人，或不再在合规学校就读的情况。该流程应规定确定报告方的身份，并对恶意行为者采取保护措施。在收到报告后，负责人应向受益人的家长或法定监护人和学校发出充分通知，告知受益人的资质正在审查中，并为双方提供陈述的机会。作为资质审查流程的一部分，负责人应核实受益人是否在K-12公立学校就读，并确认受益人的资质状态。如果负责人确定受益人不再符合资格，则应向家长或法定监护人或受益人（如果受益人已年满18岁或已获得解放）、学校和ESA信托委员会提供书面决定结果。根据《行政程序法》（政府法典第2编第3部分第1部分第3.5章（从第11340节开始），家长或法定监护人可代表受益人可对该决定提出上诉，或受益人已年满18岁或已独立时可自行上诉。

(f) 任何账户余额均应保留在账户中，并继续供受益人在合规学校使用，前提是受益人符合本法规定的资质要求。如果家长或法定监护人随后让该学生在公立学校入学，则该学生在公立学校入学期间，教育储蓄账户资金和参与协议应暂停，但账户余额应保留在该账户中，以备将来为符合条件的学校支付教育费用。

创建和管理账户申请

加入学校

69995.3.

(a) 州公共教育负责人应创建一份在线申请平台，使得学校有资格根据本条从账户中获得资金，应接收上述申请，根据本法验证资质。

(b) 州公共教育负责人应每半年在加利福尼亚州教育部网站上以书面形式公布并更新符合条件的学校名单，包括地址、联系信息、网址、所服务的年级以及每所符合条件的学校每年级收取的学费。

(c) 州公共教育总监应向加利福尼亚公立学校注册学生的家长或法定监护人提供书面通知，告知其根据本法案向所有合资学生提供的权利和福利。负责人应确保在教育部网站和每个公立学校的显眼位置张贴关于根据本法案向所有合资学生提供的权利和福利的通知，确保家长、法定监护人和在校学生均可看到该通知。应家长、法定监护人或学生的要求，权利和利益通知以及本规定第（b）节所述的合规学校名单应以数字形式或印刷形式在每个公立学校网站上提供。

(d) 公立学校、学区、县教育办公室或教育部的任何代理人或员工不得恐吓、骚扰、恶意、虐待、报复或以任何其他方式阻止询问本法规定的权利和福利的家长、法定监护人或学生，也不得试图劝止家长、法定监护人或学生行使本法规定的各自权利。

(e) 负责人应为所有人或合规学校创建一个在线流程，方便报告不再合资的受益人，或不再在合规学校就读的情况。该流程应规定确定报告方的身份，并对恶意行为者采取保护措施。在收到报告后，负责人应向受益人的家长或法定监护人和学校发出充分通知，告知受益人的资质正在审查中，并为双方提供陈述的机会。作为资质审查流程的一部分，负责人应核实受益人是否在K-12公立学校就读，并确认受益人的资质状态。如果负责人确定受益人不再符合资格，则应向家长或法定监护人或受益人（如果受益人已年满18岁或已获得解放）、学校和ESA信托委员会提供书面决定结果。根据《行政程序法》（政府法典第2编第3部分第1部分第3.5章（从第11340节开始），家长或法定监护人可代表受益人可对该决定提出上诉，或受益人已年满18岁或已获得解放时可自行上诉。

69995.4. 

(a)  ESA信托委员会应规定在项目基金内为申请账户的每名合资学生创建账户，并应根据本条签订参与协议，向每个合资学生的账户存入适当的教育储蓄账户存款金额，并酌情将项目基金的投资收益记入每个账户。

(b) ESA信托委员会应向父母和法定监护人或受益人（如果受益人已年满18岁或已获得解放）提供账户活动的安全在线审查，包括账户存款或信贷、投资收益以及代表受益人向合规学校支付的款项。委员会应保护父母、法定监护人和账户受益人的隐私。

(c) ESA信托委员会应根据参与协议的条款，从8月15日起至5月15日止，分九（9）个月等额向符合条件的学校分配资金。但是，委员会可通过与符合条件的学校达成协议，规定不同的分配时间表。

(d) ESA信托委员会应规定对账户中分配的资金进行随机审计，以确保学生合资、学生入学率、学生出勤率和学校合规。

(e) 在参与的学习不符合资质的时候，ESA信托委员会应获得支付款项的退款。不得向家长或法定监护人或受益人寻求或追讨不符合资质的款项的退款、报销或返还，除非确定此类款项是通过欺诈或非法方式获得的。

(f) ESA信托委员会应提供一份统一的参与协议，供公共教育总监、委员会、家长和法定监护人以及符合条件的学生（如果学生已年满18岁或已获得解放）使用。参与协议中确定的合规学校应为该协议的第三方受益人。

(g) ESA信托委员会应通过实施本条款的相关条例。

保护 – 拒绝资助资金的限制

69995.5. 

(a) ESA信托委员会只能从一个账户向家长、法定监护人或受益人选择的合规学校分配资金。除非第69995.8（a）条另有规定，否则不得将任何资金分配给家长或法定监护人或受益人。学费和K-12合规教育费用的支付只能支付给参与协议中确定为第三方受益人的合规学校。

(b) 州不得限制合规学校的数量、在合规学校就读的学生人数，也不得对任何私立学校、学院或大学获得资金的资格施加任何条件，以下条件要求除外：

• 合资学生入学并就读合规学校的定期证明。- 支付的金额仅用于学费和合规教育费用的定期证明。- 第69995.9（f）（2）节规定的年度认证。- 应进行年度独立财务审计，审计应采用公认的会计原则。符合条件的学校应在每年12月15日前向委员会提交上一财年的年度独立财务审计报告副本。- 如果学生本人在学校拥有和运营的实际场所接受服务，则遵守适用于在加利福尼亚州运营的所有私立学校设施的一般健康和安全标准。

(c) 加州不得限制合规学校的数量、合规学校注册的合资学生数量，也不得对私立学校、家庭学校、学院或大学施加任何课程规定、学生或教师监管政策规定、录取政策规定，或对教师资质提出要求，作为资质或资金条件的一部分。任何私立学校、家庭学校、学院或大学也不得因学生或教师的信仰或宗教行为要求而拒绝参与该计划。

(d) ESA信托委员会或该州任何机构均不得扣留、暂停或中断本法规定的信托基金的应计金额或支出，或以任何理由或任何立场剥夺符合条件的学生享受本法规的利益，但不包括（1）未能满足第69995.9（g）条规定的资格标准；（2） 参与第69995.8条规定的禁止交易；（3）有本法禁止的其他行为。

州立教育机构

依法接受

69995.6.

(a) 加利福尼亚社区学院、加利福尼亚州立大学和加利福尼亚大学以及各校区、分支机构及其职能机构应从该学校的受益人的学费与合规教育费用的账户中接受资金。

(b). 私立学校（包括私立学院或大学）可在向负责人提交申请后选择成为合规学校，并可从该账户受益人的账户中收取学费和合规教育费用，并录取受益人入学。

(c). 职业教育或培训学校可在向院长提出申请后选择成为合规学校，并可从该账户受益人的账户中收取学费和合规教育费用，并录取受益人入学。

在家教育的资格

69995.7.

(a) 第69995节的规定，根据第33190节提交的宣誓书在家接受教育的学生，不在符合本条款规定资质的学习入学，有权获得教育储蓄账户，并根据本法案的日期和要求每年为该账户提供资金。但是，除非或直到账户受益人在本协议规定的合规学校注册，否则不得支付任何资金。记入该账户的资金应保留在该账户中，每年累积，可根据本法规定在符合条件的学校使用。

(b) 根据本法案，在符合条件的私立学校注册，在家庭接受教育的学生有资格获得教育储蓄账户，并将这些资金用于K-12教育和专上教育的合规教育费用。

禁止的交易

69995.8.

(a) 符合条件的学校不得以任何方式向家长、法定监护人或符合条件的学生分享、退还或返还从其账户收到的任何资金。本部分规定不得解释为：禁止对这些人支付或预付的、经核实的合格费用或学费进行报销或抵免。

(b) 如果家长、法定监护人或合资学生未能遵守参与协议的条款，意图欺诈或滥用代表受益人分配的资金，ESA信托委员会可终止和暂停账户和参与协议，但应通知家长、法定监护人以及合资学生，提供听证的机会。如果委员会终止或暂停账户，家长、法定监护人或合资学生可根据《行政程序法》（政府法典第2编第3部分第1部分第3.5章（从第11340节开始））对该决定提出上诉。

定义

**69995.9.**就本条款而言，以下术语定义如下：

• “行政基金”指教育储蓄账户信托内的基金，用于支付ESA信托的管理费用，包括投资管理费用。- “审计”是指由独立审计师进行的年度独立财务审计报告，该报告应采用公认的会计原则，根据本法案寻求资质的学校承担该费用。- “账户受益人”指接受ESA信托委员会创建账户的合资学生。

• “管理成本”指ESA信托委员会管理教育储蓄账户的实际成本，但须遵守法定限额。- “教育储蓄账户存款金额”指根据第69995节第（e）小节计算的金额。- “合规学校”指以下任何学校：- 加利福尼亚社区学院、加利福尼亚州立大学和加利福尼亚大学。- 经认证的K-12学校(无论是否营利)，如第48222节所述，在加利福尼亚州运营，并由州或美国教育部认可的区域认证机构认证，或已申请认证正等待批准的学校，在过去两年中，该校没有被同一认证机构拒绝认证。- 州内或州外私立学院或大学，由所在州或美国教育部认可的地区认证机构认证。- 州内或州外的公立学院或大学，由所在州或美国教育部认可的地区认证机构认证。- 州内或州外职业教育或培训机构，由所在州或美国教育部认可的地区认证机构认证。

• “合资学生”指有资格进入K-12公立学校或进入K-12合规学校的所有人。这包括获得解放的未成年人或达到成年年龄的合资学生。- “ESA信托”指根据第69995节第（b）小节设立的教育储蓄账户。- “ESA信托委员会”指根据第69995.1条第（a）小节设立的教育储蓄账户信托委员会。- “家长或法定监护人”包括已获得解放或已达到成年年龄的合资学生。- “参与协议”是指ESA信托委员会创建的统一合同，必须由ESA信托和合资学生的家长或法定监护人签署，该家长或监护人指示ESA信托代表账户受益人向合规学校支付资金。- “专上合规教育费用”指通常与合格学校的职业培训、本科或研究生教育相关的费用，学费除外，包括但不限于书籍、学校用品和设备、学术辅导、特殊需求受益人的特殊需求服务，以及任意额外的学费和食宿费。- “项目基金”是指在教育储蓄账户信托基金中设立的基金，从普通基金和投资收益以及其他赠款、礼品或拨款中转移的资金将被保存并分离到合资受益人的账户中。- “K-12合规教育费用”是指通常与合规学校K-12学生的教育相关的费用，学费除外，包括但不限于课程、书籍、在线课程、宗教和学术课程材料、学校用品和设备、学术辅导、学术测试费、，特殊需求受益人的特殊需求服务，往返学校的交通，以及由合资学生就读的合规学校负责的学校功能。基于信仰的教育课程不应被排除在外。- “学费”是指符合条件的学校为招收某一年级的学生而收取的金额，以及与申请和注册相关的注册费。- “无人认领资金”指受益人年满30岁后，账户中未支付给合格学校的剩余资金。

部分行政费用的分配

69995.10

（a）立法机构应规定与本法案相关的费用分配如下：对于在本法案颁布前未在K-12公立学校注册的合资学生提供ESA存款费用，立法机构应根据需要，重新调整《加利福尼亚州宪法》第十六条第8节规定的K-12学校的最低资金保障的基数，还可能需要考虑将此类合资儿童纳入本法案修订的“平均每日出勤率”定义。

• 对于为符合条件的学生提供ESA存款资金，该存款资金的项目支出应在普通基金和学生居住的公立学区之间分摊，在公立学区，普通基金和地方财产税收入的一部分将用于教育学生。立法机关应根据执行本规定的需要，规定从学区或州转移的资金。

所得税处理

第三部分 所得税豁免

《税收法典》增加了第17132.2节，内容如下：

17132.2. 

(a) 在本节中，以下术语具有以下含义：

• “账户受益人”的含义与《教育法典》第69995.9条第（b）款规定的含义相同。- “教育储蓄账户”是指根据《教育法典》（教育法典第3编第5部分第42部分第2章第19.1条，从第69995节开始）设立的教育储蓄账户。- “家长或法定监护人”的含义与《教育法典》第69995.9条第（l）款规定的含义相同。- “参与协议”的含义与《教育法典》第69995.9条第（h）款规定的含义相同。

(b) 自《教育自由法》颁布之日或之后开始的应税年度，账户受益人或账户受益人的家长或法定监护人的总收入不得包括以下任何一项：

• 根据《教育法典》第3编第5分册第42部分第2章第19.1条（从第69995节开始）的规定，教育储蓄账户参与协议项下的任何分配或收入。- 任何对教育储蓄账户的捐款。

宪法修正

第四部分 宪法修正

《加利福尼亚州宪法》第九条第8.5款增加如下：

8.5. 尽管本章程有其他规定，包括本条第8节和第十六条第5部分，州和州的每个机构或政治分支机构还是可以根据州与合资学生的家长或法定监护人之间的协议支付学费和教育相关费用，并向教育机构提供税收或其他公共福利，以促进本条第1节的目的，不论学生宗教信仰如何。《加利福尼亚州宪法》第十六条第8.1 款增加如下：

8.1 根据第8节和第XIIIB条第8部分所述，“平均每日出勤率”一词应包含所有在K-12公立学校就读的学生，以及所有有资格在K-12公立学校就读，但已选择使用根据《教育法典》第3编第5节第42部分第2章第19.1条（从第69995节开始）提供资金的教育储蓄账户为K-12教育提供资金的学生。尽管本章程有任何其他规定，包括第十三条第25.5款，立法机构可通过法规要求根据《教育法典》第69995.10款分配从价税收入。

总则

第五部分 总则

• 如果本法案的任何条款或其任何部分因任何原因被认定为无效或违宪，其余条款不受影响，但应保持完全效力，为此，本法案的条款是可分割的。- 该法案旨在全面实施。人们的期望是，如果本法案或与同一主题有关的法案出现在同一州的选举选票上，则其他法案的规定应被视为与本法案相冲突。如果本法案获得更多的赞成票，则应以本法案的全部条款为准，其他法案的所有条款均无效。- 本法第2部分和第3部分可由立法机构可由立法机构两院以的唱名表决计入日志的方式修正法规，但该法规必须符合并促进本法的宗旨。- 如果提起的诉讼全部或部分质疑本法案的有效性，除了遵守《加利福尼亚州政府法》第12511.7节的规定外，还应适用以下规定：- 行政部门和立法机构应继续遵守该法案，除非根据上诉法院的最终判决宣布该法案违宪。- 除下文第（3）款规定外，总检察长应对全部或部分质疑本法案有效性的任何诉讼进行辩护，并有权无条件干预任何捍卫本法案有效性的诉讼。- 如果总检察长拒绝在任何诉讼中为该法案的有效性辩护，总检察长仍应在任何质疑该行为的诉讼中提交答辩书或其他回应状，以及对任何法院判定该法案全部或部分无效的任何判决提出上诉或寻求复审，在必要或适当的情况下，根据总检察长的宪法义务，维护该州捍卫法律的地位，确保该州的法律得到充分执行。- 该法案的官方支持者有无条件的权利作为干预者或真正的利益方参与影响该法案有效性或解释的任何行动。如果州长和司法部长拒绝为法案的有效性辩护，官方支持者也有权代表州在任何此类诉讼中主张州对法案有效性的利益，并对任何使法案无效的判决提出上诉。- 本部分中的任何内容都不妨碍其他公职人员主张州对该方案有效性的权益。

活动细节：所有从现在开始给 SFFA的捐款，SVCAF都提供1:1配捐 (上限 2万美元）。 配捐请求请于 三月一日以前 发到 info@svcaf.org ，请附上 SFFA捐款收据。

备注：SVCA 基金会和哈佛官司的历史渊源:

1. 2014年，反对加州立法院的SCA5（肤色法案）的积极义工创办成立SVCA基金会。 该法案试图推翻加州宪法中的不得按肤色搞特殊照顾的平权条款 （prop. 209），在教育中引入肤色特权。

2. 2015 和2018年SVCA基金会分别两次在湾区请SFFA负责人 Blum 先生代表原告做论坛主题发言，并组织讨论。同时也招收受害学生，吸引SFFA正式会员。听众反映强烈。

3. 2018年底，SVCA基金会派代表团(一行7人)去波士顿参与声援 SFFA状告哈佛的庭审活动，基金会主席在发起大会上发表演讲。

4. 2021年初，应 SFFA要求，SVCA基金会联合一家犹太组织向最高法院提请了正式“法庭之友”文件，支持哈佛官司上诉到最高法院。这份法律文件从哈佛在上世纪20年代歧视犹太人证据出发，发现目前哈佛歧视亚裔的手法和说辞和100年以前如出一辙。这份文件在最高法院决定接受本案件起到积极作用。

我们提交给最高法院的文件的全文链接： /files/archive-20210331104529484_amicus-brief.pdf

6. 历年来，SVCA 基金会直接支持SFFA状告哈佛的官司，捐款+支付律师费总计已经超过7万美元（不包含这次配捐2万的预算）。Blum先生盛赞SVCA基金会为支持SFFA状告哈佛歧视官司的主要组织之一。

更多关于我们组织的信息请访问 svcaf.org

亚裔一向遵纪守法、勤奋努力，在全美各族裔中，亚裔受教育程度最高，平均收入也最高。但曾几何时，这些优秀的品质成了亚裔在教育和职场中频频受限的原因。最近在Amazon新鲜上线的热销书《An Inconvenient Minority》对这一现象进行了深刻详细的解读和分析。这本书见解独到，针砭时弊，力透纸背。作者Kenny Xu是位年轻有为的ABC作家，亚裔告哈佛案的主要知情人士，为《联邦党人》、《华盛顿考官》、《每日信号》和《奎莱特》等媒体的评论作家，曾登上Fox TV 等主流媒体的专访。

在青少年之声电台的中英文专访中，Kenny曾与两位硅谷高中生主持就青少年关注的角度探讨了亚裔面临的挑战和生存的趋势，音频如下：

Interviewing Kenny Xu

硅谷华人协会基金会SVCAF 从7 年前成功狙击伤害亚裔受教育平等机会的提案SCA5 到去年参与成功狙击加州公投法案prop 16, 一直走在为华裔争取教育平等机会和利益的前沿。作为Kenny Xu 新书的支持者，Svcaf 力邀我们未来的希望—-全美的中学生参加《An inconvenient minority》的书评征文比赛。比赛分为初中和高中两组（2021-22学年）. 优胜者将获得奖金，并有机会参加青少年之声电台的采访节目，每位参赛者也可获得义工时间。

购书链接：https://amzn.to/3xCSm35

《An inconvenient minority》青少年书评征文比赛详情

书评征文要求：

英文；初中组6-8 年级，450 字以下；高中组9-12 年级，650 字以下；年级以2021-22学年为准。

比赛奖励：

分高中组和初中组，每组奖项：

一等奖$200一名，

二等奖$100两名，

三等奖$50两名；

结果将于10月中旬公布。

两组的一等奖获得者将接受青少年之声电台的采访

文章提交要求:

提交截止日期：2021年9月12日(周日)，美西时间11:59pm

发送至： info@svcaf.org

邮件标题：Book Review-full name-grade

文件格式：.doc或.docx

《An inconvenient minority》购书链接：

https://amzn.to/3xCSm35

2021年度加州立法论文大赛开始接受投稿了！大赛的目的是为了促进加州青少年关心时事，提高对争议话题的独立研究和判断能力。本年度加州立法论文大赛由以下组织联合举办：圣地亚哥亚裔平权会（SDAAFE）、硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF）和金橙俱乐部基金会（TOCF）（以组织英文名字母顺序排序）。以上三个组织分别代表圣地亚哥（San Diego, SD）, 北加（Northern California, NorCal）, 和橙县（Orange County, OC）三个地区。 请仔细阅读以下申请规则。

• 题目：加州参议院立法草案SB-82 Petty theft（2021）目前正在加州参议院辩论和投票。 假设你是加利福尼亚州立法委员，你会支持该法案还是反对？ 为什么？ 请做自己的研究，然后写一篇文章来支持你的决定。 请清楚列出你的参考文献。- 资源: - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB82参赛者资格：现居住在加州的6-12年级的在校学生（2021-2022学年）。（请按照就近原则从圣地亚哥(SD), 北加(NorCal), 和橙县(OC)三个地区中，选择一个作为你的参赛区）- 要求： 英文，500 – 800字（不包括论文题目和参考文献）- 提交截止日期：2021年9月20日(星期一)，晚上11点59分。  

     电邮至: Essay2021@sdaafe.org

     邮件内容应包含论文，签名的申请表，和签名的免责文件。

     表格下载地址： Link

邮件标题: 2021_参赛区代号(从SD, NorCal, 或者OC中按就近原则选一个)_你的名字     

      (范例：Mary Lee来自圣地亚哥地区，邮件标题为2021_SD_Mary Lee)

裁判:

• 写作技巧和语法占30％- 论证占35％- 研究和支持数据占35％

奖励(分两级进行):

本区预赛: 三个赛区分别评出本区正反双方的优秀文章。结果将于10月4日（星期一）晚11点59分公布。

州级决赛：本地正反双方的优秀文章将自动参加加州州级比赛，并有机会获得以下金额奖励： 

一等奖$1,000/人 (正反方各一位)；

二等奖$500/人  (正反方各一位)； 

三等奖 $300/人 （正反方各一位）。

结果将于10月中旬公布。

获州奖论文将发布在SDAAFE，SVCAF和TOCF的网站上，以表彰参赛学生。获奖文章内容不代表以上三个组织的意见。

如果届时加州健康卫生指导方针允许，加州州级获奖者，必须参加10月下旬在圣地亚哥举行的颁奖典礼。具体的颁奖时间和地点将在9月份通知。

所有参赛者所花的时间可以由本区组织授予义工时间。

论文风格要求：

**文件类型 – **论文应该以.doc或.docx文件的形式提交

**字体 – **使用流行的Times New Roman字体，易于阅读12磅字体大小

**间距 – **论文应该是双倍间隔的

**长度 – **不包括标题和参考文献

**参考文献 – **论文必须包含你所咨询的至少三份参考文献的清单。这些参考文献可以来自印刷或在线资源。

样式指南 **– **可以使用MLA，芝加哥或APA样式手册选用引用格式

请做 – 请确保填写申请表，并由你的合法监护人签署免责文件

**不要 – **不要在论文中输入你的名字，或以任何其他方式在论文中传达或暗示你的个人身份，因为所有的论文都将被匿名评比

最后，我们非常感谢来自圣地亚哥阳光地产的赵京，来自IvyMax Foundation的Vickie Zhang，和来自US Asian Art & Culture Association的Linda Liu对本次活动的大力支持和赞助。

2021 Essay Contest on California State Legislation

We are pleased to announce the launch of the 2021 Essay Contest on California State Legislation. It is held statewide by three prominent organizations: San Diego Asian Americans For Equality (SDAAFE), Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF), and The Orange Club (TOC), representing San Diego (SD), Northern California (NorCal), and Orange County (OC) regions, respectively. Please read the rules and deadline of the contest carefully.  

• Subject: **California Senate Bill **SB-82 Petty theft (2021) is currently being debated and voted on in the California State Senate. Assuming you are a California State Legislator, will you support the bill or oppose it? Why? Please do your own research and write an essay to support your decision.  Please clearly list out your references.- Resource: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB82- Participant: Current California resident, Grade 6-12 Students in the 2021-2022 school year (Please choose the closest region from SD, NorCal, or OC as your local submission region.)- Essay requirement: English, 500 – 800 words (not including title and references) 

• Deadline for submission:  11:59 pm, September 20 (Monday), 2021.   - Email to: Essay2021@sdaafe.org- Email should include your Essay, the signed application form, and the signed waiver document.                       - Forms download link: Click Here- Subject in email: 2021_region code (choose one from SD, NorCal, or OC)_your name         (Sample: 2021_SD_Mary Lee) (Mary Lee is from San Diego region.)

Judging:

• 30% Writing Skills and Grammar- 35% Arguments- 35% Research and Supporting data

Prizes:

The prizes will be awarded in a two-tier process.

• Local Round:  Region winning essay writers on both sides of the argument will be selected. The results will be announced on Oct. 4th (Monday at 11:59 pm), 2021. - State Finals: The local winning essays on both sides of the argument will be automatically entered in a statewide contest. Each side of the argument will be presented with a First Place with $1000 award; a Second Place with $500 award; and a Third Place with $300 award. The Finals results will be announced in mid October.

• State winning essays will be published on SDAAFE, SVCAF, and TOCF websites to honor participating students, although they will not represent the three organizations’ opinions.- If state health guidelines allow, all awardees at the state level are required to attend the Award Ceremony in person to receive the prize which will be held in late October in San Diego. Detailed information about the time and location of the Award Ceremony will be announced in September.- All contestants’ efforts can be counted as volunteer hours by the local organization. 

Essay Style Requirement:

• **File Type **— Your essay should be submitted as a word .doc or .docx file- **Font **— Use the popular Times New Roman font, easy to read 12 pt font size.- **Spacing **— Your essay should be double spaced.- **Length **— Not counting title and references. - **References **— Your essay must include a list of at least three references.- **Style Guide **— You may use any of the MLA, Chicago or APA style manual for citations and reference formatting.- **Do **— Please make sure you fill out the application form and sign the waiver document by yourself and your legal guardian. - **Don’t **— Please do Not mention me within the essay, or in any other way convey or imply your personal identity in the essay, as all essays will be rated anonymously.

Lastly, we would like to thank Jing Zhao from San Diego Sunrise Realty, Vickie Zhang from IvyMax Foundation, and Linda Liu from US Asian Art & Culture Association, for their support and sponsorship. 

附录： 2019年度大赛的获奖文章：

2019加州青少年立法论文大赛颁奖典礼 （附得奖文章）

For Immediate Release February 14, 2021

SAN DIEGO, CA – February 14, 2021- Californians for Equal Rights (CFER) and Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) jointly condemn the recent surge of anti-Asian hate crimes in California’s Bay Area communities and urge the upholding of the equal protection principle to combat racial discrimination.

In recent weeks, racially motivated violence has victimized over a dozen of elderly Asian-American residents in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. Many of these senseless crimes were committed by disengaged minority youth from underprivileged communities. Sadly, these assailants targeted vulnerable seniors who are also economically disadvantaged. The string of unfortunate events amplifies the disastrous consequences of racial tribalism and divisions.

“SVCA foundation condemns the recent violence against the Asian community. We are extremely concerned about the deterioration of community safety in recent years and the insidious policy of racial division, which has underlined these racially motivated attacks,” commented Jason Xu, SVCAF’s President, “We urge all community groups, lawmakers, and elected officers to work together to improve public safety!”

“Painful tribalism is rooted in our society’s growing tendency to pit groups against each other on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, or color,” said Frank Xu, CFER’s President, “Concerning movements in public education including the sweeping introduction of critical ethnic studies will only exacerbate our racial divisions.”

Hate crimes against Americans of Asian Descent are rising, constituting a concerning trend. According to data from the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, among all identified hate crimes in 2021 so far, 25% of them targeted Americans of Asian Descent, as compared with 10% in 2020 and 0% in 2019 and 2018.

Neither symbolic proclamation nor one-sided partisan condemnation serves any purpose in alleviating violence and discrimination targeting Americans of Asian descent. Such hypocritical remarks, as exemplified in the AAPI Legislative Caucus’s statement, only inflame social tensions and shift the blame away from true policy failures plaguing our communities.

We must transcend our political and racial divisions to strive a fair and honest process to advance equal treatment. This unifying principle of equality and non-discrimination underscores practical and long-term policy solutions to improve public safety and revive our diverse communities.

Contact: Wenyuan Wu wenyuan.wu@cferfoundation.org (786) 393-8028

About Californians for Equal Rights (CFER): CFER is a non-partisan and non-profit organization established following the defeat of Proposition 16 in 2020, with a mission to defend and raise public awareness on the cause of equal rights through public education, civic engagement and community outreach. In 1996, California became the first U.S. state to amend its constitution by passing Proposition 209 to ban racial discrimination and preferences. Prop 209 requires that “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.” CFER is dedicated to educating the public on this important constitutional principle of equal treatment. www.Cferfoundation.org.

About Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF): SVCAF is a nonprofit grassroot organization working to promote the involvement of Chinese communities in public affairs and public policy in the United States. As an integral part of the Chinese communities in Northern California and with strong ties across the United States, SVCAF is making meaningful progress in providing education to the Chinese communities on the legal and political systems in California and the nation. SVCAF is also encouraging active civil engagement and political participation by the Chinese communities, while actively promoting recognition and respect of their contributions. www.svcaf.org/.

CFER, SVCAF Call for Equal Treatment and Unity in Response to Rising Anti-Asian Crimes ( download pdf)

编者按：最近麻省理工华人教授的案子很多人关心。我们找出联邦政府起诉陈刚的起诉书，翻译后供大家参考。美国法律是嫌疑人在法庭判决之前都是无罪推断，控方的说法只是一面之词。希望对关心此案的朋友有帮助。

美国马萨诸塞州联邦地区法院

美国政府 诉 陈刚 案

案号：21-mj-1011-DLC

刑事起诉书

2021年1月13日

Donald L. Cabell 法官

由 国土安全部特工 Matthew McCarthy 提告。

大约在2017年3月17日，2019年3月25日和2019 年4月15日这几个重要时间结点，根据现有证据，推测陈刚违反了以下几项联邦法规：

18 U.S.C. § 1343 Wire Fraud

电汇欺诈

31 U.S.C. §§ 5314 & 5322 Failing to File Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts

未能上报国外银行和金融机构账户

18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) Making False Statements to the Agency of the United States Government

向美国政府国家机构陈述错误信息

Matthew McCarthy 宣誓证词

概要

• 本人是国土安全部侦查局（以下简称“HIS”）Boston波士顿的特工主管，工龄已有16年。

2004年5月至 2010年12月，委派任职于 文书和福利诈骗案件调查；

2010年12月至2014年11月，委派任职于 有组织毒品交易犯罪案件调查；

2014年11月至今，委派任职于 反扩散侦查组。

过往供职期间，本人在马萨诸塞州联邦地区曾多次提告搜捕令和刑事犯罪。我接受过涉及以下内容的侦查专业训练: 非法出口武器，武器系统，军用设备和科技，以及美国政府管制的商品等；

同时，我还负责侦查 和处理强制违规 武器出口管控法案和国际紧急经济权力法特定条款下所规定的内容（Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2778，Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq ）。我曾多次参与调查出于国家安全和国际政策目的，美国政府规定非法出口所禁止商品和科技，以及间谍犯罪及其相关。

2. 作为我的部分职责，我与FBI和国防刑事调查局（以下简称“DCIS”）也曾针对国家安全犯罪而联合执法，涉及调查联邦刑事犯罪，包括出口管制和间谍罪，窃取贸易秘密，在事先未通知报备总检查长的情况下为外国政府充当中介等其他罪行。我对上述提及犯罪，和电子设备勘察网络调查都十分熟悉。此外，我也很熟悉境外敌对方针对美国法律法规所使用的迂回伎俩。

3. 目前我参与了针对陈刚的联合刑事侦查（“CHEN”或陈），一名来自中国且归化入籍的MIT教授和学者。自2013年，陈在MIT所进行的科研接受了来自诸多联邦机构的约190万美金拨款，其中包括国防部（“DOD”），能源部（“DOE”），和国防高级研究计划局（“DARPA”）。我与FBI，DCIS和IRS刑事调查部（“IRS-CT”）和DOE监察长办公室（“DOE-OIG”）的同事，参与调查了陈所涉嫌的几项联邦法律违规，包括由于瞒报与DOE联邦拨款资金相关的来自中国的合同、委任、和奖励等的电汇欺诈。

4. 早在2012年，陈就签署了合同帮助中国科技发展，担任各种旨在促进中国科技进步的职务，包括应中国驻纽约使领馆（“ PRC CONSULATE OFFICE”）的要求为中国政府提供海外专家介绍中介，并担任至少两个中国智库的成员。陈还获得了多家中国实体的大量资金奖励，其中许多跟中国政府相关联。例如，自2015年11月以来，CHEN一直是中国国家自然科学基金会（“ NNSFC”）的项目审查专家，类比美国国家科学基金会，其运作方式与美国的联邦拨款资助机构相似。在此职位上，CHEN评估并审查了多个拨款申请，帮助中国政府确定将资助投入哪些项目，并审查了这些资助的研究成果。然而，当他向美国能源部及他的雇主MIT申请拨款资助时，CHEN从未透露他在NNSFC的工作。对CHEN的调查显示，他同样未能按合规要求向DOE披露与他申请获得项联邦研究补助金有关的其他任命，合同，从属关系以及海外资助的活动。最后，调查显示，CHEN未能按要求向IRS披露至少一个余额超过10,000美元的中国银行帐户。

5. 我提交的这份证词，用以指控CHEN涉嫌的刑事诉讼：（1）电汇欺诈，即设计了欺骗DOE的方案，并通过电子网络的方式将州际和外国商业金钱交易相关文件中包含虚假陈述的信息上交给DOE，以及重大遗漏，此行为违反了18 USC第1343条； （2）故意不提交2018纳税年度的外国银行帐户报告（“ FBAR”），并且在其2018年联邦所得税申报表的IRS Form 1040附表B中作虚假陈述，此行为违反了31 U.S.C. § 5322 和 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)法条。

6. 截至目前如下所述，根据这项正在进行的调查所收集到的证据，我有理由确信，陈已经设计了一种计划和手段来欺诈并通过以下方式从能源部获取资金：实质性的虚假、欺诈性借口和陈述的手段，过电子网络在州际和国外贸易中，以促进他的计划和欺骗DOE的行为，从而违反了18 USC §1343法条，因为CHEN以电子网络方式向美国能源部提交了拨款申请书和其他文件，但并未披露其与中国及其政府的重要隶属关系，任命和合同义务。我也有理由确信，陈故意未能按照要求在2019年4月15日之前向国税局提交FBAR—以披露他在中国金融账户中的权益，其总金额在2018年超过10,000美元，此违反了31 USC §§5314和5322法条；在对2018年联邦所得税申报表B（IRS表格1040）的附表B中所涉及的问题时作了虚假陈述（金融帐户，包括：银行帐户，证券帐户或经纪帐户），他填写了“否定”对于“是否对海外的金融帐户具有金融利益或签名权（例如金融资产）”选项，此举违反了18 USC §1001（a）(2）法条。

7. 本证词中的信息包含了我对这次调查的个人了解以及与反情报国家安全事务经验的其他特工和执法人员协助调查过程中提供给我的信息。在提交这份证词时，我并没有供述我所知道的相关调查的每一个事实，而是只包括了我认为足以确定必要的可能原因的部分事实。如下所述，在准备这份证词时，我回顾了在CHEN电子设备上所找到的文件和材料。当相关材料是中文时，我依靠联邦调查局雇用的语言学家所准备的翻译材料开展进一步调查。

相关法律授权

8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343，电汇欺诈

9. Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5314 and 5322 未能上报国外银行和金融机构账户

支持合理根据的事实分析

10. 根据我对CHEN的电子邮件，电子设备，MIT文档以及公开信息的审查，我相信CHEN与中国政府机构签订了许多合同，并且至少自2012年以来一直在中国担任过数个从未公开的委任，包括中国政府的科学技术海外专家聘任。通过这些未公开的任命，CHEN通过提供个人建议和专业知识（有时直接向中国政府官员提出）来促进中国的科学技术发展，并时常伴随经济补偿和奖励。同时，至少在2017年至2019年之间，CHEN申请并获得了DOE的拨款，以资助他在MIT的部分研究。在这种情况下，CHEN未能按照美国能源部的要求披露其与中国政府的长期隶属关系等重大信息。另外，CHEN也没有向IRS透露他拥有并在中国银行的帐户及其拥有的权益在2018年超过了10,000美元。

I.** CHEN的背景**

a. CHEN在MIT的科研事业

11. CHEN目前是MIT机械工程学院Carl Richard Soderberg荣誉头衔电力工程学教授。他在2001至2004年期间享有终身教授。在2013年7月至2018年6月期间，他担任MIT机械工程学院主管。CHEN出生成长于中国，于1989年左右来到美国。2000年6月，他归化入籍美国。

12. CHEN在华中科技学院（现更名为华中科技大学）分别于1984年和1987年获得电力工程学学士和硕士学位。1993年CHEN在UC伯克利大学机械工程学院获得Ph.D博士学位。从1993年到1997年，他在杜克大学担任助理教授，1997年至2001年，他在UCLA担任终身教授。2001年，他离开UCLA加入了MIT教职。通过CHEN的简历表述和经过我确认，MIT的机械工程本科和研究生专业排名位居世界第一。

13. CHEN同时担任MIT Pappalardo微米/纳米工程实验室和 固态太阳能热能转换中心（S3TEC）的主管。S3TEC是一个全球领先的DOE前沿科研中心（EFRC）：美国能源部建立了EFRC，目的是通过召集富有创意的，跨学科的科学团队来发现并克服阻碍能源技术进步的科学挑战。 S3TEC的合作机构包括波士顿学院，布鲁克海文国家实验室，西北大学，橡树岭国家实验室和休斯顿大学。

14. CHEN纳米工程小组致力于研究纳米尺度的运输和能量转换现象。该研究在能量存储，转化和利用中具有应用价值。陈对理解纳米结构中的热传导做出了重要贡献，他的研究已经发展出了各种相关技术。

15. 自2013年以来，CHEN的研究得到了美国能源部，国防部，国防部高级研究计划局和其他联邦机构约1900万美元的联邦资助和奖励。在同一时间，CHEN及其研究小组已收到约2900万美元的外国资金，其中包括来自中国南方科技大学（SUSTech）的1900万美元。

16. SUSTech由中国教育部于2010年设立，是一所位于中国广东省深圳市的公立研究型大学（即由中国政府出资）。根据公开的信息，SUSTech是中国政府旨在快速建立国际高级研究型大学的平台。2012年，SUSTech成立了第一个咨询委员会。该委员会由包括陈在内的五位世界一流的学术专家组成。从对文件和公开信息的审查中我知道，SUSTech试图通过使用中国的人才计划（下文也进行具体描述）并招募中国“千人全球招聘计划”（也称为“全球人才计划”）的候选人来部分地做到这一点。 （“国家杰出专家计划”）。通过这些“中国人才计划”，SUSTech的科学和工程计划主要从美国招募了不少国际人才。截至2018年3月，SUSTech聘用了约73位国家杰出专家和87位国家杰出青年专家。

b. CHEN与中国和中国政府的广泛往来

17. 据我对CHEN电子邮件，微信消息以及在CHEN的电子设备上获取的信息，CHEN至少从2012年开始与中国和中国政府进行了广泛的往来。在美国居住并在MIT工作期间，陈已经获得了许多未公开的合同，并获得了中国政府官员和其他实体的多项委任，其中多项明确旨在促进中国的科学和技术进步为目标。

18. 2016年3月，中华人民共和国第十三届全国人民代表大会批准“五年计划”是截止到2020年的中国技术进步蓝图。除其他事项外，在科学发展方面的特殊领域，该计划确定了中国政府官员（包括，最著名的中国前秘书处总书记，即现任中国国家主席习近平）和共产党（“ CCP”）认为，这将促进中国经济繁荣和提高全球地位。我知道，陈的MIT研究主要课题-纳米技术，在中国的“十三五”规划中被明确确定为中国政府特别关注的领域。

19. 2016年2月，CHEN使用自己的MIT电子邮件帐户向自己发送了一封电子邮件，其中详细说明了CHEN为促进中国的科学和经济发展以及实现其战略目标所做的努力。以下是CHEN电子邮件中包含的项目的原文逐字清单：

1. promote chinese collaboration 推广与中方合作

2. China places innovation (scientific) as key and core not fashion [sic], but because we must do it, from historic trend as well from our stage 因为我们必须做，就历史发展和我们目前的阶段，中国要把创新（科技）作为核心而不是时尚。

3. our economy is no. 2, but from technology (structure of economy) and human resources, we are far from no. 2. 我们的经济是世界第二，但是科技（经济结构）和人力资源这方面，远远不是第二。

4. we are paying big price in environment, not sustainable, as well as from labor cost 我们在环境方面付上了很大的代价，不是可持续的，人力成本也付上了太大代价

5. environment protection and development in same place, environment even higher, clean energy if higher cost, reduce steel, cement. We must count on technology, cannot grow as past 环境保护和发展同等重要，环境甚至更重要。为清洁能源值得付出更多，减少钢铁水泥生产。我们必须依赖科技，不能依靠过去的增长模式。

6. communist 18th convention, scientific innovation placed at core. We realize not just independent innovation; but also internationalize to plan for and facilitate. Closed door innovation does not work; innovation as driving force 中国十八大，科技创新被放在核心位置。我们意识到不仅是独立创新，还要有国际化，来计划和辅助。闭门造车不行，创新要作为动力。

7. MOST3/government 3 focus; a) basic/fundamental and frontier research; b) difficulty and challenging problems from industry/social, to elevate our industry, c) an ecosystem (law, political, service, culture) 科技部/政府三项重点工作：a) 基础和前沿科学研究；b) 产业升级过程中工业界和社会所面临的挑战和攻坚问题；c) 配套系统（法律、政治、服务和文化）

8. for applied: applied basic research, technological innovation, translation to commercialization 应用：基础科学应用，技术革新，商业量产转化

9. For basic research, flexibility for scientist 基础科研，给予科学家学术自由

10. Two improvements: natural science and social science intersection (chinese philosophy), we have too much separation between natural and social; ancient china; those who working idealogical [sic] part regarded as role, mechanical lower, for challenging, more valuable topics for research; how to convert impossible into possible; more societal impacts, contribute more for people’s well being, 两个提高：自然科学和社会科学交叉（中式哲理）， 自然科学和社会科学太多的分割；古代时期；搞理论的有地位，而相对而言工程师地位不高。面对挑战，更多有价值的科研课题；如何把不可能转化为可能；对整体社会更有影响，改善全民生活。

20. CHEN跟中国政府的来往始于2012年。他在过去一直担任多个职务，且获得金钱报酬。主要包括以下几个：

ⅰ. 南方科技大学，带领科研队伍。

ⅱ. 中国国家自然基金，审稿专家，大约自2015年11月起。

ⅲ. 中关村发展集团（ZDG）由北京地方政府出资建立，大约自2017年3月起，CHEN获得5年合同，以帮助提供专家意见和科研人才的筛选。

ⅳ. 重庆第二外国语学校，大约自2017年11月起，CHEN被委任为“杰出人才计划”顾问专家。期间获得了至少$355,715美金收入。

21. CHEN也担任了多个中国政府委派的职务。包括自2014年起担任由中国使馆发起的“第四届海外人才计划”顾问。

22. 自2013年起，CHEN也担任了“国家留学基金管理委员会”顾问。该委员会是在1996年由中国教育部设立的非营利组织。

23. 最后，从CHEN的微信聊天记录和他的一位同事从其手机里发现，CHEN获得了“武汉高端人才合作伙伴”（200万人民币奖励）“3551光谷人才计划”（1000万人民币奖励）的奖项。有材料显示CHEN参与了武汉设立的一家热能存储公司，该公司获得1亿人民币的投资（脚注说明，这并不能确定CHEN实际上设立了此公司。）

24. 根据出入境记录，CHEN在2016年至2019年期间，往返中国19次，在中国总共逗留了188天。

c. 2020年1月CHEN的入境搜查和二级检查

25. 2020年1月CHEN返美抵达Boston Logan国际机场，美国海关和边境管理局人员（CBP）在提取行李E区对CHEN及其行李进行了入境搜查和二级检查。

26. 在讯问过程中，CHEN陈述了自己的背景。他强调这次出境是为了南方科大的“合作”，并作出“合作就是合作”“我的科研都在美国完成”回答。

27. 事后我向CBP官员了解到，当时CHEN的回答都很“简短而敷衍”。CBP截获了CHEN的一台iPhone，华为手机和苹果笔记本电脑。这些物品被扣留用于进一步调查。2020年3月18日，我申请了针对上述电子产品的搜查令。

Ⅱ. CHEN向美国政府提供虚假信息以获得拨款

28. 大约在2017年3月17日，CHEN以电子邮件方式向美国能源部科学办公室提交了拨款续约申请书和其他文件。在另一封邮件中，CHEN也通过MIT的资助项目办公室能源部申请门户站点向能源部提交了该申请书。

29. 我知道能源部批准拨款程序需要2份来自项目主任的详尽披露报告。附录1要求提供详尽的学术相关信息。附录2则要求提供详尽的“如何获利或公益的由评审颁发的相关资助、奖励”，“是否存在美国境外的合作或国际合伙”。能源部通过这些尽调来避免重复拨款，以及避免相关利益冲突。

30. 我相信CHEN在其上述申请中设计了一种计划和手段来欺诈能源部，因为他没有披露前文所述在中国的如何任职。

31. 对于海外任职，CHEN对MIT也有所隐瞒。MIT要求CHEN提交“年度教职外的利益冲突披露报告”同样地，他在2017年没有披露上述在中国的如何任职，在2013年至2019年期间都没有。

32. 大约在2017年7月，DOE批准了CHEN的上述项目号DE-FG02-02ER45977申请，获得了$2,741,639美金拨款。该项目成果安排在2020年6月30日提交。我认为DOE是知晓CHEN在中国的各类合同、奖励、活动和津贴的，DOE很可能本该征询这些关联事项。

33. 大约在2019年3月25日左右，CHEN线上提交了DE-FG02-02ER45977项目进程。但他仍然没有披露上述有关中国的信息。

34. CHEN在项目进程中也没有提到国际合作者。如同2017年的提交文件，也没有谈及在美国本土以外的任何与项目相关的活动。我认为这些陈述是不真实的。

35. 我所知道的公开论文涉及到能源部拨款DE-FG02-02ER45977项目就有数位CHEN的华科校友和同济大学的共同作者。

36. 根据我的过往受训和工作经验，以及从同案件其他部门同僚了解的信息，我可以判断能源部拨款DE-FG02-02ER45977项目有中国的大学和科学家参与合作。从能源部官员了解到，如果这些信息披露，很可能改变该拨款的决定。但CHEN并没有披露这些信息。

Ⅲ. CHEN没有在2018财年度提交FBAR

37. 每年如果纳税人在之前日历年对海外的金融帐户具有金融利益或签名权（例如金融资产）超过10,000美元，则在该年度4月15日之前必须申报的联邦所得税申报表B（IRS表格1040）的附表B中所涉及的问题时作说明（金融帐户，包括：银行帐户，证券帐户或经纪帐户）。

38. 根据CHEN的电子设备记录，2018年，我相信他在中国银行至少拥有3个账户。其中至少有一个户头里超过了$25,000美元额度。通过从IRS相关部门的了解，他并没有提交FBAR。据我推测，CHEN是知道FBAR义务的，因为在2013和2014财年，他分别提交了2012年和2013年的中国银行账号披露。

39. 依据CHEN与中方持续的商务和个人往来，我相信他一直保持至少一个中国的银行账户。在对其电子设备的检查中，调查员发现了显示账户资金余额和交易历史的中国银行ATM机屏幕信息照片，这些照片都包含了2018年日期，且与CHEN在中国国内日期相对应，其中一个账户显示了超过$25,000美元的额度。

40. 而在2014年和2015年度里，CHEN也都没有提交FBAR。

41. 在2017年和2018年度里，CHEN的Schedule B里都对“海外的金融帐户具有金融利益或签名权（例如金融资产）超过10,000美元” 提交了否定回答， 但与我所知的事实不符。

42. 大约在2020年6月23日左右，CHEN按时提交了FBAR，声明了他在2019年中国银行的$46,400账户额度。他在2014年的5月9日申报了相同账户。但这次最近的申报是在他接受CBP盘问，且他的电子设备被扣留之后进行的。但这些电子材料显示他没有在2019年报税日截止前披露2018年的相关财务状况。

结论

43. 综合以上所述信息，我有合理依据认为，CHEN涉嫌违反了31 U.S.C. §§ 5314 和 5322法条未能上报国外银行和金融机构账户 以及18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)法条 向美国政府国家机构陈述错误信息 两项刑事罪责。因此，我恳请本法庭对其提起刑事诉讼。

《刑事起诉书》 英文版下载

1. 任何年纪的未成年人可以同意 MINORS OF ANY AGE MAY CONSENT

1.1 怀孕 PREGNANCY

1.1.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

未成年人可以同意接受与避孕或治疗妊娠有关的医疗服务，而绝育除外。（家庭法§ 6925） “A minor may consent to medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy,” except sterilization. (Fam. Code § 6925).

1.1.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

不允许医疗保健提供者在未经未成年人同意的情况下通知家长或其法定监护人。提供者仅可以在以下前提与他们分享未成年人的医疗信息：未成年人签署授权书。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

1.2 避孕 CONTRACEPTION

1.2.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

未成年人可以在不经家长同意的情况下接受避孕措施。（家庭法§ 6925） A minor may receive birth control without parental consent. (Fam. Code § 6925).

1.2.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

不允许医疗保健提供者在未经未成年人同意的情况下通知家长或其法定监护人。提供者仅可以在以下前提与他们分享未成年人的医疗信息：未成年人签署授权书。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

1.3 堕胎 ABORTION

1.3.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

未成年人可以同意堕胎而无需其家长的同意。（家庭法§ 6925；以及判例 American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997） A minor may consent to an abortion without parental consent. (Fam. Code § 6925; American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren,16 Cal.4th 307 (1997)).

1.3.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。 （Lungren案判例；健康和安全法§§123110(a), 123115(a)(1)；民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997); Health & Safety Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).  

1.4 性侵的相关救治服务 SEXUAL ASSAULT1 SERVICES

仅出于未成年人同意医疗保健的目的，此处所列性侵包括口交，鸡奸，和其他类型性犯罪。 1 For the purposes of minor consent health care alone, sexual assault includes acts of oral copulation, sodomy, and other crimes of a sexual nature.

1.4.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

【可能】曾遭受过性侵的未成年可以同意接受医疗保健相关的诊断，治疗和收集与之相关的医疗证据。（家庭法§ 6928） “A minor who [may] have been sexually assaulted may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis, treatment and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the…assault.” (Fam. Code § 6928).

1.4.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

医疗保健提供者必须尝试与未成年人的家长/监护人联系，并在未成年人病历中记录尝试联系的日期和时间，以及是否联系成功。如果治疗专家合理地认为其家长/监护人实施了侵犯，则该规定不适用。（家庭法§ 6928） The health care provider must attempt to contact the minor’s parent/guardian and note in the minor’s record the day and time of the attempted contact and whether it was successful. This provision does not apply if the treating professional reasonably believes that the parent/guardian committed the assault. (Fam. Code § 6928).

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸和性侵犯都被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年同意的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167） Both rape and sexual assault of a minor are considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization. However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

1.5 对未满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务 RAPE2 SERVICES FOR MINORS UNDER 12 YRS3

对强奸的定义适用刑法§ 261 请参阅下文的“已满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务” RAPE2 SERVICES FOR MINORS UNDER 12 YRS3 2 Rape is defined in Penal Code § 261. 3 See also “Rape Services for Minors 12 and Over” on page 3 of this chart

1.5.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

可能遭遇强奸的未满12岁未成年人 “可以同意接受医疗与诊断，治疗和收集有关强奸方面的医学证据。“（家庭法§ 6928） A minor under 12 years of age who may have been raped “may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis,…treatment and the collection of medical evidence with regard” to the rape. (Fam. Code § 6928).

1.5.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

医疗保健提供者必须尝试与未成年人的家长/监护人联系，并在未成年人病历中记录尝试联系的日期和时间，以及是否联系成功。如果治疗专家合理地认为其家长/监护人实施了侵犯，则该规定不适用。（家庭法§ 6928） The health care provider must attempt to contact the minor’s parent/guardian and note in the minor’s record the day and time of the attempted contact and whether it was successful. This provision does not apply if the treating professional reasonably believes that the parent/guardian committed the assault. (Fam. Code § 6928).

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸和性侵犯都被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年同意的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167） Both rape and sexual assault of a minor are considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization. However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

1.6 紧急医疗服务* EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES*

*紧急情况是指“需要立即提供服务以减轻严重疼痛或立即诊断出未预见的医疗状况，如果不立即诊断和治疗，将导致严重的残疾甚至死亡”后果（业务和专业守则§ 2397(c)(2)） *An emergency is “a situation . . . requiring immediate services for alleviation of severe pain or immediate diagnosis of unforeseeable medical conditions, which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to serious disability or death” (Bus. & Prof. § 2397(c)(2)).

1.6.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

如果提供者“合理地认为[该]程序应立即进行并且没有足够的时间获得[家长]的知情同意，则提供者不应对未成年人执行此程序负责。（业务和专业守则§ 2397(c)(2)） A provider shall not be liable for performing a procedure on a minor if the provider “reasonably believed that [the] procedure should be undertaken immediately and that there was insufficient time to obtain [parental] informed consent.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 2397(c)(2)).

1.6.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

其家长或监护人通常有权检查未成年人的记录。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a)；民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）但请留意尾注（exc）部分） The parent or guardian usually has a right to inspect the minor’s records. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a); Civ. Code § 56.10. But see exception at endnote (EXC.)).

1.7 骨骼X光射线诊断虐待儿童或过失侵权* SKELETAL X-RAY TO DIAGNOSE CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT*

*提供者不需要未成年人或其家长的同意即可执行本节中的程序。

• The provider does not need the minor’s or parent’s consent to perform a procedure under this section.

1.7.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“医师，外科医生或牙医或其代理人可以不经未成年家长或监护人同意而对其进行骨骼X光检查，但仅为可能存在的虐待或儿童或过失侵权的案件诊断并确定其程度为目的。”（刑法§ 11171.2） “A physician and surgeon or dentist or their agents . . . may take skeletal X-rays of the child without the consent of the child’s parent or guardian, but only for purposes of diagnosing the case as one of possible child abuse or neglect and determining the extent of.” (Penal Code § 11171.2).

1.7.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

根据本法规所报告的信息，在任何法院程序中医患特权和心理治疗师特权均不适用。 Neither the physician-patient privilege nor the psychotherapist patient privilege applies to information reported pursuant to this law in any court proceeding.

2. 已满12岁的未成年人可以同意 MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT

2.1 传染病（诊断，治疗） INFECTIOUS, CONTAGIOUS COMMUNICABLE DISEASES (DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT)

2.1.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“未满12岁且可能已与传染性疾病接触过的未成年人，如果该疾病是法律要求报告的。可以同意接受治疗诊断。”（家庭法§ 6926） “A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease… is one that is required by law…to be reported….” (Fam. Code § 6926).

2.1.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

不经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权后向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

2.2 性传播疾病（预防护理，诊断，治疗） SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES (PREVENTIVE CARE, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT)

2.2.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

可能接触过性传播疾病的已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受与该疾病的诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理。 已满12岁的未成年人也可以同意与预防性传播疾病有关的医疗服务（家庭法§ 6926） A minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with a sexually transmitted disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease. A minor who is 12 years of age or older may also consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease. (Fam. Code § 6926).

2.2.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

不经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权后向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

2.3 艾滋病（预防措施，测试，诊断和治疗） AIDS/HIV (PREVENTIVECARE, TESTING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT)

2.3.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

已满12岁的未成年人有能力对艾滋病检测提供书面同意。 （加州健康与安全法 §121020）。已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受预防，诊断和治疗HIV / AIDS有关的医疗服务。 （民法§6926）。当前可用的服务包括暴露前和暴露后的预防药物，以预防HIV感染（PrEP和PEP）。 A minor 12 and older is competent to give written consent for an HIV test. (Cal. Health and Safety Code § 121020). A minor 12 and older may consent to medical care related to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS. (Fam. Code § 6926). Services currently available include pre- and postexposure prophylaxis medication to prevent HIV infection (PrEP and PEP).

2.3.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a),123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

2.4 已满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务 RAPE SERVICES FOR MINORS 12 and OVER

2.4.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“声称被强奸的已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受与病情诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理，并就被指控的强奸行为收集医学证据。（家庭法§ 6927） “A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who is alleged to have been raped may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the condition and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the alleged rape.” (Fam. Code § 6927).

2.4.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年批准的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167） Rape of a minor is considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health care providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization.However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

2.5 亲密伴侣暴力* INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE*

*仅出于未成年人同意的医疗保健目的 “亲密伴侣暴力”就意味着故意或不顾后果地造成人身伤害，由与该未成年人保持性关系，约会或配偶关系的人所实施的。如果未成年人因强奸或性侵犯而寻求服务，未成年人同意的救治服务应受相关“性侵犯”或“强奸”同意法律约束，而不是本法。（家庭法§6930(b)） *For the purposes of minor consent health care alone, “’intimate partner violence’ means an intentional or reckless infliction of bodily harm that is perpetrated by a person with whom the minor has or has had a sexual, dating, or spousal relationship.” If the minor is seeking services as a result of a rape or sexual assault, minor consent services should be provided under the “sexual assault” or “rape” minor consent laws rather than this law. (Fam. Code §6930(b)).

2.5.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“未满12岁且声称由于亲密伴侣的暴力行为而受伤的未成年人，可以同意接受与伤口的诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理，并同意收集有关亲密伴侣暴力所致医疗证据。”（家庭法§ 6930） “A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who states he or she is injured as a result of intimate partner violence may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the injury and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the alleged intimate partner violence.” (Fam. Code § 6930).

2.5.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

多数情况下，未成年人亲密伴侣暴力将被视为符合虐待儿童举报条件，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。（刑法§§ 11165.6, 11166, 11167） In most cases, intimate partner violence as defined in this statute will meet the definition of child abuse for reporting purposes and mandated reporters must report it as such. (Pen. Code §§ 11165.6, 11166, 11167.).

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11） In those cases, the health care provider is not permitted to disclose information to a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s authorization. The provider can only share that information with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

如果不需要举报虐待儿童的情况（例如，伤害是由“未成年人之间的相互骚扰”引起的），则可以按《刑法》第11160条（枪支，攻击性或虐待性行为造成的伤害）的情况报告。 In cases where a child abuse report is not required (e.g., where the injury was caused by a “mutual affray between minors”), a report under Penal Code 11160 (injuries caused by firearms or assaultive or abusive conduct) may be mandated.

如果根据《刑法》第11160条进行了报告，则健康提供者应执行以下两项操作：1）告知未成年人将作出报告，并且 2）尝试与未成年人的家长或监护人联系，并将此报告告知他们。医务人员应在未成年人的治疗记录中注明尝试与其家长或监护人联系的日期和时间，以及尝试是否成功。如果医疗人员合理地认为未成年人的其家长或监护人造成了枪伤或可疑伤害，则此通知要求不适用。（家庭法 § 6930(c)).） If a report under Penal Code 11160 is made, the health provider shall do both of the following:

1. inform the minor that the report will be made, and
2. attempt to contact the minor’s parent or guardian and inform them of the report. The health practitioner shall note in the minor’s treatment record the date and time of the attempt to contact the parent or guardian, and whether the attempt was successful or unsuccessful. This notification requirement does not apply if the health practitioner reasonably believes that the minor’s parent or guardian inflicted the gunshot or suspicious injury. (Fam. Code § 6930(c)).

注意：当看起来好像可以根据虐待儿童举报法或刑第 11160条举报伤害时，举报人必须将其按虐待儿童举报法规执行，而不是刑法 第11160条。（刑法 第11162.7条）。提供者应与其法律顾问讨论这些报告法律的适用以及交复影响。 Note: When an injury appears as if it could be reported under either child abuse reporting law or Penal Code 11160, the reporter must report it as child abuse rather than under Penal Code 11160. (Pen. Code § 11162.7.) Providers should discuss the application and intersection of these reporting laws with their legal counsel.

2.6 门诊心理保健服务/庇护服务 OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES4/ SHELTER SERVICES

本节未授权未成年人未经其同意而接受住院精神病治疗，抽搐治疗，精神外科或精神药物。 4 This section does not authorize a minor to receive inpatient psychiatric care, convulsive therapy, psychosurgery or psychotropic drugs on their own consent.

2.6.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

两项法规赋予未成年人同意接受心理健康治疗的权利。如果未成年人符合任一法规的标准，则未成年人可以同意接受其自己的治疗。如果未成年人同时符合这两个条件，则提供者可以决定适用哪个法规。它们之间有一些区别。有关这些差异的更多信息，请参见尾注** Two statutes give minors the right to consent to mental health treatment. If a minor meets the criteria under either statute, the minor may consent to his or her own treatment. If the minor meets the criteria under both, the provider may decide which statute to apply. There are differences between them. See endnote ** for more on these differences:

家庭法§ 6924 “如果满足以下两个条件，则已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受门诊病人的心理健康治疗或咨询，或同意寄宿庇护服务： （1）主治医生认为，未成年人心智已经足够成熟，可以明智地参与门诊服务或寄宿庇护服务。和 （2）该未成年人（A）如果没有心理健康治疗，咨询或寄宿庇护服务，将对自己或他人造成严重的身体或精神伤害，或者（B）声称为乱伦或虐待儿童的受害者” Family Code § 6924 “A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis or to residential shelter services, if both of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services. AND (2) The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.” (Fam. Code § 6924.)

健康与安全法§ 124260 “已满12岁的未成年人可以同意参加[门诊]心理健康治疗或咨询服务，如果在职专业人员认为该未成年人足够成熟，可以明智地参加精神健康治疗或咨询服务。” Health & Safety Code § 124260 “[A] minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to [outpatient] mental health treatment or counseling services if, in the opinion of the attending professional person, the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the mental health treatment or counseling services.” (Health & Saf. Code § 124260.)

2.6.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

心理健康治疗： 医疗保健提供者必须让其家长或监护人参与未成年人的治疗，除非医疗保健提供者认为这种参与是不适当的。此决定以及与其家长的任何联系尝试都必须记录在未成年人的病历中。（家庭法§ 6924; 45 C.F.R. 164.502(g)(3)(ii).)） 对于根据《健康与安全法》第124260条要求提供的服务，提供者在决定是否让其家长参与之前必须征询未成年人。 MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT: The health care provider is required to involve a parent or guardian in the minor’s treatment unless the health care provider decides that such involvement is inappropriate. This decision and any attempts to contact parents must be documented in the minor’s record. (Fam. Code § 6924; 45 C.F.R. 164.502(g)(3)(ii).) For services provided under Health and Safety Code § 124260, providers must consult with the minor before deciding whether to involve parents. (Health & Saf. Code § 124260(a).)

尽管此例外允许提供者在适当的时候通知其家长并让他们参与治疗，但它没有赋予提供者未经未成年人授权就向其家长披露病历的权利。提供者只能在未成年人签名授权后才能向其家长披露未成年人的病历。 （健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1）；民法；§§ 56.10, 56.11, 56.30；福利和机构守则§ 5328。请参阅尾注（exc）) While this exception allows providers to inform and involve parents in treatment when appropriate, it does not give providers a right to disclose medical records to parents without the minor’s authorization. The provider can only share the minor’s medical records with parents with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11, 56.30; Welf. & Inst. Code § 5328. See also endnote(EXC).)

庇护所：尽管未成年人可能同意服务，但庇护所必须根据未成年人所提供的信息尽最大努力将服务内容通知其家长/监护人。 （家庭法§ 6924） SHELTER: Although minor may consent to service, the shelter must use its best efforts based on information provided by the minor to notify parent/guardian of the provision of services. (Fam. Code § 6924.)

2.7 药物或酒精滥用治疗 DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE TREATMENT

•本节未授权未成年人在未经其家长或监护人同意的前提下，而接受替代麻醉品治疗。 •在其家长或监护人同意进行治疗的情况下，本节未授予未成年人拒绝就药物或酒精相关问题进行医疗和咨询的权利。 （家庭法 第6929（f）条）。 •家庭法第§6929(a)(2)条定义了“毒品或酒精”和“咨询”一词 • This section does not authorize a minor to receive replacement narcotic abuse treatment without the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian. • This section does not grant a minor the right to refuse medical care and counseling for a drug or alcohol related problem when the minor’s parent or guardian consents for that treatment. (Fam. Code § 6929(f)). • The terms “drug or alcohol” and “counseling” are defined in Fam. Code § 6929(a)(2).

2.7.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

已满12岁的未成年人可以同意就有关毒品或酒精相关问题的诊断和治疗进行医疗护理和咨询。（家庭法§6929(b)） “A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical care and counseling relating to the diagnosis and treatment of a drug or alcohol related problem.” (Fam. Code §6929(b)).

2.7.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

联邦和州法律有着不同的保密规则。符合以下“联邦”中列出的条件的提供者必须遵守联邦法规。不符合这些条件的提供者则需要遵守州法律。 联邦：联邦保密法适用于符合以下两个条件的任何个人，项目或机构： 1.个人，项目或机构得到联邦政府的协助。 （联邦协助是指全部或部分由联邦政府的任何部门授权，认证，许可，支持或资助的。譬如：联邦，州或地方计划包括：免税；接受可抵税的捐款；接受任何联邦政府的运作资金，无论是否直接用于防治药物滥用计划；或已在Medicare注册）（联邦政府第42号法规§2.12） There are different confidentiality rules under federal and state law. Providers meeting the criteria listed under ‘federal’ below must follow the federal rule. Providers that don’t meet these criteria follow state law. FEDERAL: Federal confidentiality law applies to any individual, program, or facility that meets the following two criteria:

1. The individual, program, or facility is federally assisted. (Federally assisted means authorized, certified, licensed, supported or funded in whole or in part by any department of the federal government. Examples include federal, state or local programs that are: tax exempt; receiving tax-deductible donations; receiving any federal operating funds whether used directly for the substance use disorder program or not; or registered with Medicare) (42 C.F.R. §2.12);

以及 2. 个人或项目： 1）认为自身维系，并提供了药物使用障碍的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗的个人或实体（一般医疗机构除外）；或 2）普通医疗机构中已确定的单元，该单元维系并提供药物使用障碍的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗；或 3）普通医疗机构中主要职能是提供物质使用失常的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗的医务人员或其他人员，并被确定为提供者（联邦政府第42号法规§2.11及§2.12） AND 2. The individual or program is:

1. An individual or entity (other than a general medical facility) who holds itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment; or
2. An identified unit within a general medical facility that holds itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment; or
3. Medical personnel or other staff in a general medical facility whose primary function is the provision of substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment and who are identified as such providers. (42 C.F.R. §2.11; 42 C.F.R. §2.12).

对于符合这些条件的个人或项目，联邦法律禁止在未得到未成年人书面同意的情况下向其家长披露任何信息。但是，有一个例外，如果项目主管确定该未成年服务申请者 1）由于非常年幼，极端的精神或身体状况而无法做出理性决定是否同意接受某项服务的能力，则允许将相关事实传达给家长。及  2）对未成年人或他人的生命或身体健康构成重大威胁，向其家长披露相关事实可以减轻这种威胁。（联邦政府第42号法规§2.14） For individuals or programs meeting these criteria, federal law prohibits disclosing any information to parents without a minor’s written consent. There is an exception, however, permitting the communication of relevant facts to the parents if the program director determines that a minor applicant for services 1) lacks capacity because of extreme youth or mental or physical condition to make a rational decision whether to consent to a disclosure to the parents AND 2) there is a substantial threat to the life or physical well-being of the minor applicant or another individual, and the disclosure of relevant facts to the parents may reduce that threat. (42 C.F.R. §2.14).

州法规：如上所述，针对家庭法 第6924条提供的“门诊心理健康服务”的相对应保密规则。(家庭法§ 6924) 请参阅尾注（exc） STATE RULE: Parallels confidentiality rule for “Outpatient Mental Health Services” provided under Family Code 6924, as described above. (Fam. Code §6929(c).) See also exception at endnote (EXC).

3. 已满15岁的未成年人 MINORS 15 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER

3.1 通用医疗保险 GENERAL MEDICAL CARE

3.1.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

“如果满足以下所有条件，则未成年人可以同意接受未成年人的医疗或牙科护理：（1）未成年人年龄已满15岁。 （2）未成年人与其家长或监护人分开居住，无论是否经过其家长或监护人的同意，并且与单独居住的时长无关。 （3）无论未成年人的收入来源如何，都在管理自身的收入。” （家庭法 § 6922(a).） “A minor may consent to the minor’s medical care or dental care if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The minor is 15 years of age or older. (2) The minor is living separate and apart from the minor’s parents or guardian, whether with or without the consent of a parent or guardian and regardless of the duration of the separate residence. (3) The minor is managing the minor’s own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the minor’s income.” (Fam. Code § 6922(a).)

3.1.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

“如果未成年人患者同意，医师和外科医生或牙医可根据未成年人所提供的信息和监护人所在之处，向其家长或监护人告知所给予的或将需要的治疗。”（家庭法§ 6922(c)。请参阅尾注（exc）） “A physician and surgeon or dentist may, with or without the consent of the minor patient, advise the minor’s parent or guardian of the treatment given or needed if the physician and surgeon or dentist has reason to know, on the basis of the information given by the minor, the whereabouts of the parent or guardian.” (Fam. Code § 6922(c). See also exception at endnote (EXC)).

4. 已满14岁的独立生活的未成年人 MINOR MUST BE EMANCIPATED (GENERALLY 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER)

4.1 通用医疗 独立生活的未成年人 GENERAL MEDICAL CARE for EMANCIPATED YOUTH

4.1.1 法规、细则 LAW/DETAILS

独立生活的未成年人可以同意接受医疗牙科或心理治疗。 （家庭法§ 7050(e)。关于“独立生活”的定义解析可以参见 家庭法§ 7002） An emancipated minor may consent to medical, dental and psychiatric care. (Fam. Code § 7050(e). See Fam. Code § 7002 for emancipation criteria.)

4.1.2 医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？ MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

未经未成年人同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。 （健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1）；民法；§§ 56.10, 56.11) The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

如果标明出处，则可以复制此图表以供个人使用。

This chart may be reproduced for individual use if accompanied by an acknowledgement.

*保密和同意法律法规有许多。不同的规则适用于不同的情形。本图表说明了未成年人与其家长或监护人同住时适用的规则。它未解决未成年人在法院司法体系下或处于其他特殊生活状况时所适用的规则。此外，机密性部分重点关注家长和提供者的权限。它没有解释其他人或机构何时有权获取机密信息的问题。此图表仅提供法律信息，而并非法律建议。提供者应与他们自己的法律顾问探讨相关法律建议。

• There are many confidentiality and consent rules. Different rules apply in different contexts. This chart addresses the rules that apply when minors live with their parents or guardians. It does not address the rules that apply when minors are under court jurisdiction or in other special living situations. Further, the confidentiality section focuses on parent and provider access. It does not address when other people or agencies may have a right to access otherwise confidential information. This chart provides legal information, not advice. Providers are encouraged to speak to their own legal counsel for advice on application of these laws.

**除了资格标准略有不同外，《健康与安全法》第124260条和《家庭法》第6924条也有一些细微差别。例如，两项法律均允许“专业人士”提供未成年人同意服务，但两项法律对“专业人士”的定义有所不同。另外，有一项资金限制适用于健康和安全法规§124260，但不适用于家庭法规§6924。（参阅家庭法§ 6924，健康与安全法§124260和福利和机构守则§14029； 获取更多信息请参阅www.teenhealthlaw.org）

** In addition to having slightly different eligibility criteria, there are other small differences between Health and Safety Code §124260 and Family Code § 6924. For example, the two laws both allow “professional persons” to deliver minor consent services but the two laws define “professional person” differently. Also, there is a funding restriction that applies to Health and Safety Code §124260 but not to Family Code § 6924. (See Fam. Code § 6924, Health & Saf. Code § 124260 and Welf. & Inst. Code §14029.8 and look for more information on www.teenhealthlaw.org.).

EXC: 如果医疗保健提供者确定“对提供者与未成年人患者的专业关系或未成年人的身体安全或心理健康的影响，对[其家长或监护人]要求查询的患者信息，则提供者可以拒绝向未成年人家长提供病历，虽然通常情况下其家长有权获得这些信息。”健康与安全法§123115(a)(2)。对所作出获取未成年人记录有关的任何诚信决定，提供者不承担负责。同上。

EXC: Providers may refuse to provide parents access to a minor’s medical records, where a parent normally has a right to them, if “the health care provider determines that access to the patient records requested by the [parent or guardian] would have a detrimental effect on the provider’s professional relationship with the minor patient or the minor’s physical safety or psychological well-being.” Health & Saf. Code § 123115(a)(2). A provider shall not be liable for any good faith decisions concerning access to a minor’s records. Id.

Reference:

/files/ca-minor-consent-chart-2019.pdf

CALIFORNIA MINOR CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS

Edit

任何年纪的未成年

可以同意

法规、细则

医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

怀孕未成年人可以同意接与避孕或治疗妊娠有关的医疗服务，而绝育除外。（家庭法§ 6925）不允许医疗保健提供者在未经未成年人同意的情况下通知家长或其法定监护人。提供者仅可以在以下前提与他们分享未成年人的医疗信息：未成年人签署授权书。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）  

避孕未成年人可以在不经家长同意的情况下接受避孕措施。（家庭法§ 6925）

堕胎未成年人可以同意堕胎而无需其家长的同意。（家庭法§ 6925；以及判例 American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren,

16 Cal.4th 307 (1997）

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。

（Lungren案判例；健康和安全法§§123110(a), 123115(a)(1)；民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

性侵的相关救治服务

仅出于未成年人同意医疗保健的目的，此处所列性侵包括口交，鸡奸，和其他类型性犯罪。

【可能】曾遭受过性侵的未成年可以同意接受医疗保健相关的诊断，治疗和收集与之相关的医疗证据。（家庭法§ 6928）医疗保健提供者必须尝试与未成年人的家长/监护人联系，并在未成年人病历中记录尝试联系的日期和时间，以及是否联系成功。如果治疗专家合理地认为其家长/监护人实施了侵犯，则该规定不适用。（家庭法§ 6928）

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸和性侵犯都被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年同意的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167）

对未满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务

对强奸的定义适用刑法§ 261

请参阅下文的“已满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务”

可能遭遇强奸的未满12岁未成年人 “可以同意接受医疗与诊断，治疗和收集有关强奸方面的医学证据。“（家庭法§ 6928）

Edit

MINORS OF ANY AGE MAY CONSENT    LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

PREGNANCY“A minor may consent to medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy,” except sterilization. (Fam. Code § 6925).The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).     

CONTRACEPTION A minor may receive birth control without parental consent. (Fam. Code § 6925).

ABORTIONA minor may consent to an abortion without parental consent. (Fam. Code § 6925; American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren,16 Cal.4th 307 (1997)).The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997); Health & Safety Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

SEXUAL ASSAULT1 SERVICES

1For the purposes of minor consent health care alone, sexual assault includes acts of oral copulation, sodomy, and other crimes of a sexual nature.“A minor who [may] have been sexually assaulted may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis, treatment and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the …assault.” (Fam. Code § 6928).The health care provider must attempt to contact the minor’s parent/guardian and note in the minor’s record the day and time of the attempted contact and whether it was successful. This provision does not apply if the treating professional reasonably believes that the parent/guardian committed the assault. (Fam. Code § 6928).

Both rape and sexual assault of a minor are considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization. However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

RAPE2 SERVICES FOR MINORS UNDER 12 YRS3 

2Rape is defined in Penal Code § 261. 3See also “Rape Services for Minors 12 and Over” on page 3 of this chartA minor under 12 years of age who may have been raped “may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis,…treatment and the collection of medical evidence with regard” to the rape. (Fam. Code § 6928).

Edit

任何年纪的未成年

可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

紧急医疗服务*

*紧急情况是指“需要立即提供服务以减轻严重疼痛或立即诊断出未预见的医疗状况，如果不立即诊断和治疗，将导致严重的残疾甚至死亡”后果（业务和专业守则§ 2397(c)(2)）

如果提供者“合理地认为[该]程序应立即进行并且没有足够的时间获得[家长]的知情同意，则提供者不应对未成年人执行此程序负责。（业务和专业守则§ 2397(c)(2)）其家长或监护人通常有权检查未成年人的记录。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a)；民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）但请留意尾注（exc）部分）

骨骼光射线诊断虐待儿童或过失侵权*

*提供者不需要未成年人或其家长的同意即可执行本节中的程序。

“医师，外科医生或牙医或其代理人可以不经未成年家长或监护人同意而对其进行骨骼光检查，但仅为可能存在的虐待或儿童或过失侵权的案件诊断并确定其程度为目的。”（刑法§ 11171.2）根据本法规所报告的信息，在任何法院程序中医患特权和心理治疗师特权均不适用。

Edit

MINORS OF ANY AGE 

MAY CONSENT LAW/DETAILS MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES*

*An emergency is “a situation . . . requiring immediate services for alleviation of severe pain or immediate diagnosis of unforeseeable medical conditions, which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to serious disability or death” (Bus. & Prof. § 2397(c)(2)).

*An emergency is “a situation . . . requiring immediate services for alleviation of severe pain or immediate diagnosis of unforeseeable medical conditions, which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to serious disability or death” (Bus. & Prof. § 2397(c)(2)).A provider shall not be liable for performing a procedure on a minor if the provider “reasonably believed that [the] procedure should be undertaken immediately and that there was insufficient time to obtain [parental] informed consent.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 2397). The parent or guardian usually has a right to inspect the minor’s records. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a); Civ. Code § 56.10. But see exception at endnote (EXC.)).

SKELETAL X-RAY TO DIAGNOSE CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT*

• The provider does not need the minor’s or parent’s consent to perform a procedure under this section.“A physician and surgeon or dentist or their agents . . . may take skeletal X-rays of the child without the consent of the child’s parent or guardian, but only for purposes of diagnosing the case as one of possible child abuse or neglect and determining the extent of.” (Penal Code § 11171.2).Neither the physician-patient privilege nor the psychotherapist patient privilege applies to information reported pursuant to this law in any court proceeding.

Edit

已满12岁的未成年可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

传染病（诊断，治疗）“未满12岁且可能已与传染性疾病接触过的未成年人，如果该疾病是法律要求报告的。可以同意接受治疗诊断。”（家庭法§ 6926）不经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权后向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康和安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

性传播疾病（预防护理，诊断，治疗）可能接触过性传播疾病的已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受与该疾病的诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理。 已满12岁的未成年人也可以同意与预防性传播疾病有关的医疗服务（家庭法§ 6926）

Edit

MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT     LAW/DETAILSMAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

INFECTIOUS, CONTAGIOUS COMMUNICABLE DISEASES

(DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT)

“A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease… is one that is required by law…to be reported….” (Fam. Code § 6926).

The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES (PREVENTIVE CARE, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT)A minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with a sexually transmitted disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease. A minor who is 12 years of age or older may also consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease. (Fam. Code § 6926).     

Edit

已满12岁的未成年可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

艾滋病（预防措施，测试，诊断和治疗）已满12岁的未成年人有能力对艾滋病检测提供书面同意。 （加州健康与安全法 §121020）。已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受预防，诊断和治疗HIV / AIDS有关的医疗服务。 （民法§6926）。当前可用的服务包括暴露前和暴露后的预防药物，以预防HIV感染（PrEP和PEP）。未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

已满12岁未成年被强奸的相关救治服务“声称被强奸的已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受与病情诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理，并就被指控的强奸行为收集医学证据。（家庭法§ 6927）未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

根据加州法律，对未成年人的强奸被视为虐待儿童，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。提供者不能在未经青少年批准的情况下向其家长透露他们已提交此报告。但是，应告知青少年患者，调查该报告的虐待儿童相关机构可能会向其家长披露该举报。。（刑法§§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167）

亲密伴侣暴力*

*仅出于未成年人同意的医疗保健目的 “亲密伴侣暴力”就意味着故意或不顾后果地造成人身伤害，由与该未成年人保持性关系，约会或配偶关系的人所实施的。如果未成年人因强奸或性侵犯而寻求服务，未成年人同意的救治服务应受相关“性侵犯”或“强奸”同意法律约束，而不是本法。（家庭法§6930(b)）

“未满12岁且声称由于亲密伴侣的暴力行为而受伤的未成年人，可以同意接受与伤口的诊断或治疗有关的医疗护理，并同意收集有关亲密伴侣暴力所致医疗证据。”（家庭法§ 6930）多数情况下，未成年人亲密伴侣暴力将被视为符合虐待儿童举报条件，包括医疗健康提供者在内的授权吹哨人必须举报此类行径。（刑法§§ 11165.6, 11166, 11167）

未经未成年人的同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); 民法§§ 56.10, 56.11）

如果不需要举报虐待儿童的情况（例如，伤害是由“未成年人之间的相互骚扰”引起的），则可以按《刑法》第11160条（枪支，攻击性或虐待性行为造成的伤害）的情况报告。

如果根据《刑法》第11160条进行了报告，则健康提供者应执行以下两项操作：

1）告知未成年人将作出报告，并且

2）尝试与未成年人的家长或监护人联系，并将此报告告知他们。医务人员应在未成年人的治疗记录中注明尝试与其家长或监护人联系的日期和时间，以及尝试是否成功。如果医疗人员合理地认为未成年人的其家长或监护人造成了枪伤或可疑伤害，则此通知要求不适用。（家庭法 § 6930(c)).）

注意：当看起来好像可以根据虐待儿童举报法或刑第 11160条举报伤害时，举报人必须将其按虐待儿童举报法规执行，而不是刑法 第11160条。（刑法 第11162.7条）。提供者应与其法律顾问讨论这些报告法律的适用以及交复影响。

Edit

MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT    LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

AIDS/HIV (PREVENTIVECARE, TESTING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT)A minor 12 and older is competent to give written consent for an HIV test. (Cal. Health and Safety Code § 121020). A minor 12 and older may consent to medical care related to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS. (Fam. Code § 6926). Services currently available include pre- and postexposure prophylaxis medication to prevent HIV infection (PrEP and PEP).The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a),

123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

RAPE SERVICES FOR MINORS 12 and OVER“A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who is alleged to have been raped may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the condition and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the alleged rape.” (Fam. Code § 6927).The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

Rape of a minor is considered child abuse under California law and mandated reporters, including health care providers, must report it as such. Providers cannot disclose to parents that they have made this report without the adolescent’s authorization.

However, adolescent patients should be advised that the child abuse authorities investigating the report may disclose to parents that a report was made. (See Pen. Code §§ 11165.1, 11165.6, 11166, 11167.)

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE*

*For the purposes of minor consent health care alone, “‘intimate partner violence’ means an intentional or reckless infliction of bodily harm that is perpetrated by a person with whom the minor has or has had a sexual, dating, or spousal relationship.” If the minor is seeking services as a result of a rape or sexual assault, minor consent services should be provided under the “sexual assault” or “rape” minor consent laws rather than this law. (Fam. Code §6930(b)).

“A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who states he or she is injured as a result of intimate partner violence may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the injury and the collection of medical evidence with regard to the alleged intimate partner violence.” (Fam. Code § 6930).In most cases, intimate partner violence as defined in this statute will meet the definition of child abuse for reporting purposes and mandated reporters must report it as such. (Pen. Code §§ 11165.6, 11166, 11167.).

In those cases, the health care provider is not permitted to disclose information to a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s authorization. The provider can only share that information with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

In cases where a child abuse report is not required (e.g., where the injury was caused by a “mutual affray between minors”), a report under Penal Code 11160 (injuries caused by firearms or assaultive or abusive conduct) may be mandated.

 If a report under Penal Code 11160 is made, the health provider shall do both of the following:

1. inform the minor that the report will be made, and

2. attempt to contact the minor’s parent or guardian and inform them of the report. The health practitioner shall note in the minor’s treatment record the date and time of the attempt to contact the parent or guardian, and whether the attempt was successful or unsuccessful. This notification requirement does not apply if the health practitioner reasonably believes that the minor’s parent or guardian inflicted the gunshot or suspicious injury. (Fam. Code § 6930(c)).

Note: When an injury appears as if it could be reported under either child abuse reporting law or Penal Code 11160, the reporter must report it as child abuse rather than under Penal Code 11160. (Pen. Code § 11162.7.) Providers should discuss the application and intersection of these reporting laws with their legal counsel.

Edit

已满12岁的未成年可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

门诊心理保健服务/庇护服务

4 本节未授权未成年人未经其同意而接受住院精神病治疗，抽搐治疗，精神外科或精神药物。

两项法规赋予未成年人同意接受心理健康治疗的权利。如果未成年人符合任一法规的标准，则未成年人可以同意接受其自己的治疗。如果未成年人同时符合这两个条件，则提供者可以决定适用哪个法规。它们之间有一些区别。有关这些差异的更多信息，请参见尾注**

家庭法§ 6924

“如果满足以下两个条件，则已满12岁的未成年人可以同意接受门诊病人的心理健康治疗或咨询，或同意寄宿庇护服务：

（1）主治医生认为，未成年人心智已经足够成熟，可以明智地参与门诊服务或寄宿庇护服务。和

（2）该未成年人（A）如果没有心理健康治疗，咨询或寄宿庇护服务，将对自己或他人造成严重的身体或精神伤害，或者（B）声称为乱伦或虐待儿童的受害者”

健康与安全法§ 124260

“已满12岁的未成年人可以同意参加[门诊]心理健康治疗或咨询服务，如果在职专业人员认为该未成年人足够成熟，可以明智地参加精神健康治疗或咨询服务。”

心理健康治疗：

医疗保健提供者必须让其家长或监护人参与未成年人的治疗，除非医疗保健提供者认为这种参与是不适当的。此决定以及与其家长的任何联系尝试都必须记录在未成年人的病历中。（家庭法§ 6924; 45 C.F.R. 164.502(g)(3)(ii).)）

对于根据《健康与安全法》第124260条要求提供的服务，提供者在决定是否让其家长参与之前必须征询未成年人。

尽管此例外允许提供者在适当的时候通知其家长并让他们参与治疗，但它没有赋予提供者未经未成年人授权就向其家长披露病历的权利。提供者只能在未成年人签名授权后才能向其家长披露未成年人的病历。

（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1）；民法；§§ 56.10, 56.11, 56.30；福利和机构守则§ 5328。请参阅尾注（exc）)

庇护所：尽管未成年人可能同意服务，但庇护所必须根据未成年人所提供的信息尽最大努力将服务内容通知其家长/监护人。

（家庭法§ 6924）

Edit

MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT    LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES4/ SHELTER SERVICES

4This section does not authorize a minor to receive inpatient psychiatric care, convulsive therapy, psychosurgery or psychotropic drugs on their own consent.

Two statutes give minors the right to consent to mental health treatment. If a minor meets the criteria under either statute, the minor may consent to his or her own treatment. If the minor meets the criteria under both, the provider may decide which statute to apply. There are differences between them. See endnote ** for more on these differences:

Family Code § 6924

“A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis or to residential shelter services, if both of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) The minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services. AND

(2) The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.” (Fam. Code § 6924.)

Health & Safety Code § 124260

“[A] minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to [outpatient] mental health treatment or counseling services if, in the opinion of the attending professional person, the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the mental health treatment or counseling services.” (Health & Saf. Code § 124260.)

MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT:

The health care provider is required to involve a parent or guardian in the minor’s treatment unless the health care provider decides that such involvement is inappropriate. This decision and any attempts to contact parents must be documented in the minor’s record. (Fam. Code § 6924; 45 C.F.R. 164.502(g)(3)(ii).) For services provided under Health and Safety Code § 124260, providers must consult with the minor before deciding whether to involve parents. (Health & Saf. Code § 124260(a).)

While this exception allows providers to inform and involve parents in treatment when appropriate, it does not give providers a right to disclose medical records to parents without the minor’s authorization. The provider can only share the minor’s medical records with parents with a signed authorization from the minor.

(Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11, 56.30; Welf. & Inst. Code § 5328. See also endnote(EXC).)

SHELTER: Although minor may consent to service, the shelter must use its best efforts based on information provided by the minor to notify parent/guardian of the provision of services. (Fam. Code § 6924.)

Edit

已满12岁的未成年可以同意法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

药物或酒精滥用治疗

•本节未授权未成年人在未经其家长或监护人同意的前提下，而接受替代麻醉品治疗。

•在其家长或监护人同意进行治疗的情况下，本节未授予未成年人拒绝就药物或酒精相关问题进行医疗和咨询的权利。 （家庭法 第6929（f）条）。

•家庭法第§6929(a)(2)条定义了“毒品或酒精”和“咨询”一词

已满12岁的未成年人可以同意就有关毒品或酒精相关问题的诊断和治疗进行医疗护理和咨询。（家庭法§6929(b)）联邦和州法律有着不同的保密规则。符合以下“联邦”中列出的条件的提供者必须遵守联邦法规。不符合这些条件的提供者则需要遵守州法律。

联邦：联邦保密法适用于符合以下两个条件的任何个人，项目或机构：

1.个人，项目或机构得到联邦政府的协助。 （联邦协助是指全部或部分由联邦政府的任何部门授权，认证，许可，支持或资助的。譬如：联邦，州或地方计划包括：免税；接受可抵税的捐款；接受任何联邦政府的运作资金，无论是否直接用于防治药物滥用计划；或已在注册）（联邦政府第42号法规§2.12）

以及 2. 个人或项目：

1）认为自身维系，并提供了药物使用障碍的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗的个人或实体（一般医疗机构除外）；或

2）普通医疗机构中已确定的单元，该单元维系并提供药物使用障碍的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗；或

3）普通医疗机构中主要职能是提供物质使用失常的诊断，治疗或转诊治疗的医务人员或其他人员，并被确定为提供者（联邦政府第42号法规§2.11及§2.12）

对于符合这些条件的个人或项目，联邦法律禁止在未得到未成年人书面同意的情况下向其家长披露任何信息。但是，有一个例外，如果项目主管确定该未成年服务申请者 1）由于非常年幼，极端的精神或身体状况而无法做出理性决定是否同意接受某项服务的能力，则允许将相关事实传达给家长。及 2）对未成年人或他人的生命或身体健康构成重大威胁，向其家长披露相关事实可以减轻这种威胁。（联邦政府第42号法规§2.14）

州法规：如上所述，针对家庭法 第6924条提供的“门诊心理健康服务”的相对应保密规则。(家庭法§ 6924) 请参阅尾注（exc）

Edit

MINORS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY CONSENT    LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE TREATMENT

• This section does not authorize a minor to receive replacement narcotic abuse treatment without the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian.

• This section does not grant a minor the right to refuse medical care and counseling for a drug or alcohol related problem when the minor’s parent or guardian consents for that treatment. (Fam. Code § 6929(f)).

• The terms “drug or alcohol” and “counseling” are defined in Fam. Code § 6929(a)(2).

“A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical care and counseling relating to the diagnosis and treatment of a drug or alcohol related problem.” (Fam. Code §6929(b)).There are different confidentiality rules under federal and state law. Providers meeting the criteria listed under ‘federal’ below must follow the federal rule. Providers that don’t meet these criteria follow state law.

FEDERAL: Federal confidentiality law applies to any individual, program, or facility that meets the following two criteria:

1. The individual, program, or facility is federally assisted. (Federally assisted means authorized, certified, licensed, supported or funded in whole or in part by any department of the federal government. Examples include federal, state or local programs that are: tax exempt; receiving tax-deductible donations; receiving any federal operating funds whether used directly for the substance use disorder program or not; or registered with Medicare) (42 C.F.R. §2.12);

AND

2. The individual or program is:

1. An individual or entity (other than a general medical facility) who holds itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment; or

2. An identified unit within a general medical facility that holds itself out as providing, and provides, substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment; or

3. Medical personnel or other staff in a general medical facility whose primary function is the provision of substance use disorder diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment and who are identified as such providers. (42 C.F.R. §2.11; 42 C.F.R. §2.12).

For individuals or programs meeting these criteria, federal law prohibits disclosing any information to parents without a minor’s written consent. There is an exception, however, permitting the communication of relevant facts to the parents if the program director determines that a minor applicant for services 1) lacks capacity because of extreme youth or mental or physical condition to make a rational decision whether to consent to a disclosure to the parents AND 2) there is a substantial threat to the life or physical well-being of the minor applicant or another individual, and the disclosure of relevant facts to the parents may reduce that threat. (42 C.F.R. §2.14).

STATE RULE: Parallels confidentiality rule for “Outpatient Mental Health Services” provided under Family Code 6924, as described above. (Fam. Code §6929(c).) See also exception at endnote (EXC).

Edit

已满15岁的未成年法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

通用医疗保险“如果满足以下所有条件，则未成年人可以同意接受未成年人的医疗或牙科护理：（1）未成年人年龄已满15岁。 （2）未成年人与其家长或监护人分开居住，无论是否经过其家长或监护人的同意，并且与单独居住的时长无关。 （3）无论未成年人的收入来源如何，都在管理自身的收入。”

（家庭法 § 6922(a).）“如果未成年人患者同意，医师和外科医生或牙医可根据未成年人所提供的信息和监护人所在之处，向其家长或监护人告知所给予的或将需要的治疗。”（家庭法§ 6922(c)。请参阅尾注（exc））

Edit

MINORS 15 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER      LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

GENERAL MEDICAL

CARE

“A minor may consent to the minor’s medical care or dental care if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The minor is 15 years of age or older. (2) The minor is living separate and apart from the minor’s parents or guardian, whether with or without the consent of a parent or guardian and regardless of the duration of the separate residence. (3) The minor is managing the minor’s own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the minor’s income.” (Fam. Code § 6922(a).) “A physician and surgeon or dentist may, with or without the consent of the minor patient, advise the minor’s parent or guardian of the treatment given or needed if the physician and surgeon or dentist has reason to know, on the basis of the information given by the minor, the whereabouts of the parent or guardian.” (Fam. Code § 6922(c). See also exception at endnote (EXC)).

Edit

未成年人必须获得自由

(一般为14岁或以上)法规、细则医疗提供者是否 可以/必须 通知其家长该医治或披露相关医疗信息？

 通用医疗独立生活的未成年人独立生活的未成年人可以同意接受医疗牙科或心理治疗。

（家庭法§ 7050(e)。关于“独立生活”的定义解析可以参见 家庭法§ 7002）未经未成年人同意，医疗保健提供者不得通知其家长或法定监护人。提供者只能在未成年人签名的授权下向他们披露未成年人的医疗信息。

（健康与安全法§§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1）；民法；§§ 56.10, 56.11)

Edit

MINOR MUST BE EMANCIPATED (GENERALLY 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER)LAW/DETAILS    MAY/MUST THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER INFORM A PARENT ABOUT THIS CARE OR DISCLOSE RELATED MEDICAL INFORMATION TO THEM?

GENERAL MEDICAL

CARE for

EMANCIPATED YOUTH

An emancipated minor may consent to medical, dental and psychiatric care. (Fam. Code § 7050(e). See Fam. Code § 7002 for emancipation criteria.)

The health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without minor’s consent. The provider can only share the minor’s medical information with them with a signed authorization from the minor. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 123110(a), 123115(a)(1); Civ. Code §§ 56.10, 56.11).

如果标明出处，则可以复制此图表以供个人使用。

*保密和同意法律法规有许多。不同的规则适用于不同的情形。本图表说明了未成年人与其家长或监护人同住时适用的规则。它未解决未成年人在法院司法体系下或处于其他特殊生活状况时所适用的规则。此外，机密性部分重点关注家长和提供者的权限。它没有解释其他人或机构何时有权获取机密信息的问题。此图表仅提供法律信息，而并非法律建议。提供者应与他们自己的法律顾问探讨相关法律建议。

This chart may be reproduced for individual use if accompanied by an acknowledgement.

• There are many confidentiality and consent rules. Different rules apply in different contexts. This chart addresses the rules that apply when minors live with their parents or guardians. It does not address the rules that apply when minors are under court jurisdiction or in other special living situations. Further, the confidentiality section focuses on parent and provider access. It does not address when other people or agencies may have a right to access otherwise confidential information. This chart provides legal information, not advice. Providers are encouraged to speak to their own legal counsel for advice on application of these laws.

**除了资格标准略有不同外，《健康与安全法》第124260条和《家庭法》第6924条也有一些细微差别。例如，两项法律均允许“专业人士”提供未成年人同意服务，但两项法律对“专业人士”的定义有所不同。另外，有一项资金限制适用于健康和安全法规§124260，但不适用于家庭法规§6924。（参阅家庭法§ 6924，健康与安全法§124260和福利和机构守则§14029； 获取更多信息请参阅www.teenhealthlaw.org）

** In addition to having slightly different eligibility criteria, there are other small differences between Health and Safety Code §124260 and Family Code § 6924. For example, the two laws both allow “professional persons” to deliver minor consent services but the two laws define “professional person” differently. Also, there is a funding restriction that applies to Health and Safety Code §124260 but not to Family Code § 6924. (See Fam. Code § 6924, Health & Saf. Code § 124260 and Welf. & Inst. Code §14029.8 and look for more information on www.teenhealthlaw.org.).

EXC: 如果医疗保健提供者确定“对提供者与未成年人患者的专业关系或未成年人的身体安全或心理健康的影响，对[其家长或监护人]要求查询的患者信息，则提供者可以拒绝向未成年人家长提供病历，虽然通常情况下其家长有权获得这些信息。”健康与安全法§123115(a)(2)。对所作出获取未成年人记录有关的任何诚信决定，提供者不承担负责。同上。

EXC: Providers may refuse to provide parents access to a minor’s medical records, where a parent normally has a right to them, if “the health care provider determines that access to the patient records requested by the [parent or guardian] would have a detrimental effect on the provider’s professional relationship with the minor patient or the minor’s physical safety or psychological well-being.” Health & Saf. Code § 123115(a)(2). A provider shall not be liable for any good faith decisions concerning access to a minor’s records. Id.

Reference:

/files/ca-minor-consent-chart-2019.pdf

December 4, 2020 10:08AM

By David J. Bier

点评参议院通过的“高技术移民法案”

2020年12月4日 点评人：David J. Bier

The Senate passed an amended version of the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386/H.R. 1044). The bill has already passed the House of Representatives on a massive 365-65 vote. Since then, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) repeatedly attempted to pass the bill on “unanimous consent” under which any member can object—which led to deals with Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rand Paul (R-KY), David Purdue (R-GA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) that amended the House bill. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) who was the latest member to object lifted his hold last night, allowing final passage.

参议院日前通过了修订版的高技术移民法案(S.386/H.R.1044)。 该法案之前在众议院以365赞成比65反对大比重投票通过。此后，在与Chuck Grassley（爱荷华州共和党）、Rand Paul（肯塔基州共和党）、David Purdue（佐治亚州共和党）和Dick Durbin（伊利诺伊州民主党）等参与其修订的参议员协议之后， Mike Lee （犹他州共和党) 参议员屡次试图以“一致同意”（只要有一人反对，决议即告失败）通过了此法案。而最后一个反对此法案的Rick Scott（佛罗里达州共和党）参议员，也在昨晚表示同意通过。

The Senate version is now substantially different from the House version with deleterious provisions to which the House Judiciary Committee has already voiced opposition, but it has also committed to finding common ground to resolve. 

至此，该法案的参议院版与众议院版在影响深远的若干规定上有本质不同：众议院司法委员会已经表示反对，但表示仍有“求同存异”的探讨空间。

What’s in the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act, December 2020 version?

2020年12月通过的 高技术移民法案 有哪些主要内容？

Green card reforms:

绿卡改革

• Phases out employment-based per country limits on green cards: The main purpose of the legislation is to treat all employment-based immigrant visa applicants on a first-come, first-served basis without regard to birthplace. Under current law, immigrants from no single birthplace can receive more than 7% of the total number of immigrant visas or green cards issued in a year unless they would otherwise go unused. The effect of this provision is that while Indians are half the skilled employer-sponsored applicants, they receive just 10 percent of those green cards and—as a result—are nearly 90 percent of the backlogged applicants.

逐步淘汰对每个申请人出生地国家职业绿卡的限制：该立法的主要目的是按照先到先得的原则对待所有职业技术移民签证申请人，而不考虑其出生地。根据现行法律，单一出生地的移民一年内所获得的移民签证或绿卡的总数不得超过总数的7％，即便其他区域的额度并未用尽。这项规定导致，尽管印度人占据雇主资助的职业技术申请人数量的一半，但他们只获得发放绿卡的10％，结果他们占积压申请人中的将近90％。

• Comments: The House bill is the same. Basically, this provision is the only reason the bill has made it as far as it has. The discrimination against Indian skilled immigrants mean, as I’ve estimated before, that new Indian green card applicants will almost certainly never receive green cards in their lifetime. More than 200,000 of the 700,000 Indians in line will likely die before they receive their green cards. The fact that other immigrants almost immediately receive their green cards makes the system massively unfair and is already causing skilled workers to leave the country. Indians and Chinese—the only two significantly backlogged applicants—also receive wage offers significantly higher than those for the average applicant from other countries.- *评论：*众议院版法案基本相同。基本上，这项新规定是该法案制定且能通过的唯一原因。正如我之前估计的那样，对印度职业技术移民的歧视意味着，新的印度绿卡申请人几乎肯定无法在活着的时候收到绿卡。在排队的700,000印度人中，有超过200,000可能会在收到绿卡之前便已离世。而其他出生地移民几乎立即获得绿卡的事实致使该系统的严重不公平，并已导致职业技术雇员离开美国。并且，印度人和中国人（仅有的两个严重积压的申请人出生地）的工资要比其他国家的平均申请者要高出很多。

• Provides for an 11-year phase out period: The bill’s green card changes will only take effect on October 1, 2022. For the EB-2 and EB-3 categories for non-executive level employees of U.S. businesses, the bill guarantees immigrants which are not from the top two origin countries (India and China) a certain percentage of the green cards for 9 years: year 1 (30%), year 2 (25%), year 3 (20%), year 4 (15%), years 5 and 6 (10%), and years 7 through 9 (5%). No more than 25 percent of these “reserved” green cards can go to immigrants from any single country. No more than 85 percent of the other “unreserved” green cards can go to a single country (India). In addition, a minimum of 5.75% of all EB-2 or EB-3 green cards will go to immigrants from these non-top 2 countries for 9 years prioritizing spouses and minor children of immigrants already in the United States and immigrants awaiting visas abroad. It’s unclear if the 5.75% counts toward the prior reservation or must be in addition to it. This ambiguity means it is not possible to say with certainty how long it will take for the current backlog to be processed under the bill.

提供11年的过渡期：法案的绿卡改革将于2022年10月1日生效。对于美国企业非高管员工的EB-2和EB-3类别，该法案保证除来自前两个出生地（即印度和中国）的移民，获得绿卡连续9年占一定比例：第一年（30％），第二年（25％），第三年（20％），第四年（ 15％），第5和6年（10％）以及第7至9年（5％）。这些“保留的”绿卡中，最多只能有25％归属任何同一个国家的移民。其他“未保留的”绿卡中，最多只能有85％归属一个国家（即印度）。此外，至少5.75％的EB-2或EB-3绿卡将分发给非印度及中国的移民，为期9年，且优先考虑人已在美国的移民和等待海外签证的移民配偶及其未成年子女。目前尚不清楚5.75％是计入预先保留，或是额外的保留。规定此模棱两可意味着，尚无法明确规划在该法案下处理当前积压需要多长时间。

• Comments: The House bill would have taken effect immediately and only contained a 3-year phaseout with set asides for non-Indian or Chinese applicants of 15% in the first year and 10% in the next two years. Eleven years is an incredibly long time to continue a system based on birthplace discrimination. It will probably take about 13 years to process all existing Indian applicants under this system, while new applicants continue to take priority. If only applicants who are not currently in the United States received priority, that would be a rational basis for discrimination since those already in the United States are already benefiting more from the U.S. immigration system than those abroad. But these provisions continue the discrimination that the bill is designed to eliminate for a decade (albeit to a lesser degree).- *评论：*众议院版法案则是立即生效，且仅包含3年的过渡期，对非印度或中国的申请人占用名额在第一年为15％，在之后两年则为10％。十一年对于持续基于出生地歧视的体系来说是一个非常长的时间。在这个体系下，所有现存的印度申请人大概需要约13年的时间来处理，而新申请人仍将继续处于优先地位。如果只有目前不在美国的申请人获得优先权，这将是歧视的理性基础，因为人已在美国的申请人比在国外的已经从美国移民制度中受益更多。但是该法案的相关规定导致其本旨在消除的这类歧视又将延续十年（尽管程度较小）。

• Guarantee for nurses and physical therapists: The bill carves out 4,400 EB-3 green cards (11% of the category) for nurses and physical therapists—defined as “shortage occupations”—for 7 years. The spouses and minor children would not count against this limit but would still receive green cards at the same time.

对护士和理疗师职业移民的保障：该法案为护士和理疗师（定义为“短缺职业”）职业单独划分了4,400张 EB-3类绿卡（占类别的11％），为期7年。且配偶和未成年子女将不计入这一限额，仍将同时获得绿卡。

• Comments: The House bill has no similar provision. This essentially creates a temporary new category for legal immigrants who DOL deems to be in short supply. I have no problem with this. It is as arbitrary as the rest of the employment-based categorization scheme and does not involve birthplace discrimination.- 评论：众议院版法案没有类似规定。这实际上为劳工部DOL定义的短缺职业合法移民开创了一个临时的新类别。笔者对此没有意见。它与其他基于职业的分类方案一样主观，不涉及出生地歧视。

• Caps H-1B visa holders and H-4 visa holders (or those who held H-4 status in the last 2 years) to no more than 70% of all employment-based green cards during the first 9 years after implementation and 50% for all subsequent years.

在实施后的第一个9年内，对H-1B和H-4签证持有人（或最近2年内持有H-4身份的人）的上限不超过所有职业绿卡的70％，此后年份的50％。

• Comments: This is a way of continuing discrimination against Indians indirectly because Indians are 70 percent of H-1B visa holders. Moreover, nearly all of the backlogged immigrants in the green card queue from India are working on the H-1B visa. This provision undermines the purpose of the bill and makes little sense as an anti-H-1B measure because it forces H-1B holders to remain on the temporary status longer than they would otherwise. We don’t know the exact breakdown of the status of those in the green card backlog from India, but it’s likely at least 90 percent H-1B visa holders, so this will delay the receipt of green cards to backlogged Indians. If not for the backlog, the effect would not be very great. About 70 percent of EB-2 and EB-3 green card applicants in 2019 were on the H-1B visa based on Department of Labor’s labor certification data. It is likely less than this in the EB-1 category (multinational executives, those with extraordinary ability, etc.) who have other temporary visa options available or come from abroad, and there probably are very few in the EB-4 special immigrant and EB-5 investor categories, so assuming only 50 percent of EB-1 is on H-1B visas, the number of new H-1B green card applicants is probably only slightly higher than 50 percent. That said, it would hamstring any increase in that program.- 评论：这仍是一种持续地间接歧视印度人的方式，因为H-1B签证持有者中印度人占70％。甚至，印度绿卡排队中几乎所有积压的移民都在持H-1B签证工作。该条款规定破坏了法案的目的，并且作为反H-1B措施没有任何意义，因为它迫使H-1B持有人在临时身份上的停留时间比原本更长。印度籍绿卡积压者的确切身份分类不得而知，但H-1B签证持有者可能至少占90％，因此这将继续延迟积压的印度人收到绿卡。如果不是为了解决积压，该法案的效果将大打折扣。根据美国劳工部的劳工证书数据，2019年约70％的EB-2和EB-3绿卡申请人持有H-1B签证。而在具有其他临时签证选择或来自国外的EB-1类别（跨国企业高管，z杰出技术人才等）中，这一比例可能要低于此水平；且在EB-4特殊移民和EB-5投资移民类别中H-1B就更少了。因此，假设EB-1签证中只有50％是H-1B签证，那么新的H-1B绿卡申请人数可能仅略高于50％。也就是说，这将阻碍该程序的任何进程。

• Raises the family-sponsored per country limit on green cards to 15 percent: Family-sponsored preference categories also currently have a 7% limit on green cards for immigrants from individual birthplaces. The bill more than doubles that limit to 15% increasing in absolute terms from about 15,820 to 33,900. This will primarily benefit long-backlogged immigrants from Mexico and the Philippines, but also India and China.

把按国别的家庭移民绿卡限制提高到15*％***：目前家庭移民类别绿卡按申请人出生地的限制为7％。法案增加了两倍多，从绝对值15,820增至33,900，限制为15％。这将主要使墨西哥和菲律宾以及印度和中国的长期积压移民受益。

• Comments: The House bill is the same. This provision does not go as far as the employment-based provision in ending discrimination based on birthplace in the family-sponsored system, but it is a significant benefit to long-backlogged, family-sponsored immigrants who are mostly waiting for immigrant visas abroad.- 评论：众议院版法案相同。这项规定与职业移民的规定相比，在消除基于出生地的歧视方面并没有更大变化，但对于长期积压的家庭移民（主要是在国外等待移民签证的移民）而言，则是一个重大利好。

• Bars adjustment of status to all Chinese “affiliated” with the Chinese Communist Party: The new language (presumably proposed by Sen. Scott) requires DHS to “not adjust status of any alien affiliated with the military forces of the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party” (CCP). This is similar to the existing ground of inadmissibility in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(D) for members or those “affiliated with” any communist party anywhere. However, the existing ground of inadmissibility has exceptions for involuntary membership, past membership, or close family members. However, the current ground applies to both adjustment of status in the United States as well as consular processing abroad. Effectively, this provision requires all Chinese immigrants to apply for immigrant visas at consulates abroad.

禁止调整与中国共产党有“联系”的所有中国人的身份：新的措辞（可能由Scott参议员提出）要求国土安全部“不得调整与中国军队或中国共产党（CCP）有联系的任何外国人的身份。这与8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(D) 中现有的不可接纳理由条款相似：适用于共产党员或与任何地方的共产党“有联系”的人员。但是，现有的不可接纳理由条款设置了例外情况：非自愿入党人员，过往成员或成员亲属。但是，当前的理由既适用于美国的身份调整，也适用于国外的领事处理。实际上，该规定要求所有中国移民在国外领事馆申请移民签证。

• Comments: This is just more de facto national origin discrimination. Most Chinese have no ideological connection to the CCP even if they join it. The main reason to have joined the party is that it facilitates promotions, especially within government or state-owned enterprises but overall. Lotus Yuen of The Atlantic has called membership the “ultimate resumé booster” in China. It can also allow Chinese to avoid direct state persecution. While the government obviously has an interest in stopping actual espionage, this ban is overbroad. The United States should want communists to experience the superiority of the U.S. system and encourage defectors from communist China. The United States has benefited greatly from Chinese immigrant innovators in science, technology, and medicine, and this ban would push inventors back toward the communist regime. That said, because it only applies to adjustment in the United States, the practical effect amounts to an expensive inconvenience rather than an outright ban.- 评论：这实际上只是国籍歧视。即使加入中国共产党，大多数中国人与中共也没有思想联系。加入该党的主要原因是，其他领域也罢，但特别是在政府或国有企业内部，它提供了晋升通道。Lotus Yuen曾在大西洋月刊发表：将党员资格称为中国的“简历终极助推器”。它还可以使中国人避免直接受到官方起诉。尽管美国政府显然有兴趣制止实际的间谍活动，但这项禁令过于宽泛。美国应该希望共产党人体验美国制度的优越性，从而鼓励脱离共产主义中国。美国从科学，技术和医学等领域中国籍移民创新者那里获取巨大利益，而这项禁令将使这些创新者重返共产主义政权。即便如此，因为它仅适用于美国国内的身份调整，实际的效果不是彻底的禁止，而是更加耗费的不便。

Adjustment of status from temporary visa to green card

从临时签证到绿卡的身份调整

• **“Early filing” (H-1B lite status): Allows backlogged temporary workers to receive a separate, limited, 3-year, renewable employment authorization (apart from their underlying status) 2 years after their employer petition was approved by filing an adjustment of status to legal permanent residence application (i.e. green card application) prior to a green card number being available under the caps. You can credit Sen. Durbin with this provision. **Currently, anyone whose adjustment of status application is pending for at least 180 days can receive an employment authorization document (EAD). This EAD allows them to work for any employer that they want while remaining in line based on the original employers’ petition. The original employer’s petition remains valid so long as they work in “the same or a similar occupational classification.” However, you currently cannot apply for legal permanent residence prior to a green card or immigrant visa number being available. The bill states that these new “early filers” could also receive this same authorization. However, the bill adds new requirements for this authorization. The job would have to have wages “commensurate with” those for the employer’s similarly situated U.S. workers in the area.

**“提早申请”（简易H-1B身份）：允许积压的临时雇员在雇主申请被批准后2年获得单独的，有限的，为期3年的可再续签的就业许可（在他们的基础身份之外）。在限额之内提供绿卡编号之前，先将身份调整为合法的永久居留申请（即绿卡申请）。**此条款可归功于Durbin参议员。当前，身份调整申请待决时长超过180天的任何人都可以收到就业许可证（EAD）。EAD允许他们为想要的任何雇主工作，同时仍与原始雇主的申请书保持一致。原始雇主的申请书只要在“相同或相似的职业分类”中工作，便保持有效。但是，申请人目前无法在获得绿卡或移民签证号码之前申请合法永久居留权。该法案指出，这些新的“早期申报者”也可以获得同样的授权。但是，该法案为此授权增添了新的要求。该工作的工资必须与该地区雇主给类似的美国员工工资“相匹配”。

If the employer had fewer than 2 such employees, it would have to attest that they were similar to the wages for similar U.S. workers in the area. The worker would have to file a Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability with a request for employment authorization. The employment authorization would last for three year increments with renewals, which is better than the adjustment of status EAD available now (which is only a 1 or 2 years). The worker would also have to provide a signed letter from their employer with the required attestations. A Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability would need to be filed (again if necessary) within 12 months of the green card application being adjudicated. If the Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability was deemed not to meet the requirements, the green card application would be denied. The minor children and certain spouses of temporary workers would also not benefit from this provision. The cost would be $2,000 for each Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability, in addition to the cost of the adjustment of status green card application. Half the fees would go to immigration adjudications and half into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.

如果雇主的此类雇员少于2名，则必须证明他们与该地区类似美国员工的工资相符。员工必须提交一份“实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请”。雇佣许可的续签期限为三年，这比现行的EAD（仅1年或2年）身份调整要好。员工还必须提供其雇主的签名信，并附有必要的证明。在裁定绿卡申请后的12个月内（必要时再次）需要提交一份实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请。如果认为“实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请”不符合要求，绿卡申请将被拒绝。未成年子女和某些临时雇员的配偶也不会从这项规定中受益。除了调整身份绿卡申请的费用外，每次实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请的费用为2,000美元。一半的费用将用于移民裁决，另一半将收归美国财政部的普通基金。

• Comments: The senators have made this provision about as watered down as they can get it, but it is still the most important unequivocally positive change from the language that the senators have added. It would make it easier for H-1B workers to change jobs. Currently, H-1Bs stuck in the backlog have to renew every single year, which is costly and problematic if the government decides to readjudicate the underlying H-1B petition. It would also allow other temporary workers, such as those on Optional Practical Training, to extend their status when they otherwise would not be able to, potentially enabling them to avoid having to obtain an H-1B at all.- 评论：参议员们已尽其所能地将这项规定“打折扣”，但与参议员所添加的语言相比，这毫无疑问仍然是最重要的积极变化。 这将使得H-1B员工更容易更换工作。目前，积压在案的H-1B必须每年更新一次，如果政府决定重新审理正在进行的H-1B申请，这些都是成本昂贵且会造成潜问题。新规还将允许其他临时员工（例如OPT员工）在原本无法获得的条件下延长其身份，从而有可能完全避免启动H-1B流程。

• **Prevents “aging out” of children of temporary workers in the backlog who have filed an adjustment of status application under the early filing provision. **Currently, a dependent child of an H-1B worker loses their status on their 21st birthday. They also lose their eligibility for a green card at the same time. The bill would provide them both a status past their 21st birthday.

防止根据提早备案规定提出身份调整申请的积压临时员工的子女由于“超龄”而失去资格。目前，一名H-1B员工的受抚养子女在21岁生日时便失去了身份。他们也同时失去了获得绿卡的资格。而该法案将为在他们超过21岁仍然提供身份。

• Comments: This is an unambiguously positive provision.- 评论：毋庸置疑这是条积极的规定。

H-1B high skilled temporary worker reforms (none in House bill)

H-1B 高技术临时员工改革（众议院版法案没有体现）

• ***Requires the posting of H-1B jobs for new H-1Bs on government website for 30 days. ***If the Department of Labor (DOL) cannot get the website up and running within 180 days, the bill allows just a 30-day extension. If the website still cannot work, the H-1B program could not permit additional H-1B applications.

要求将新H-1B申请的H-1B职位在政府网站上发布30天。如果劳工部无法在180天内启动此网站，则该法案只允许30天的延长期。如果该网站届时仍然无法正常运行，则H-1B程序将不允许接收新的H-1B申请。

• Comments: This seems like it is risking a lot for DOL to create a working website in less than a year. Forcing employers to advertise positions that may or may not actually be available makes little sense.- 评论：对于DOL而言，在不到一年的时间内创建可正常运行的网站似乎将具很大风险。强迫雇主宣传可能对实际提供的职位并没什么意义。

• Bans advertising only to H-1Bs.**

禁止仅仅只向H-1B身份员工投放广告。**

• Comments: This provision is not unreasonable.- 评论：这条款并非无凭无据。

• Bans recruiting primarily H-1Bs.

禁止主要雇佣H-1B*。***

• Comments: Unlike the prior ban on advertising, this provision undermines a major purpose of the H-1B visa, which is to allow employers to hire workers for specialty positions. This tells businesses that they cannot simply recruit and hire a specific foreign worker or workers who they believe will fill whatever niche they need. Moreover, the “primarily” implies that companies would have to spend at least 50 percent of their time recruiting U.S. workers, even if they had already decided that a specific noncitizen was the person that they wanted. It treats the H-1B program like the lesser-skilled H-2 programs where the main purpose of the hire is labor, not skills. Moreover, it would greatly harm businesses that already employ the worker under a different visa category (L-1, F-1, J-1, etc.).- 评论：与先前的广告禁令不同，该条款破坏了H-1B签证的主要目的之一，原目的是允许雇主雇用员工担任特殊职位。这告诉企业，他们不能简单地招聘和雇用特定的一个或多个外国员工，以填补他们认为的任何特定需求职位。而且，“主要”意味着即使公司已经确定特定的非公民是他们想要的人选，公司也将不得不花费至少50％的时间来招聘美国公民。它像低技能的H-2计划一样对待H-1B计划，在该计划中，雇用的主要目的是获得劳动力，而不是特殊技能。此外，这将极大损害已经雇用不同签证类别（如L-1，F-1，J-1等）员工的企业。

Employers could probably evade this requirement by making the job descriptions so demanding that only an existing employee could fill the position, as they commonly do under the permanent labor certification process. But why do the authors think it helps U.S. workers to create a bunch of sham job advertisements? The Justice Department’s recent Facebook lawsuit highlights the perils of handing such vague language to any administration. This concern is compounded because the bill also allows DOL to troll through companies’ files whenever it wants without any underlying complaint from an employee or U.S. worker. 

雇主有很大可能通过做出职务说明来规避这一要求，就像通常在永久劳工证明程序下所做的那样，要求仅现有雇员才能担任该职位。但是为什么立法者认为制造大量假工作广告有利于美国员工呢？司法部最近在Facebook提起的诉讼中强调了这种含糊的语言给行政部门工作带来的危害。这种担忧使情况更加复杂，因为该法案还允许DOL在没有任何雇员或美国员工的实质投诉前提下，仅在其认为需要时随意查阅公司文件。

• Requires providing every W-2 for every H-1B worker employed by the company over whatever period DOL wants.

要求在DOL认为需要时，公司向其提交任何时段的每个H-1B雇员的每个W-2工资证明。

• Comments: This provision would impose a significant administrative burden for no upside. The H-1B process is already too time-consuming and expensive.- 评论：此规定将带来巨大的行政负担而没有任何好处。 H-1B流程已经非常耗时耗力。

• Bans hiring new H-1Bs if an employer has more than 50% of its workforce on H-1Bs or L-1s (for skilled intracompany transfers from abroad).

禁止已有持H-1B或L-1签证（同公司跨境技术员工）雇员超过50%的雇主雇佣新的H-1B员工。

• Comments:As far as I can tell, only two large companies come close to fitting this profile: Cognizant (49.999%) and Tech Mahindra (50.3%), though a few others may be close if H-1B visas were more readily available. The provision sets a dangerous precedent that H-1B-heavy companies should be legally discouraged. But it’s unclear what the purpose of this restriction is, except to target certain companies that specialize in certain tech services to the benefit of others who are more widely diversified. Even if the requirement was only 25 percent, it would only force Cognizant and other specialized companies to sell or merge with a larger company with more employees, not change any business practices or cease hiring H-1B workers.- 评论：据我所知，只有两家大公司目前接近此条款限额：Cognizant（49.999％）和Tech Mahindra（50.3％），但如果更容易获得H-1B签证，还有其他几家公司可能也接近。该规定开创了危险的先例，即在法律上不鼓励公司雇佣H-1B员工。但是，目前尚不清楚此限制的目的是什么，除了针对某些专门从事特定科技服务的公司，而使其他多元化程度更高的公司受益。即使该要求限额降至25％，也只会迫使Cognizant和其他专业公司自行出售或与拥有更多员工的大公司合并，而不会改变任何商业惯例或停止雇用H-1B员工。

• Requires DOL to charge a fee for H-1B labor condition applications (LCAs) to cover the cost of processing.

要求DOL开始对H-1B雇工征收LCA申请费以承担处理成本。

• Comments: The bill also says that the fee could be used for “administration, oversight, investigation, and enforcement.” If the purpose of the fee is to cover the cost of the application, that’s reasonable. If the purpose is to force compliant employers to cover the costs of DOL actions against noncompliant employers, that’s unfair. This authority should be at least clarified.- 评论：该法案还指出，该费用可用于“行政，监督，调查和执行等”。如果收费的目的是支付申请费用，那是合理的。如果目的是强迫合规雇主承担针对不合规雇主的DOL诉讼费用，那是不公平的。此授权至少应该对此做出澄清。

• Bans B-1 temporary business visas for anyone who would “normally” be classifiable as an H-1B:

禁止批准任何“通常”会被归类为H-1B签证的B-1临时商务签证申请：

• Comments: This provision is unambiguously negative. Foreigners visiting the United States “temporarily for business” can receive a B-1 visa if they .The State Department has stated since the 1960s that in cases where a person who could qualify as an H-1B is only coming for a short period, they are “more appropriately” classified as a B-1 so long as they are paid from sources abroad. In a proposed rule, the comment period of which ends in December 21, the State Department is proposing its own reversal of this policy. Presumably this legislative provision is also intended to stop this practice, though the word “normally” adds some ambiguity. The “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” option is important because there is no other option specifically for skilled professionals on short-term assignments, especially those that come up suddenly and need to be completed quickly. - 评论：这项规定无疑是负面的。如果外国人赴美“暂时处理商务”，他们将获得B-1签证。国务院表示，自1960年代以来，有资格作为H-1B资格的人仅短期逗留，只要他们从国外获得薪酬，就被“更恰当地”归类为B-1签证。在一项拟议的法规中，其意见征询期将于12月21日结束，国务院正在提议自己撤销这一政策。尽管“通常”一词增加了一些灰色地带，但该立法条文大概也旨在阻止这种做法。 “用B-1代替H-1B”这一选项很重要，因为没有其他选项专门适用于短期任务的专业人员，尤其对于那些突然发生且需要快速完成的任务。

U.S. businesses contracting with foreign companies, foreign multinationals investing in the United States, or foreign companies without a physical presence in the United States use this option, but it’s unclear how widespread it is because the State Department doesn’t separately record B-1s-in-lieu-of-H-1Bs from the total 38,000 B-1s. In 2010, however, the State Department stated that the consulates in India (the largest source of H-1Bs) made “fewer than 1,000” such grants against nearly 60 times as many H-1Bs. Nonetheless, this rule directly restricts legal trade, travel, and employment to no benefit to the United States.

与外国公司签约的美国企业，在美国投资的外籍跨国公司或在美国没有实体的外国公司都适用此选项，但目前尚不清楚它的广泛性，因为国务院没有单独记录总共38,000 B-1签证中的“B-1替代H-1B“。然而，早在2010年，国务院曾表示，印度领事馆（H-1B的最大来源）提供了“不到1000个”此类批准，而H-1B签证的数量则是其近60倍。但是，该规则直接限制了合法贸易，旅行和就业，对美国没有任何好处。

• Requires employers that retaliate against people who “reasonably believe” are disclosing evidence of an H-1B violation to pay backpay.

要求雇主禁止对“有理由相信”的人进行报复，如有人提供披露违反H-1B规定的证据，其欠薪必须得到支付。

• Comments: This is an extension of current law prohibiting employers from retaliation by explicitly requiring them to pay backpay.- 评论：这是对现行法规的扩展，它通过明确要求雇主支付欠薪以禁止其进行打击报复。

• Requires DOL to review H-1B LCAs for “fraud or misrepresentation” rather than only for “completeness and obvious inaccuracies”.

要求DOL审查H-1B LCA的“欺诈或失实陈述”，而不仅仅是“完整性和明显的不准确性”。

• Comments: This undermines the type of expedited review that LCAs receive. As soon as adjudicators must undertake a more substantive review than completeness and obvious inaccuracies (such as, an internal inconsistency), the review will add significantly more time and expense to an already expensive and time-consuming process.- 评论：这破坏了接收LCA后快速审查的类型。一旦审查者必须进行比“完整性和明显不准确性”（例如内部意见不一致）更为实质性的审查，那么该审查就会在时间和费用上本来就很昂贵且耗时的流程基础上，再大大增加成本。

• Requires employers pay at least the actual wages paid to similar U.S. workers in the local area. .

要求雇主至少支付类似当地美国员工的实际工资。

• Comments: This provision extends a current provision of the law to state the “actual wages” must be based only on wages of workers in the area of intended employment. There is also a slight tightening in how it defines similar U.S. workers from “similar experience and qualifications” to “substantially the same duties and responsibilities.” In some cases, using only U.S. workers in one area might raise the wage in some cases, while it might lower the wage in other cases. Again, narrowing the workers to those with “substantially similar duties and responsibilities” would have the same ambiguous effect.- 评论：此条款扩展了的现行法规，即规定“实际工资”必须仅基于预期就业地区员工的工资。从“相似的经验和资历”到“基本相同的职责和责任”，它对相似的美国员工的定义也略有收紧。某些情况下，在一个地区仅使用美国员工可能会提高工资，而在其他情况下则可能会降低工资。同样，将员工范围缩小到“职责和责任基本相似”的员工，将导致相同的模棱两可效果。

• Vastly expands DOL audit and investigation authority:

• Allows DOL to conduct compliance surveys or annual audits of any H-1B employer.

• Requires audits of anyone with 100 H-1B workers if more than 15% of their employees.

• Allows investigations based on anonymous sources not in the form of a complaint from workers or other harmed parties.

• Allows DOL to audit or investigate based on information in an LCA.

• Eliminates the requirement that the DOL secretary personally certify that reasonable cause exists for an H-1B investigation.

• Removes the 60-day time limit on investigations.

大大扩展DOL的审核和调查权限：

• 允许DOL对任何H-1B雇主进行合规性调查或年度审核。

• 要求对所有雇佣超过100名H-1B员工（如果占其雇员超过15％）的雇主进行审核。

• 允许基于匿名来源进行调查，而不因员工或其他受害方的投诉。

• 允许DOL根据LCA中的信息进行审核或调查。

• 消除了劳工部部长亲自证明对H-1B调查存在合理原因的要求。

• **取消了调查的60天期限要求。**Comments: Currently, H-1B audits are based only on complaints or other verified, non anonymous sources that come to the DOL from people DOL knows would have knowledge of an H-1B violation. According to DOL, this latter authority had never been used as of this year, so H-1B audits have exclusively been based on complaints. Congress imposed these restrictions because it wanted to limit the authority of DOL to conduct meritless investigations. These provisions would allow DOL to target employers for audits without any reason to believe a violation has occurred. This is yet another burden in an already burdensome and expensive process.- 评论：目前，DOL 启动H-1B审核仅基于：1.违反H-1B流程的知情人员投诉；或2.其他经过验证的非匿名信息来源。根据DOL官方规定，后一项到今年为止从未被使用过，至此H-1B审核完全基于投诉。国会之所以增加这些约束，是因为它希望限制DOL自行开展无缘故调查的权限。这些规定将使DOL可以将雇主定位为审核对象，而无需任何相信发生了违规情况理由。这是本来已经很麻烦且昂贵的行政过程中的又一个负担。

• Eliminates the protection from penalties for employers that made a good faith effort to follow the rules or that underpaid employees based on use of a prevailing wage methodology based on industry standards.

取消对雇主真诚遵守规则或基于基于行业标准的基本工资方法使用薪水不足的雇主免于罚款的保护。

• Comments: These harmful provisions are replaced with a benignly labeled “information sharing” provision on page 19.- 评论：这些恶法条款已被第19页上贴上良性标签的“信息共享”条款所代替。

• Triples the fines for H-1B LCA violations. Fines increase from $1,000 to $3,000 for non-willful violations, from $5,000 to $15,000 for willful violations, from $35,000 to $100,000 for displacement of U.S. workers.

**对H-1B LCA违规处以三倍罚款。**非故意违反的罚款从1,000美元提高到3,000美元，故意违反的罚款从5,000美元提高到15,000美元，导致美国员工失业的罚款从35,000美元提高到100,000美元。

• Comments: Adjustments for inflation since 1998 would not quite double the fine amounts, so these increases are clearly intended as more than an update to outdated statutory figures.- 评论：自1998年以来的通货膨胀调整不至于导致罚款数额增加一倍，因此，这些加倍显然不仅是对过时法定数字的更新。

The Federal Election Commission (hereafter FEC) often receives questions about the rules governing foreign nationals’ participation in U.S. elections. While this article responds to some of the most common questions, it does not cover all aspects of foreign national activity. Readers should consult the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, advisory opinions, and relevant case law for additional information. For questions involving proposed activity for which there may not be clear guidance, you may consider requesting your own advisory opinion (AO) from the Commission. Please note, however, that the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to provisions of the Act and does not include other laws that may also apply to foreign national activity.

联邦选举委员会（以下简称"FEC"或本委员会）经常收到询问有关外国人参与美国选举的规则问题。尽管本文回答了一些最常见的问题，但并未涵盖涉及外国人活动的所有方面。读者应查阅《联邦选举法案》（法案）和本委员会制定的相关法规，咨询意见以及相关的判例法以获取更多信息。对于涉及拟议活动可能没有明确指导意见的问题，您可以考虑向本委员会提交个人的咨询意见（AO）。但是请注意，本委员会的管辖范围仅限于法案的规定内容，并不包括可能同样适用地其他的外国人活动法律。

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

法案和本委员会法规包括广泛禁止外国人活动参与到美国选举当中。主要由 《美国法典》§30121条，《美国联邦法规》第11 章第110.20条规定。通常，禁止外国人从事以下活动：

• Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;- 向任何联邦，州或地方各层级选举提供的任何金钱或其他有价值物的捐款或捐赠，或任何支出，独立支出或变相支付；- Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);- 向任何联邦，州，地区或地方政党的任何委员会或组织提供任何捐款或捐赠（包括对党派非联邦账户或办公大楼账户的捐赠）；- Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;- 向某个竞选传播通讯支付；- Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.- 向某总统就职委员会捐款。

Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

故意和主动从事上述这些活动的人可能会受到FEC强制措施，刑事起诉或两者兼而有之。

Definition

定义

The following groups and individuals are considered “foreign nationals” and are subject to the prohibition:

以下群体和个人被视为"外国人"，并受到禁止：

• Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
• 外国国籍公民（不包括具有双重国籍的美国公民）；
• Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
• 不具备永久居留权的非合法移民；
• Foreign governments;
• 外国政府；
• Foreign political parties;
• 外国政党；
• Foreign corporations;
• 外国公司；
• Foreign associations;
• 外国协会组织；
• Foreign partnerships; and
• 外国合伙机构；以及
• Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”
• 根据《美国法典》第22卷§611（b）条，所定义的任何其他外国组织，其中包括外国组织或"其他根据外国法律设立或主要营业地点位于国外的人员组合"。

Individuals: The “green card” exception

个人：“绿卡"例外

The Act does not prohibit individuals with permanent resident status (commonly referred to as “green card holders”) from making contributions or donations in connection with federal, state or local elections, as they are not considered foreign nationals.

法案不禁止具有永久居民身份的个人（通常称为"绿卡持有人”）向联邦，州或地方选举提供捐款或捐赠，因为他们不被视为外国人。

Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities

外国人参与和选举决策相关的活动

Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals from directing, dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process of any person (such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization) with regard to any election-related activities. Such activities include, the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with any federal or nonfederal elections in the United States, or decisions concerning the administration of any political committee. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from involvement in the management of a political committee, including any separate segregated fund (SSF), nonconnected committee, or the nonfederal accounts of any of these committees. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69946 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].

本委员会法规禁止外国人参与任何与选举有关的活动指导，指示，控制或直接或间接参与任何人（例如公司，劳工组织，政治委员会或政治组织）的决策过程。此类活动包括与美国任何联邦或非联邦选举有关的捐款，捐赠，支出或支付，或有关任何政治委员会的行政管理的决定。还禁止外国人参与政治委员会的管理，包括任何单独的独立基金（SSF），非关联委员会或这些委员会中任何一个的非联邦帐户。请参见11 CFR 110.20条款的解释和理由，联邦电子查询编号67 FR 69946（2002年11月19日发布）。

The Commission has pursued a number of enforcement actions related to this prohibition. For example, in Matter Under Review (MUR) 3460, the Commission reached a conciliation agreement with a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation and four of its foreign national directors. The directors, along with one director who was not a foreign national, passed a resolution authorizing a “contribution committee” to make political and charitable donations from a special account, and capitalizing the committee with $50,000 in corporate funds. The one director who was not a foreign national was appointed as the sole member of the committee. The contribution committee subsequently made contributions to state and local candidates. The foreign nationals’ involvement in the decision to establish and fund the “contribution committee” meant that its subsequent contributions violated the ban on foreign nationals participating directly or indirectly in the making of contributions and donations in connection with elections. The corporation and the foreign national directors paid a civil penalty.

本委员会已采取了与该禁令有关的许多强制措施。例如，在"正在审查的问题"（MUR）3460号中，本委员会与一家外国公司在美国的子公司及其四名外国人董事达成了调解协议。上述这些董事，其中一位并非外国人，通过了一项决议，授权"捐款委员会"从特别账户中进行政治和慈善捐赠，并以5万美元的公司资金为这个委员会提供资本。这位非外国人的董事被任命为捐款委员会的唯一成员。捐款委员会随后向州和地方候选人捐款。外国人参与建立"捐款委员会"并为其提供资金的决定意味着，其随后的捐款违反了禁止外国人直接或间接参与和选举有关的捐款和捐赠的禁令。这家公司及其外国人董事受到民事罚款。

Volunteer activity

志愿者活动

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

通常情况下，个人（包括外国人）可以在无任何捐款的前提下，自愿向某个联邦候选人或某联邦政治委员会提供个人服务。法案规定了对志愿者的"豁免"，只要执行服务的个人没有受到任何人的经济补偿即可。本委员会已经说明了这种豁免在某些情况下适用于涉及外国人志愿活动的情况，如下所述。

In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption. Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

在AO 2014-20（Make Your Laws PAC）中，本委员会得出结论认为，政治行动委员会可以接受外国人在为PAC开发知识产权（例如商标，图形和网站设计）方面的帮助，因为这些PAC所接受的服务属于志愿者豁免。同样，在AO 2004-26（Weller）中，本委员会认为，外国人可以在联邦候选人竞选的活动出席并发言，为竞选活动募集捐款。但是，委员会警示，外国人不能管理或参与竞选委员会的任何决策过程。另见AOs 2007-22（Hurysz）和1987-25（Otaola）。

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.

在MUR 5987中，委员会审查了一种情况，在该情况下，作为募捐活动的一部分，外国人作为联邦候选人竞选活动的志愿者提供了无偿的音乐演奏。候选人的竞选活动已经支付了举办音乐会的所有费用，包括场地和设备的租赁以及提供安全保障等。表演者只是向竞选活动提供了他的无偿志愿服务，而没有参加竞选活动的任何决策。基于这些事实，委员会发现没有理由相信外国人或联邦候选人委员会违反了法案对外国人的禁令。

Non-election activity by foreign nationals

外国人参与非竞选活动

Despite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels. The Commission has issued advisory opinions that help to define the parameters of that activity.

尽管普遍禁止外国人捐款和捐赠，但外国人可以合法地参与跟联邦，州或地方各级政治机构的选举无关的政治活动。委员会发表了此方面的咨询意见，以助于确定此类活动的界限。

In AO 1989-32 (McCarthy), the Commission concluded that a foreign national could not contribute to a ballot measure committee that had coordinated its efforts with a nonfederal candidate’s re-election campaign. Also, in AO 1984-41 (National Conservative Foundation), the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were permissible because they were not “election influencing” in that they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.

在AO 1989-32（McCarthy）中，委员会得出结论，外国人不可以向与非联邦候选人的连任竞选相关的投票提案委员会捐款。此外，在AO 1984-41（国家保守基金会）中，委员会允许外国人承销非政治性广告的播出，这些广告企图揭露所谓的媒体政治偏见。委员会发现这些广告是被允许的，因为它们没有"影响选举"-它们没有提及候选人，政治机构，政党，现任联邦公职人员或任何过去或将来的选举。

In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process-providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012).

在联邦最高法院后来确认的一项决定中，美国哥伦比亚特区地方联邦法院裁定，外国人禁令"不限制外国人大声疾呼或花钱宣传他们对政治问题的看法。它只限制他们从事与投票程序密切相关的某种形式的表达活动，即为候选人或政党提供资金或为明示地支持或反对候选人的选举提供资金。" Bluman诉FEC，案卷：800F。 2d 281，290（D.D.C. 2011），ff d 132 S. Ct，1087（2012）。

Providing assistance with foreign national election activity

向外国人选举提供帮助

Under Commission regulations, it is unlawful to knowingly provide “substantial assistance” to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. Further, no person may provide substantial assistance in the making of any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement by a foreign national. “Substantial assistance” refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69945-46 (November 19, 2002).

根据委员会规定，明知向美国大选提供捐款或捐赠的外国人做出"实质性协助"是非法的。此外，任何人都不得在外国人进行任何支出，独立支出或支出时提供实质性帮助。 “实质性协助"是指积极参与对外国人的捐赠或捐赠的募集，作出，接受或接收，其目的是促进交易的成功完成。该禁止包括但不限于充当渠道或中介的个人。请参阅67 FR 69945-46（2002年11月19日）的11 CFR 110.20的解释和理由。

Soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions and donations from foreign nationals

招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收外国人捐款和捐赠

The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, “knowingly” means that a person:

法案禁止在明知的情况下招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收外国人的捐款或捐赠。在这种情况下，“明知"是指一个人：

• Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;- 知道实际情况，招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收的资金来自外国人；

• Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national; or- 知道能让任何正常人确定，所招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收的资金可能来自外国人的事实；或- Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.- 知道会导致如何正常人质疑，所招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收资金来源是外国人的事实。

Pertinent facts that should cause the recipient of a contribution or donation to question whether it was given by a foreign national include, but are not limited to the following: a donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address, makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Commission regulations provide for a safe harbor: obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national.

可能使捐款或捐赠的接受者质疑是否是外国人所为的有关事实，包括但不限于以下情况：捐赠者或捐赠者使用外国护照，提供外国地址，从外国银行捐款，或居住在国外。本委员会的法规也规定了"安全港”（译者加注，英美法法律术语，即例外情况）：只要获得有效的美国护照副本，将满足这一责任，即问询所招募，接受或接收的资金是否来自外国人。

In AO 2016-10 (Parker), the Commission determined that a U.S. citizen living abroad could solicit contributions on behalf of federal candidates and committees from other U.S. citizens residing abroad. She was required to ascertain the citizenship of the individuals whom she might solicit if she were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire or believe that those individuals were foreign nationals. However, the Commission advised the requestor, “Limiting your solicitations to friends and family who live in the U.S. and who have not, to your knowledge, lived abroad, would not obligate you to conduct further inquiry about citizenship status due to the residence of the individuals whom you solicit.” If, however, she were to obtain a copy of a valid U.S. passport, she would be covered by the safe harbor provision noted above.

在AO 2016-10（Parker）中，委员会确定居住在国外的美国公民可以代表联邦候选人及其委员会向同样居住在国外的其他美国公民募集捐款。如果她知道有会导致正常人置疑或认为这些人是外国人的事实，那么她就被要求确认可能募集对象的公民身份。但是，委员会建议问询者：“将您的招募仅限于居住在美国的，且据您所知没有居住在国外的亲朋好友；由于招募对象的居住地，您没有义务进一步询问其公民身份。” 但是，如果她拥有有效的美国护照副本，则将受到上述安全港条款的保护。

In MUR 4834, an individual admitted knowingly and willfully soliciting a contribution from a foreign national and causing a foreign contribution to be made falsely in the name of a U.S. citizen. The individual also admitted that at the time of the solicitation, he knew that the person he was soliciting was a foreign national and that contributions from foreign nationals were prohibited. The Commission entered into a conciliation agreement with the individual, and he agreed to pay a civil penalty.

在MUR 4834中，某人故意并有意地招揽外国人，并错误地以美国公民的名义造成了外国捐款。此人还承认，在招揽时，他知道所招揽的人是外国人，且外国人捐款是被禁止的这一规定。因此委员会与此人达成了和解协议，他同意支付民事罚款。

In MUR 4638, the Commission found reason to believe that a law firm had violated the Act by knowingly solicited and provided “substantial assistance” to a foreign national making donations. Individuals at the firm participated in conversations with a known foreign national and his agents that resulted in his making donations to state and local candidates. As a result of the Commission’s finding, the firm entered into a conciliation agreement with the Commission and agreed to pay a civil penalty.

在MUR 4638中，委员会找到了理由，认为一家律师事务所故意招揽外国人并向其提供了"实质性协助”，从而违反了法案。律所的成员参与了和一位知名外国人及其代理人的沟通，从而使他向州和当地候选人捐款。根据委员会的调查结果，该律所与委员会达成了和解协议，并同意支付民事罚款。

Monitoring prohibited contributions

监管违禁捐款

When a federal political committee (a committee active in federal elections) receives a contribution it believes may be from a foreign national, it must:

当某个联邦政治委员会（即参与联邦选举的某委员会）收到其认为可能来自外国人的捐款时，必须：

• Return the contribution to the donor without depositing it; or- 不存入，将捐款交还给捐助者；或者- Deposit the contribution and take steps to determine its legality, as described below.- 存入捐款，并采取措施确定其合法性，下文将详述。

Either action must be taken within 10 days of the treasurer’s receipt.

上述任一选择必须在收到财务收据后的10天内采取行动。

If the committee decides to deposit the contribution, the treasurer must make sure that the funds are not spent because they may have to be refunded. Additionally, he or she must maintain a written record explaining why the contribution may be prohibited. The legality of the contribution must be confirmed within 30 days of the treasurer’s receipt, or the committee must issue a refund.

如果该委员会决定将捐款存入银行，则财务主管必须确保资金不被使用，因为可能必须将其退还。此外，他（她）必须保存相关书面记录，以用于解释此捐款为何被禁止。捐款的合法性必须在收到财务收据的30天内得以确认，否则该委员会必须退款。

Evidence of legality may include a written statement from the contributor explaining why the contribution is legal (e.g., donor has a green card or provides a copy of his or her valid U.S. passport), or an oral explanation that is recorded in memorandum.

合法性的证据可以包括捐赠者的书面陈述，以解释此捐款为何是合法的（例如，捐款者持有绿卡或提供其有效的美国护照副本），或记录在备忘录中的口头解释。

If the committee deposits a contribution that appears to be legal, but later discovers that the deposited contribution is from a foreign national, it must refund the contribution within 30 days of making the discovery. If a committee lacks sufficient funds to make a refund when a prohibited contribution is discovered, it must use the next funds it receives.

如果委员会存入看似合法的捐款，但后来发现存入的捐款来自外国人，则必须在发现后30天内退还这笔捐款。如果委员会在发现违禁捐款时缺乏足够的资金来退款，则必须使用收到的下一笔资金来填补。

In MUR 4530 and several related MURs (MURs 4531, 4587, 4642, 4909, and 5295), the Commission found that several foreign nationals and corporations had made prohibited contributions to a federal candidate committee and to a national party committee. Several committees were assessed civil penalties for failing to issue refunds when they became aware that the funds were illegal.

在MUR 4530和几个相关的MUR（MUR 4531、4587、4642、4909和5295）中，本委员会发现，一些外国人和公司已经向联邦候选人委员会和全国性政党委员会违禁捐款。某些委员会因得知资金不合法而未能退款，最终受到民事处罚。

Domestic subsidiaries and foreign-owned corporations

本土分支机构和外资公司

A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation or a U.S. corporation that is owned by foreign nationals or by a foreign parent corporation may be subject to the prohibition, as discussed further below.

外国人或外国母公司拥有的美国分支机构，或外国母公司的美国子公司可能会受到禁止，如下所述。

PAC contributions for federal activity

向PAC联邦活动捐款

Based on a series of FEC advisory opinions, domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations may establish federal political action committees (known as separate segregated funds or SSFs) for the purpose of make federal contributions and expenditures, so long as:

根据一系列FEC咨询意见，外国公司的美国国内子公司可以建立联邦政治行动委员会（称为分离的独立基金或SSF），以进行联邦捐款和支出，只要满足：

• The foreign parent corporation does not finance the SSF’s establishment, administration, or solicitation costs through the subsidiary; and- Individual foreign nationals:- Do not participate in the operation of the PAC;- Do not serve as officers of the PAC;- Do not participate in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; and- Do not make decisions regarding any PAC contributions or expenditures.

1.外国母公司不涉及资助子公司的SSF设立，管理或招标费用；和

2.外籍个人：

•不参与PAC的运营；

•不担任PAC的管理人员；

•不参与PAC的人员任用选择；和

•不对PAC的任何捐款或支出做出决定。

For example, in AO 2000-17 (Extendicare), the Commission determined that a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation could establish an SSF even though the subsidiary’s board of three directors included only one U.S. citizen because the committee established to oversee all of the SSF’s operations comprised only U.S. citizens or permanent residents. See also AOs 2009-14 (Mercedes Benz USA/Sterling), 1999-28 (Bacardi-Martini), 1995-15 (Allison Engine PAC), and 1990-08 (CIT).

例如，在AO 2000-17（Extendicare）中，本委员会确定外国公司的美国子公司可以建立SSF，即便该子公司的三名董事仅包括一名美国公民，因为此委员会成立后负责监督SSF所有工作的，满足完全由美国公民或永久居民构成。另请参见AOs 2009-14（梅赛德斯奔驰美国/斯特林），1999-28（百加得-马蒂尼），1995-15（艾里逊发动机PAC）和1990-08（CIT）。

Corporate donations and disbursements for nonfederal activity

向非联邦活动的公司捐赠和支出

A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may make donations and disbursements in connection with state or local elections (if permissible under state and local law) provided that:

外国公司的国内子公司（或外国人拥有的国内公司）可以向州或地方选举（如果州和地方的当地法律允许）进行捐赠和支出：

• These activities are not financed in any part by the foreign parent or owner; and- 这些活动的任何部分都不由外国母公司或所有者资助；- Individual foreign nationals are not involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.- 外国个人不以任何方式参与对非联邦候选人和委员会的捐赠。

For example, in AO 2006-15 (TransCanada), the Commission concluded that two wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries of a foreign corporation could make donations and disbursements in connection with state and local elections so long as the funds used were generated by the U.S.-based subsidiary’s operations and not from the foreign parent and that all decisions regarding political donations would be made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Since the domestic subsidiaries maintained bank accounts in the U.S. that were separate from the foreign parent and did not receive subsidies from the foreign parent or from any other foreign national, the Commission concluded that the proposal was permitted under the Act.

例如，在AO 2006-15（TransCanada）中，委员会得出结论，外国公司的两家全资美国子公司可以向州和地方选举进行捐赠和支出，只要所用资金是由美国本土分支机构的业务所赚取，而不是来自外国母公司的业务，且所有有关政治捐赠的决定都由美国公民或永久居民做出。由于国内子公司在美国开设的银行账户是与外国母公司的分开的，并且没有收到外国母公司或任何其他外国人的补贴，因此本委员会得出结论认为，法案允许该计划落实。

Similarly, in AO 1992-16 (Nansay Hawaii, Inc.), the Commission considered a situation in which a foreign parent corporation provided “regular subsidies [to its domestic subsidiary] in the form of loans or [donations] to capital…” The Commission determined that the domestic subsidiary could make state and local donations, provided that all decisions as to political donations were made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents and also that the subsidiary be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that it had sufficient funds in its account (other than funds given or loaned by its foreign national parent) from which the donations were made. The Commission explicitly cautioned that, “[t]he amount that the foreign parent distributes to the subsidiary cannot replenish all or any portion of the subsidiary’s political [donations] during the period since the preceding subsidy payment.”

与此相似，在AO 1992-16（Nansay Hawaii，Inc.）中，委员会审议了一种情况，一家外国母公司以"贷款或[捐赠]形式 [向其美国国内子公司]的"常规补贴"……"。本委员会确定该国内子公司可以进行州和地方捐赠，但前提是所有有关政治捐赠的决定均由美国公民或永久居民做出，并且该子公司能够通过合理的会计方法证明其捐款帐户（由其外国母公司提供或借出的资金除外）拥有足够的资金。委员会明确警示：“自上次补贴付款以来，外国母公司分配给子公司的金额不能用于补充子公司的全部或任何部分政治捐款。”

In contrast, in AO 1989-20 (Kuilima Development Company, Inc.), the Commission declined to approve a U.S. company’s plan to donate to state and local candidates using a funded primarily by donations from its foreign parent corporation. The Commission held that this arrangement was prohibited by the Act and Commission regulations. See also AOs 1989-29 (GEM of Hawaii, Inc.), 1985-03 (Diridon), and 1982-10 (Syntex).

相反，在AO 1989-20（Kuilima Development Company，Inc.）中，委员会拒绝批准一家美国公司使用主要由其外国母公司捐赠的资金向州和当地候选人捐款的计划。委员会认为法案和委员会法规禁止这种安排。请参见AO 1989-29（Hawaii，Inc。），1985-03（Diridon）和1982-10（Syntex）。

In MUR 2892, the Commission entered into conciliation agreements with a number of respondents, including foreign individuals and businesses, who agreed to pay civil penalties for violations of the Act that involved prohibited contributions made to state and local candidates through U.S. corporations owned by foreign corporations or by foreign individuals. In this particular case, the Commission found reason to believe that the donations in question violated the foreign national prohibition because they were allegedly financed directly by the foreign parent/owner or because individual foreign nationals were allegedly involved in making decisions concerning the contributions. (See also MURs 2864 and 3004.)

在MUR 2892中，委员会与包括外国个人和企业在内的许多调查对象达成了和解协议，涉及通过外国公司拥有的美国公司向州和地方候选人提供了禁止性捐款。或由外国个人提供，他们同意因违反法案而受到民事处罚。在这种特殊情况下，本委员会有理由认为，有关捐款违反了外国人禁令，因为这些所谓捐款是直接由外国父母/所有者出资的，或者是所谓的外国人参与了有关捐款的决定。 （另请参见MUR 2864和3004。）

选举季节马上到了，华人参政议政很是热闹，今年加州选举有不少公投 (ballot measure)。不少朋友或者组织有计划或者已经捐款。 不过加州对竞选/公投的捐款管理十分严格，有必要大家一起探讨相关法规的常识性知识。本文抛砖引玉，信息有误不负担任何法律责任。真正的实施，涉及更多的每年都变化的细节，也涉及联邦IRS的规则，一定要询问/雇佣专业人士，包括 compaign lawyer, compaign treasurer, tax advisor等。

1. 捐款人资格和信息

先看最简单的法律要求：政治捐款必须是美国公民或者绿卡持有者。

竞选活动不得征集或接受外国人的捐款。联邦法律禁止外国人因任何选举（联邦，州或地方）而直接或间接征求，指示，接受或作出的捐款，捐赠，支出和支出。

信息来源： https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

对于超过25美元的捐款，需要：

• 姓名，- 街道地址（不接受邮政信箱），- 捐款额，- 收到的日期。

$100或者以上的，除了上面的信息，必须额外提供捐赠者的：

• 职业和雇主信息， 或自雇人士的公司名称。

2. FPPC 对政治捐款资金归类管理总的流程图

加州政府管理竞选活动，包括资金的部门是Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC or 公平政治实践委员会)， 官网是http://www.fppc.ca.gov/ 。 当加州选民通过《政治改革法/ Political Reform》时​​，他们同时创建了FPPC，以管理和执行具有里程碑意义的道德法，并告知和协助公职人员，雇员和候选人遵守其规定。

加利福尼亚的《政治改革法案》（“该法案”）的目的是确保政治付款的披露是准确，及时的，并且是在透明的方式，清晰准确的披露。做出决定的选民知道谁在为政治信息付费，这样他们就可以评估内容并在投票箱中做出明智的决定。

具体而言，该法案赋予FPPC权力以通过，修改和废除规则和法规以实现该法案的目的。除了解释和执行该法案外，FPPC还致力于提供最新信息和有用的协助以鼓励遵守。

从流程图看，给公投的捐钱，花钱的可以是个人，商业，或者各种组织。

涉及的钱有两大类：

• 自己的钱（ own fund）, 这个又有如下细分的情况：- 自己直接花出去，打政治广告，制作标语等等：这叫independent expenditures 独立支出。- 1千-5万之间需要作为Independent Expenditure Committee 申报- 捐给其他人: Contribution- 一万以内，没有特殊加州申报的要求，只填写基本的捐款人信息- 1万-5万之间，需要作为Major Donor Committee申报- 5万 和以上，需要作为Recipient Committee 注册和申报- 募捐别人的钱（ solicitation）：- 任何组织个人为了影响公投要募捐（收集别人的钱），$2000和以上就要在加州作为recipient commitee 注册，申报。

记住下面三个最重要的规则和数据： 包括州或地方政府机构在内的任何人，只要有下列任何行为，即有资格成为委员会（Committee）：

• 接受$ 2,000或更多的捐款，明确针对候选人选举或者公投提案的结果。- 进行$ 1,000或以上的独立支出。- 捐款$ 10,000以上。

3. 独立支出委员会: $1,000

我们看看门槛最低的1000美元的独立支出委员会 （Independent Expenditures Committee）的规则和实例。

第一个要点是理解什么是 Independent Expenditure.

An “independent expenditure” is a payment for a communication that

• expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified California state or local candidate or- the qualification, passage, or defeat of a clearly identified state or local ballot measure, and the communication is not coordinated with or “made at the behest” of the affected candidate or committee.

“独立支出”是对通讯的一种付款，该通讯:

• 明确提倡选举或击败一个明确确定的加利福尼亚州或地方候选人，或者- 提倡某提案是否满足投票的资格，通过或击败一个明确确定的州或地方公投提案，- 而该通信并未与受影响的候选人或公投委员会协调或“应其要求”。

Express Advocacy 明确提倡：

• 用了  “vote for,” “elect,” “cast your ballot,” or “defeat.”等明白的词汇- 通讯总体上明确识别的候选人或 投票提案，督促一个特定的选举结果。

个人独立支出的实例：  五月，桑德拉（Sandra） 花了1,200美元购买了 包含以下内容的直接邮件声明: “不要投票给A提案。” 桑德拉（Sandra）个人作主，她自己支付 邮寄的资金， 超过1000元，符合作为独立支出委员会的申报条件。

公司独立支出的实例： 10月，MBI 开发公司 支付了一系列 自动电话 呼吁南部的选民 说“投票给史密斯做加利福尼亚州长。” 这个公司作为法人， 独立于 候选人自己的委员会做出的决定，付费 $ 12,000 通话费用。这个公司符合按 独立支出委员会的资格进行申报。

几个人筹钱的实例： 几个人捐款筹钱，总和资金超过2,000美元，用于政治活动。他们准备雇顾问在报纸上打广告，让选民在公投C提案上投赞成票。在这个例子中，广告可能是独立支出。 但是因为个人集中资金打广告，小组应该作为Recipient Committee（接收委员会） 注册申报来反对这项提案。

独立支出委员会需要提交的申报表格：

• Form 461 (Major Donor/Independent Expenditure Report). 该表格主要列出- 捐款人（或者组织）的信息，- 已经捐款（或者支出）的明细列表。- Form 462 (Verification of Independent Expenditures), 此验证表- 确保独立支出委员会的一个负责人- 如果有的话，需要填上 FPPC ID- 确保未与所列候选人（或反对者）或公投委员会进行协调，- 并确保该委员会将报告法律要求的所有捐款和报销。独立支出不受州或地方捐款限额的限制。- 表中明确列出支持/反对的候选人，或者公投议案- Form 496 (24-Hour/10-Day Independent Expenditure Report)- 在选举日之前的90天之内，包括选举日当天，每次独立支出达到1000或者更多的时候，24小时之内提交本表格，列出支出明细，- 选举日之前的90天之外，独立支出$5000或者更多的时候，需要电子申报支出明细。

总得来说独立支出委员会申报的要求比报税的难度低很多，基本就是提供委员会信息，支出明细。独立支出委员会每年结束的时候自动终止。不需要特别加州申报结束。

4. 主要捐助者委员会：$10,000-50,000

主要捐助者委员会是个人或实体（例如公司，公司，业务或独资经营）在一个日历年中，给州或地方候选人，投票提案委员会或其他委员会（包括政党和政治行动委员会）总计10,000美元，或更多。主要捐助者委员会自己不收政治捐款，而是使用自有资金捐款。

个人的实例：

• 去年，Marge用她的个人资金共计捐款10,000美元给两个州候选人，地方投票委员会，以及其他候选人。她有资格成为主要捐助者，并有报告义务。- 今年，Marge仅向候选人和委员会捐了8000。玛格（Marge）没有资格成为主要捐助者，因此没有招致报告义务。

申报的表格：

• Form 461 (Major Donor Report), 该表格主要列出- 捐款人（或者组织）的信息，- 已经捐款（或者支出）的明细列表。- Form 497 (24-Hour/10-Day Contribution Report),该表格捐款人 (Major Donor Committee)和收款人（Recipient committee）通用。- 选举日之前90天到选举日之间：捐款或者收款1000或者更多，需要填写此表申报明细- 选举日到之前90天之外区间：收款5000或者更多，填写申报- 其他任何时候，接收委员会捐赠$5000或者更多给其他委员会- the advertisement disclosure requirements.

主要捐助者委员会的申报更简单，就是如实提供捐助者信息和捐助的明细。该委员会也是每年年底自动终止，不需要特别申请解散。

5. 捐助接收委员会: $2,000

如果个人或实体在一个日历年内收到总计2,000美元或更多的捐款，用于与加利福尼亚州候选人或投票措施有关的捐款或独立支出，则组成捐助接收委员会（Recipient Committee），并且适用不同的报告方法。

这包括两个或两个以上的个人或实体为单次通信分别支付总计2,000美元或更多的款项的情况，他们也有资格成为接收者委员会。

选票措施委员会（公投委员会）是指在一个日历年中，因一项或多项选票措施的资格，通过或失败， 而收到2,000美元或以上捐款的任何个人或团体。需要提交 Form 410  Statement of Organization- Recipient Committee。

Recipient committee根据影响选举的通用性，分为

• General Purpose Committee “通用目的投票措施委员会”: 用于多个候选人，多个公投议案的支出，一般用于想长期存在的组织。- State genernal purpose commitee: 用于州级选举和公投，也用途多个县的选举- County genernal purpose commitee： 用于一个县的选举- City general purpose committee: 只用于一个城市的选举- Primarily Formed Committee： 用于少数几个候选人，公投议案的支出，一般过了选举季节就停掉.- Primarily-formed ballot measure committee:  如果设立委员会是为了进行主要竞选以支持或反对同一选举中的一项或两项以上的措施；或委员会将其捐款和支出总额的70％以上用于支持或反对在同一次选举中投票通过的一项或两项或多项措施。则为“主要成立的投票措施委员会”。

如果候选人（或其代表）对委员会的行动或决定有重大影响，则该委员会为“候选人控制的选票措施委员会”。

某些多用途组织（例如，非营利组织）可能有资格担任投票表决委员会。

接收委员会必须加州注册，用 Form 410， 注册完成后获得 committee ID (FPPC id#)

• 提供委员会名字，地址等联系信息- 必须有专职的Treasurer- 专用的银行账号信息- 委员会的类型

如何建立/终止一个捐款接收委员会：

• 在一个日历年内收到的捐款总额达到或超过$ 2,000的任何人或个人组合，必须成立一个委员会。- 在达到合格门槛的10天内或如果符合以下任何条件，则在24小时内提交组织声明（Form 410）：- 在选举前的16天内达到2,000美元的门槛；要么- 如果委员会在选举前的90天内符合资格，并且委员会在该选举中花费了$ 1,000或更多的独立支出来支持或反对候选人。

• 通过邮件向州务卿（Secretary of State: SOS）提交原始文件，并收取50美元的注册费- 每年1月15日之前向SOS支付50美元的费用，直到委员会终止。

委员会在具备以下条件后可终止其委员会的工作：

• 停止收缴会费和支出；
• 预计将来不会收到捐款或支出；
• 消除或已宣布无意或无力偿还其所有债务，已收贷款和其他义务；
• 没有剩余资金；和
• 提交所有必需的竞选声明，披露所有可报告的交易。
• 建议关闭银行帐户，但并非必须如此。

要终止接收委员会，必须执行以下操作：

• 提交FPPC表格410，选中“终止”框并添加“终止日期”。- 向州务卿提交原始文件，并向道德委员会提交一份副本。- 以电子方式向道德委员会提交FPPC 460终止声明。

6. Treasurers 财务主管

每个委员会必须有一个财务主管：

• 财务主管必须完成所需的培训，除非该培训在最近12个月内完成。- 建立档案保管制度- 确保记录收支。- 亲自准备竞选陈述或仔细检查他人编写的竞选陈述。- 验证并签署竞选声明。- 按时提交报表，避免滞纳金。- 遵守适用法律– 财务主任应对违反其委员会的竞选财务行为承担个人责任。

委员会财务主管可能要承担的个人责任：

罚款滞纳金：

• 纸质申报: 每天10美元- 电子申报: 每天25美元

处罚：

• 未能提交要求的和准确的竞选报告可能会受到民事，刑事和行政处分，每次违法行为最高可被罚款$ 5,000和/或监禁6个月。

哪里去找财务主管？

• https://netfile.com  是电子化选举投票相关的组织和财务申报的网上平台，上面有公开的历年的公共数据，包括申报表格。可以搜索表格，找出各个委员会雇佣的财务主管的信息- http://cpta.info/directory  the California Political Treasurers Association , 加州政治财务主管协会，列出的会员名单

7. 剩余的捐款咋办？

为支持或反对一项措施而成立的接收委员有时持有的多余资金。 在选票上出现该措施的选举后的选举后报告期结束时，竞选帐户中剩余的资金为盈余资金，并且必须用于：

• 用于支付与委员会有关的未付账单，包括未付债务或应计账款，簿记，法律费用，竞选声明的准备和审计；
• 返回贡献者（后进先出）；
• 捐赠给慈善组织；
• 其他。。

更多信息看加州法律原文：

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-government-code/title-9-political-reform/chapter-95-ethics/article-4-campaign-funds/section-89519-surplus-campaign-funds

8. 非盈利或者其他多用途组织

这里说的非盈利组织可以是501c3, c4。 上面的各种申报法规都适用。特殊说一下资金来源：

• General Treasury Funds:  非营利组织或其他用途的组织经常因为非政治目的接受捐款或其他付款（例如会费），这种资金算通用资金，可以用于加州公投选举支出 （注意：501c3不能影响候选人，但是可以有限制的影响公投）- Non-Donor Funds： 非捐助的资金，例如利息收入，销售收入- 明确接受捐款用于选战: 2000或者以上：作为捐款接收委员会注册和申报

独立支出:

• 1,000- 50,000， 作为独立支出委员会注册和申报。- 50，000以上：作为捐款接收委员会注册和申报

9. 结论

加州对竞选涉及的资金有严格的申报管理制度。本文只涉及最粗浅的常识性信息,实际的细节很多，包括IRS对非盈利组织影响立法的规则和限制。真正的实施，涉及更多的每年都变化的细节，也涉及联邦IRS的规则，一定要询问/雇佣专业人士，包括 compaign lawyer, compaign treasurer, tax advisor等。

再次提醒记住下面三个最重要的规则和数据： 包括州或地方政府机构在内的任何人，只要有下列任何行为，即有资格成为委员会（Committee）：

• 接受 $ 2,000或更多的捐款。- 进行 $ 1,000或以上的独立支出, 明确针对候选人选举或者公投提案，倡导一种结果。- 捐款 $ 10,000以上。

10. 参考网址

• http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn.html 最权威的管理竞选的官方法规的学习资源

California Election Integrity in Jeopardy With Vote-by-Mail Ballots to Every Voter

随着向每位选民邮寄选票，加州选举的廉正性受到威胁

13 California counties now have more registered voters than eligible citizens

加州13个县目前登记的选民多于有资格的公民**

‘Regular people, regardless of party affiliation, they really do want fair and honest elections.’

***‘***普通人，无论其政党归属，他们的确真的想要公平和诚实的选举。’

The Election Integrity Project California is warning that an all-vote-by-mail ballot election in the state and the state’s largest cities, means hundreds of thousands of likely deceased or relocated could “receive” ballots; thousands of duplicated voters would be mailed two or more ballots.

加州选举廉正项目(EIP)正在警告州和州里最大城市的完全邮寄投票选举意味着几十万可能已经去世或搬家的人会“收到”选票；两份或更多份选票会邮寄给数千名重复选民。

EIP says the entire state has bloated voter lists so this problem will be even worse if state lawmakers pass legislation to mandate mail ballots to all Californians.

EIP说整个州都膨胀了选民名单，因此如果州立法者通过立法规定邮寄选票给所有加州人，那么这个问题将会更加严重。（ 编者注：因为 COVID-19, 已经通过了这种法律。)

“In fact, we are about to publish that 13 counties now have more registered voters than eligible citizens, as of Feb 18, 2020,” EIPCa’s chief analyst, Ellen Swensen told California Globe.

“事实上，我们将要发布的信息是，截止于2020年2月18日，13个县现在登记的选民多于有资格的公民，” EIPCa的首席分析员Ellen Swensen告诉加州环球。

“Los Angeles County debuted a new voting system in the March 3 election, and it was plagued with problems,” EIP said. “Unreliable connections with the state voter database, inadequately trained election workers and new machines that broke down created long lines and voter frustration.”

“洛杉矶县在3月3日的选举中首次使用了一个新的投票系统，而它饱受问题的困扰，” EIP说到。“与州选民数据库不可靠的连接、培训不足的选举工作人员以及出故障的新机器造成了排长队和选民的懊恼。”

“Many reportedly gave up and did not vote. In a questionable response to these problems, California’s Secretary of State (SOS) Alex Padilla directed county Registrar Dean Logan to mail a vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot to every Los Angeles County registrant for the November 2020 election.”

“据报道许多人放弃了，没有投票。作为对这些问题的令人质疑的回应，加州州务卿（SOS）Alex Padilla指示县登记员Dean Logan通过邮件寄出邮寄投票（VBM）选票给每一位洛杉矶县的登记者用以2020年11月大选。”

In addition to the California voter rolls filled with ineligible voters, Fox News recently reported that a 62-year-old man pleaded guilty in Feb., to a large-scale, illegal “ballot harvesting” scheme to pay homeless people living on Los Angeles’ infamous Skid Row to forge hundreds of signatures on ballot petitions and voter registration forms, during the 2016 and 2018 election cycles. The man was sentenced to one year in county jail and 100 hours of community service.  Eight other faces various charges affiliated with this scheme.

除了满是无资格选民的加州选民名单外，Fox新闻最近报道了一名62岁男子在2月承认进行了一个大规模的非法“投票采集”骗局的罪名，他在2016年和2018年选举期间支付住在洛杉矶臭名昭著的Skid Row的流浪汉以在投票请愿书和选民登记表上伪造数百个签名。该男子被判处入县监狱一年徒刑和100小时的社区服务。其他8人面临和该骗局有关的多种指控。

According to EIPCa:

据EIPCa称：

• Los Angeles County has 206,728 registrants who have not voted or updated their registrations since November 2008 or before. Though they have not voted in more than a decade and may have died or relocated, these 206,728 registrants are still listed as “active” voters and would be mailed VBM ballots. This means hundreds of thousands of VBM ballots will be mailed to potentially ineligible voters, which will open the door to unlawful voting. The risk is increased because California law allows anyone to gather and deliver these ballots to the officials.

洛杉矶县有206,728名登记者，他们自从2008年11月或更早就没有投过票或更新过他们的登记。虽然他们十多年里都没有投过票并且可能已去世或搬家，这206,728名登记者仍然被列为“活跃”选民，并会在邮件里收到VBM选票。这意味着几十万份VBM选票将被邮寄给可能无资格的选民，这将带来非法投票。因为加州法律允许任何人都可以收集并把这些选票交付给官员，这增大了该风险。

• Los Angeles County has 8,158 persons who have TWO active voter registrations in their names. These persons will each be mailed two VBM ballots. Persons receiving two VBM ballots can easily vote twice undetected, since the system has them documented as two different registrants.

洛杉矶县有8,158人，在其名下有两个活跃的选民登记。这些人每人都会在邮件里收到两份VBM选票。收到两份VBM选票的人可以轻易地投两次票而不被查出，因为系统已经把他们记为两名不同的登记者。

How does the Election Integrity Project know this?

选举廉正项目是如何知道此事的？

Election Integrity Project, California Inc. purchased the VoteCal voter registration and voting history files on February 18, 2020. In its initial review of the data, EIPCa identified significant list maintenance deficiencies in Los Angeles (LA) County. The purpose of this letter is to alert you both to these deficiencies as LA County considers the Secretary’s direction to send vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots to all active registrants in the November 2020 election.

加州选举廉正项目公司在2020年2月18日购买了VoteCal选民登记和投票历史文件。在其对数据的首次复审中，EIPCa找出了洛杉矶（LA）县在名单维护上有显著的不足。这封信的目的是警告你们两位有这些不足，当时LA县在考虑州务卿的指示在2020年11月大选中把邮寄投票（VBM）选票发送给所有活跃登记者。

In a March 9, 2020 letter to Sec.of State Alex Padilla and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, EIPCa enumerated their findings:

在2020年3月9日给州务卿Alex Padilla和洛杉矶县登记员-记录员以及县政官员Dean Logan的信里，EIPCa列举了他们的调查发现：

• LA Finding # 1: “No Show” Registrants LA County currently has 206,728 registrants who have not voted or updated their registrations since November 2008 or prior. Though they have likely died or relocated, these “no show” registrants remain in active status and will be mailed VBM ballots in November if the county mails ballots to every active registrant. 1,486 are over 100 years old and 117,500 have no record of ever having voted, yet they remain on the active file list.

LA调查发现第1点：“不出席”登记者 LA县目前有206,728名登记者，他们自从2008年11月或更早就没有投过票或更新过他们的登记。虽然他们可能已经去世或搬家，这些“不出席”登记者仍然保留活跃状态，如果县邮寄选票给每一位活跃登记者，那么他们在11月会在邮件里收到VBM选票。1486人超过100岁，而117,500人从未有投票记录，但是他们仍然留在活跃文件名单上。

Making matters even more concerning, EIPCa co-founder Linda Paine said in a California Globe interview last March 2019, the California Legislature has taken the in-depth reports provided by the Election Integrity Project documenting election weaknesses, and used the information to pass legislation enshrining ways to compromise elections. However, Paine said California Republicans ignored the warnings and patterns. “It’s like a Trojan Horse,” Paine said. “They are using it to put progressives in every office from dog catcher on up.”

让事态更加令人担忧的是，EIPCa联合创始人Linda Paine在2019年3月的一次加州环球访谈中说到，加州议会收下了选举廉正项目提供的记录选举弱点的深度报告，并利用这些信息通过了立法，正式写进了使选举陷入危险的方式。然而，Paine说加州共和党人忽略了这些警告和模式。“这就像特洛伊木马，” Paine说。“他们利用它把进步人士安置在每一个办公室里，从捕狗者起一直到上层。”

Paine said California is no longer functioning like a Republic – “it’s more like an oligarchy at every jurisdiction and in every county.” However, Paine promised, “We are moving heaven and hell, with or without the California Legislature.”

Paine说加州不再像共和国一样运转——“它在每个司法管辖区和每个县级别上都更像寡头政体。” 然而Paine保证，“无论有没有加州议会，我们都会竭尽全力。”

Getting back to 2020, EIPCa recommends that LA county mail all “no show” registrants a card under NVRA Section 8(d)(2) and inactivate these registrants while the county researches their respective eligibility. Though an inactivated “no show” will not be mailed a VBM ballot, he/she but can still vote in person while on the inactive list.

回到2020年上，EIPCa建议LA县依据NVRA第8(d)(2)章给所有“不出席”登记者邮寄卡片并撤销这些登记者，同时调查他们相应的资格。尽管不会邮寄VBM选票给被撤销的“不出席”者，他/她在列于撤销名单的同时仍然可以亲自前往投票。

• LA Finding #2: Duplicated Registrations— LA County has 10,556 registrants who appear to be registered to vote more than once. Of these, 21 appear to be registered three times. Each occurrence entails two or more registrations under the same name, same/similar birthdate and same address. Suspected duplicates living at differing addresses in the county have additional matching criteria such as email, phone number or mailing address. Persons who appear to be registered under both married and maiden names are included, while likely twins are excluded. The DMV voter registration system appears to be the source of many duplicated voter registrations. Data errors also contribute (misspellings, spacing mistakes, flipped names (e.g., John Smith, Smith John), flipped birthdates (e.g., 2/4/57, 4/2/57)).

LA调查发现第2点：重复登记——LA县有10556名似乎登记投票超过一次的登记者。在这些人当中，21人似乎登记了三次。每次都包含了在同一姓名、相同/类似生日和相同地址之下的两个或更多登记。住在县里不同地址的疑似重复者有额外的匹配标准，例如电子邮件、电话号码或邮政地址。似乎用婚后和婚前姓名都登记的人被包括在内，而可能是双胞胎的人被排除在外。DMV选民登记系统似乎是许多重复选民登记的来源。数据错误也是一个原因（错拼、字距错误、姓和名颠倒（例如，John Smith，Smith John）、生辰月日颠倒（例如，2/4/57，4/2/57））。

• LA Finding #3: Duplicate Registrants with Matching EMS IDs — Of the 10,556 suspected duplicates, 324 have different VoteCal Registration IDs but matching county EMS IDs. Matching EMS IDs should make it easy for the county and state to identify and merge these duplicates, yet they remain on the VoteCal file as two distinct active-status registrations for each person.

LA调查发现第3点：有匹配EMS ID的重复登记者— 在10556名疑似重复者中，324人有不同的VoteCal登记ID，但有匹配的县EMS ID。匹配的EMS ID应该让县和州发现及合并这些重复者变得容易，但他们仍以每个人有两个不同的活跃状态登记保留在VoteCal文件中。

• LA Finding #4: Duplicated Registrants to Receive 2+ VBM Ballots — If LA County mails ballots to all active registrants in November, 8,158 of the duplicated registrants will each be mailed two VBM ballots and five will be mailed three VBM ballots. This is because they have two or three active-status registrations each. Persons receiving more than one VBM ballot can easily vote more than once undetected, since the system has them documented as different registrants.

LA调查发现第4点：重复登记者将收到两份以上VBM选票 — 如果LA县在11月邮寄选票给所有活跃登记者，那么8158名重复登记者将每人在邮件里收到两份VBM选票，而5人将在邮件里收到三份VBM选票。 这是因为他们每人有两个或三个活跃状态的登记。收到超过一份VBM选票的人可以轻易地投超过一次票而不被查出，因为系统把他们记为不同的登记者。

• LA Finding #5- Possible Double Voting — The data show that 1,300 LA County duplicate registrants have already voted more than once in at least one election. This may be actual double voting, accidental duplication of voting histories, or some of both. VoteCal may be auto-duplicating voting histories for some LA County voters who use DMV registration.

LA调查发现第5点——可能有双重投票 — 数据显示1300名LA县重复登记者已经在至少一次选举中投票超过一次。这可能是实际双重投票、投票历史的意外复制，或者两者都有一些。VoteCal可能对一些使用DMV登记的LA县选民自动复制投票历史。

• LA Finding #6: Registered in LA County Plus One Other County — 2,439 additional persons are registered in LA County plus one other county, primarily Orange County and San Diego County. Some will receive one VBM from LA County and one VBM from the other county, if LA County mails VBMs to every active registrant.

LA调查发现第6点：在LA县及其它一个县登记 — 另外2439人在LA县及其它一个县登记，主要是橙县和圣迭戈县。如果LA县邮寄VBM给每一位活跃登记者，那么有些人会收到来自LA县的一份VBM和来自另一个县的一份VBM。

• LA Finding #7: Other Ineligible Registrants — LA County currently has 855,788 ineligible registrants (total LA County active plus inactive registrants on February 18, 2020 compared to the Secretary of State’s February 18, 2020 estimate of eligible citizens). While there are 1,539,513 inactives that LA County is currently working to update or cancel, the 206,728 active “no show” registrants, 10,556 duplicated registrants and 2,439 cross-county duplicates discussed above are further contributing to LA County’s unacceptably high level of ineligible registrations.

LA调查发现第7点：其他无资格的登记者 — LA县目前有855,788名无资格登记者（2020年2月18日那天总的LA县活跃加不活跃登记者数与州务卿对2020年2月18日那天有资格的公民数的估算相比较）。虽然LA县目前正在着手更新或取消1539,513名不活跃者，以上讨论的206728名活跃“不出席”登记者、10556名重复登记者和2439名跨县重复者进一步加剧了LA县难以接受的高度无资格登记。

As an aside Swensen said, “vote by mail ballots are only mailed to Active-status, so not all registrants will get ballots. Inactive and Pending status will not get VBMs. The 200,000+ are likely ineligible registrants who should have been inactivated or cancelled but are still listed ‘active’ status for some reason. The dups getting two VBMs each have two active-status registrations.”

此外Swensen说过，“邮寄投票只邮寄给活跃状态，所以不是所有登记者都会收到选票。不活跃和待定状态将不会收到VBM。这20多万人很可能是无资格登记者，他们本应被撤销或取消，但由于某些原因仍被列为“活跃”状态。这些每人收到两份VBM的重复者有两个活跃状态的登记。”

“We have found in our work that when we’re talking to just regular people, regardless of party affiliation, they really do want fair and honest elections,” EIPCa’s Linda Paine said in a recent Fox News interview. “They want to know that if their candidate lost — that they lost because the process was fair and honest. What we’re seeing is the lack of integrity in the process.”

“我们在工作中发现当我们和一般普通人谈话时，无论其政党归属，他们的确真的想要公平和诚实的选举，” EIPCa的Linda Paine在最近一次Fox新闻访谈中说到。“他们想知道如果他们的候选人输了——他们是因为参与过程是公平诚实的而败阵。我们现在看到的是此过程中缺少廉正性。”

The Election Integrity Project-California, founded in 2010, is a non-partisan, non-profit volunteer organization that advocates for citizens to become active participants in the electoral process, according to its website.

加州选举廉正项目成立于2010年，据其网站描述，是一家无党派、非盈利性志愿者组织，提倡公民在选举过程中成为积极的参与者。

If you need to report voting irregularities, EIPCa has this Citizen Incident Statement [PDF no longer available].

如果你需要报告在投票上的不正当行为，EIPCa有一份公民事件声明 [PDF已失效]。

以“觉醒”为名，大学录取程序取消SAT成绩将伤害少数族裔

by Kenny Xu May 22, 2020 02:55 PM

【译者注：Kenny Xu is another recipient of SVCAF’s Voice of Chinese Americans Award. He published this opinion article in Washington Examiner on May 22, 2020】

(“觉醒”是政治术语: 是指非裔美国人对有关社会正义和种族正义的问题的感知意识。它源于非裔美国人白话英语表达“ stay woke”，是指对上述社会政治问题的持续关注。) – 译者加注

We should all be concerned about the University of California regents’ decision to eliminate the SAT and the ACT from college admissions by 2025. This change will harm the very same minority students who administrators supposedly seek to protect. 

 “在2025年前大学录取过程中取消SAT和ACT成绩作为参考” 我们都应该对加利福尼亚大学系统（拥有十所公立大学组成的研究性大学系统，下文简称“UC系统”）董事会这一决定而感到担忧。这一变化将损害那些原本应由校方行政管理层保护的少数族裔学生。

The decision flouts the recommendations of UC’s own faculty leadership and the task force convened to study the issue. It reflects not rational policymaking but a growing movement on the Left to do away with standardized testing in college admissions due to a perceived racial bias against black and Hispanic applicants.

这项决定无视了来自UC系统教职员工及为研究该问题而召集的专家工作组两方的建议。它反映了非理性的政策制定，体现左派越发高涨的运动：因为“普遍认为”地对非裔和拉丁裔申请人的种族偏见，近而取消大学招生过程中的标准化考试。

These sentiments are simply false. 

而这些观点显而易见是错误的。

There is no evidence that the SAT is “biased” against black and Hispanic applicants. What is used to justify these claims are the sizable differences in average scores across demographic groups. But discrepancies alone do not prove discrimination.

没有证据表明SAT对非裔和拉丁裔申请人存有“偏见”。用来证明这些主张的理由是各种族人群的平均分数差异很大。但仅仅靠差异并不能证明歧视。

The true purpose of the SAT is to predict college success, and it does that very neutrally along racial lines. SAT correlations with college GPA are nearly identical between black students (0.49), Hispanics (0.55), Asians (0.54), and white students (0.56), all of which are considered “high.” In fact, there is potential evidence that the SAT tracks college GPA in black students better than it does for white students. This is likely why there hasn’t been much noise from predominantly black colleges to eliminate the tests.

SAT的真正目的是预测完成大学学术的潜力，并且在种族方面秉持非常中立的立场。非裔学生（0.49），拉丁裔（0.55），亚裔（0.54）和白人学生（0.56）的SAT成绩与大学GPA（考察大学生总体成绩的平均绩点）的相关性几乎相同，所有这些都被认为是“高度关联”。实际上，有潜在的证据表明，相较于白人学生，SAT能够更好地追踪预测非裔学生的大学GPA。这很可能就是为什么以非裔生源为主的大学却没有太多发声要求剔除测试的原因。

SAT and ACT scores also hedge against a very real fraud sweeping the country and devastating low-income black and Hispanic communities: grade inflation.

SAT和ACT分数还可以用来应对席卷全国破坏低收入非裔和拉丁裔社区且非常真实的假象：分数膨胀。

In places such as New York City, in predominantly low-income black and Hispanic neighborhoods with decrepit public schools, such inflation runs rampant, and the number of students in NYC who pass math classes but fail basic math performance tests is unconscionably high. Over 140 high schools in New York City have entire grades with over 90% math exam failure rates, but grade inflation and unwritten “no-fail” policies have allowed them to pass students anyway. 

在纽约市某些区域，主要是充斥着破败公立学校的低收入非裔和拉丁裔社区，分数膨胀畸高，纽约市通过数学课程但未通过基本数学成绩测试的学生人数高得离谱。纽约市超过140所高中的整个年级都有90％以上的数学考试不及格率，但是分数膨胀和不成文的“不给 不及格”政策使这些学校无论如何都可以放水学生升学。

In fact, between 80% and 94% of students in NYC public middle schools passed their math classes, but just 2% to 15% passed their math exams. There is little doubt that as students in NYC are being passed from grade to grade, the acquisition of true math skills that would help them succeed in college or in working life is criminally perfunctory. And that lack of preparation will show up in college life. 

实际上，纽约市公立中学的学生中有80％至94％通过了数学课程，但只有2％至15％通过了数学考试。毫无疑问，随着纽约市的学生从一个年级升入另一个年级，让他们获得真正的数学技能以助力将来大学或工作中有所成就简直就是痴人说梦。而这种知识储备不足的现象则会凸显在大学学术生涯。

On the other hand, many wealthy white parents exploit the predominance of extracurricular activities in college admissions to give their kids an unmerited advantage in the admissions process. In one extreme example, famous Hollywood actors were able to get their children into elite schools by bribing their swim team coaches. Even without explicit bribery, wealth is far more likely to buy dance lessons or lacrosse uniforms that provide great boosts to extracurricular profiles than it is to buy actual cognitive ability as measured by a test. 

另一方面，许多有钱的白人家长则充分发掘大学招生中对课外活动的要求，让孩子在招生过程中享有无功而得的优势。在某些极端的例子中，好莱坞著名演员们通过贿赂游泳队教练，使他们的孩子被精英学校录取。即使没有明显的贿赂，比起买来通过考试测评而获得的实际认知能力，拥有财力也更大可能购买舞蹈课或曲棍球制服，从而极大提升包装了课外活动表现。

To gain the latter, you have to work hard and prepare, or at least show enough discipline to grind out study hours on practice exams.

为了获得实际认知能力，你必须努力学习并准备，或者至少表现出足够的纪律性以合理安排备考的学习时间。

Does anyone really think making an admissions system less accountable, less reliant on objective metrics, and more dependent on the individual sentiments of college admissions officers who hold biases just like any of us will somehow result in a *less *corrupt system? 

难道真的有人认为这么搞会产生一个更少腐败的系统吗？让招生系统更不负责任，更少依赖客观指标，转而更多地依赖像我们任何常人一样带有偏见的大学招生人员的个人观点？

More likely, it will just benefit the rich and white even more. 

反而结果是更有可能让富人和白人受益更多。

The moral blinders on the elite UC system are so strong, however, that it chooses to ignore this data, as well as the recommendations from the very people it hired to make a decision on this matter, and to vote 23-0 to eliminate the tests. Why?

但是，精英UC系统上的卫道士们是如此强大，以至于选择忽略此数据和它聘用的对此问题做决定的专业人士的建议，并以23-0一边倒投票取消考试成绩作为参考。为什么？

Truthfully, this is all part of a left-wing push to reduce and eventually eliminate the notion of individual merit altogether. Believing judging people on the basis of merit to be odious, the Left would prefer to structure its institutions on the basis of race, ethnicity, and its own political predispositions. Don’t believe me?

坦白地讲，所有这一切是左翼势力努力达成的目的：减少并最终完全消除个人成绩优秀概念。左派认为根据成绩优秀来评判个体是可恶的，因此宁愿根据种族，民族和政治倾向来建立自己的高等教育体系。还不信我吗？

A bill to revoke neutrality laws and allow race and sex preferences in public college enrollment and government employment is also making its way through the California legislature.

一项旨在废除相关中立法律并在公立大学入学和政府岗位招聘中允许种族和性别偏好的法案也正在加利福尼亚州立法机构中酝酿。

The left’s piety about “diversity” should not be interpreted as sincere outreach to black people and Hispanics. It is just another power grab to restructure society how they see fit.

左派对“多样性”的虔诚不应被理解为对非裔和拉丁裔的真诚服务。这仅仅是另一项他们企图攫取的政权，以他们认为合适地方式来重塑社会。

Kenny Xu works for Young America’s Foundation and writes on race and identity politics from Washington. Follow him on Twitter @kennymxu and Facebook at thekennethxu.

Kenny Xu 供职于“美国青年基金会”，并长居于首都华盛顿，对种族和个体政治议题供稿。你可以通过Twitter推特账号@kennymxu *，Facebook脸书账号thekennethxu.*追踪他。

209号法案：加州的平权行动之战暴露了直接民主制的深层缺陷

Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy / March 23, 2018

By** Wesley Whitaker (CMC ’18)**

译者按：加州是否修改宪法取消209法案的争议越演越烈。本文作者可以看出是反对209的，因为文章有明显的倾向性。不过写的209法案从开始的一个想法到最后公投成功后面的历史背景和过程，对今天的现实也很有参考价值。强烈推荐关心按肤色搞特殊照顾政策的朋友读读。

90年代的209法案成败的核心基于一个深度的民意调查。发起者密切注意围绕平权行动的用词和公众观点的民意调查数据。他们的发现非常惊人：对平权行动计划的支持根据问题的措辞有大幅度的波动。一项民意调查发现：当在不使用配额系统的情况下询问是否会支持平权行动时，75%的调查对象表示支持，其中包括白人中的71%。然而当问到他们是否会支持比起同等资格的白人对少数族裔候选人给予基于种族的优待的系统时，72%的白人调查对象和42%的黑人调查对象给出了负面答案。

所以大概结论是：公投关键看双方用哪种措辞来赢得选民的选票。

Introduction

介绍

While discussions of affirmative action typically revolve around the decisions of the Supreme Court, the battle for affirmative action in California played out over the airways and door to door, rather than in a courtroom. The first major piece of civil rights legislation to be voted on by the public, Proposition 209 was approved by a majority of California voters in 1996 after a long, tumultuous campaign. Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment and university admissions. Curiously though, public opinion polling showed overall support among Californians for policies that took race into consideration during hiring for example. The framing of the issue, then, as a preference for minority candidates over whites was the driving factor in the campaign’s success. As an amendment to the state constitution, only by passing another constitutional amendment through the initiative process can Proposition 209 be repealed. Thus, affirmative action policies are extremely unlikely to return to public institutions in California.

尽管关于平权行动的讨论通常围绕着最高法院的裁决进行，加州的平权行动之战是在空中以及门对门进行的，而不是在法庭上进行的。作为待公众投票的民权立法里的首个主要项，209号法案在漫长、动荡的运动后于1996年被加州大多数选民批准。209号法案修正了州宪法，禁止州政府机构考虑种族、性别或族群，特别是在公务雇用和大学录取方面。不过令人好奇的是，公众观点民意调查显示了加州人总体上对在例如招聘期间考虑种族因素的政策予以支持。当时该问题被定为相比于白人，给少数族裔族裔群体候选人特殊优待，这是运动获得成功的驱动因素。作为州宪法的修正案，只有通过发起过程通过另一项宪法修正案，才能废除209号法案。因此，平权行动政策几乎不可能返回到加州的公共机构了【译者按：本文写于2018，作者没有想到2020会再次同一话题进行公投】。

Turbulent Economic Conditions Bring Tense Political Climate

动荡的经济形势带来紧张的政治气氛

The first half of the 1990s was marked by extreme economic volatility and uncertainty in California. While California’s economy had been outpacing the national economy, highlighted by stellar personal income and employment growth, the early 1990s recession hit California harder than the rest of the nation and the recovery was much slower.[1] For example, personal income growth in California from 1990 to 1994 was about half of the national rate — 12 percent compared to 22 percent. In 1994, there were actually less jobs than in 1990 and unemployment peaked at nearly 10 percent in October of 1992.[2] One of the driving factors of the lagging recovery was the loss of manufacturing jobs in the aerospace industry due to a decline in federal defense spending. The housing sector was hit hard by the recession as well. The number of new residential building permits fell to only 85,000 in 1993, the lowest in over 25 years on a per capita basis, compared to an average of 210,000 new residential building permits during the 1970s and 1980s.[3]

20世纪90年代上半叶加州的表现为极端的经济动荡和不确定性。虽然加州的经济一直领先于全国经济，亮点尤为一流的个人收入和就业增长，90年代早期的经济衰退对加州的打击比对全国其它各地的打击都要大，而恢复却缓慢许多。[1] 例如，加州的个人收入增长在1990年到1994年里大概是全国增长率的一半——其增长率为12%，相比之下全国增长率为22%。1994年的工作岗位实际上比1990年的少，而失业率在1992年10月达到顶峰，接近10%。[2] 滞后的经济恢复的驱动因素之一是联邦防御支出减少导致的航空航天领域里的制造业工作岗位丢失。住房业也受到经济衰退的重击。新居民建筑许可证数在1993年跌至仅为85000个，与70年代和80年代平均有210000个新居民建筑许可证相比，这是25年来人均数最低的一次。[3]

On top of a struggling economy, California’s population grew rapidly in preceding decades and showed little signs of slowing down. Since 1970, the state’s population grew by over 10 million, bringing the total population in 1990 to just under 30 million.[4] The population boom had also significantly changed the demographic makeup of the state as international immigration accounted for most of the new residents in the states after 1970, primarily from Latin American and Asian countries. This demographic shift was reflected across the state as those relying on public services became more diverse. In 1993, white students accounted for just 42 percent of total K-12 enrollment, compared to 37 percent of Hispanic or Latino descent, 8 percent Asian, and 9 percent African American.[5]

除了饱受挣扎的经济之外，加州人口在之前几十年里飞速增长并几乎没有显示出放缓的迹象。自1970年以来，州内的人口增长了1千多万，使得1990年的总人口数达到将近3000万。[4] 由于1970年后主要来自拉丁美洲和亚洲国家的国际移民占据了州内新居民的大多数，人口潮也显著地改变了州内的人口结构组成。随着那些依靠公共服务的人口变得更多样化，该人口结构改变在全州都反映了出来。在1993年，白人学生只占了12年级注册学生中的42%，相比之下西班牙或拉丁后裔的比率为37%，亚洲裔为8%，而非裔美国人为9%。[5]

The combination of a slow economic recovery, especially for middle-class white males, and the perception that the state was being overrun by immigrants contributed to the drafting of the so-called “Save Our State” initiative, which would become Proposition 187 and placed on the 1994 ballot. Its provisions denied illegal alien children access to public schools and excluded illegal aliens from receiving virtually any other kind of public service or aid.[6] Having lagged in the polls for reelection due to poor economic conditions, Governor Pete Wilson championed of the lightning-rod issue, which enjoyed strong public support from the still mostly white electorate. He surged ahead to beat his democratic challenger Kathleen Brown with a convincing 55 to 40 percent defeat and Proposition 187 was approved by voters 59 to 41 percent.[7] Republicans across the state also performed well, picking up eight seats in the Assembly and three statewide office seats from the Democrats. The remarkable performance of conservative politicians and conservative ballot measures in the 1994 elections is often attributed to their success at tapping into the growing anxiety of white voters that their way of life was under threat by the massive influx of immigrants and changing demographics.[8] Many of the jobs lost in the manufacturing and housing sectors during the recession were occupied by middle-class white workers, and were thus less insulated from economic hardship than in previous economic contractions.[9]

缓慢的经济恢复（尤其对中产阶级白人男性而言），以及关于加州移民泛滥的看法两者组合促成了所谓的“拯救我们的州”发起草案，它成为187号法案并被放进了1994年的投票选举里。其条款否定了非法移民儿童进入公立学校的资格，并让非法移民几乎无法接受任何其它类型的公共服务或救助。[6] 因为差劲的经济形势而在连任的民意调查里处于落后位置，州长Pete Wilson倡导了这个易受攻击的问题，该问题得到了当时大多数仍是白人选民的大力支持。他取得了领先，以55%对40%确凿的优势击败了民主党挑战者Kathleen Brown，而187号法案由选民以59%对41%批准。[7] 全州共和党人的表现也不错，在议会里获得了8席并从民主党那里夺取了3个州级政府办公室席位。保守派政客和保守的选票措施在1994年大选中的出色表现通常被归因为他们成功地利用了白人选民日益增长的焦虑感，即他们的生活方式受到了大量涌入的移民和人口结构变化的威胁。[8] 经济衰退期间制造业和住房业里失去的许多工作都由中产阶级白人工人把持，因此和以前的经济紧缩相比，他们更容易受到经济困难的困扰。[9]

From the Ivory Tower to the Ballot

从常青藤象牙塔到投票选举

While racial politics dominated the political sphere of the early to mid-1990s, Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood, two Bay Area academics, were confronted with the state’s growing diversity firsthand. A professor of anthropology at the Hayward campus of California State University since 1970, Custred witnessed the demographic shifts on campus as Hayward began its push to become one of the most multicultural college campuses in America. In 1989, Hayward adopted policies that allowed minority and women candidates to apply directly for positions on the faculty without requiring a vacancy in the department. Custred saw the new policy as essentially adopting a quota for minority faculty, which he called racist.[10] He argued for his department to not take part, objecting that faculty should be hired solely on their competency and qualifications aside from minority status. Citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he concluded that there was nothing wrong with the law, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion or national origin; it was simply not being enforced. He eventually joined and later become Executive Director of the California Association of Scholars, the state chapter of the National Association of Scholars, which is a coalition of other academics who shared his views towards multiculturalism and affirmative action.

当种族政治主导了90年代早期至中期的政治界时，Glynn Custred和Thomas Wood这两位湾区的学者亲身面对了加州日益增长的多样性。Custred自1970年起就是加州州立大学海沃德分校的人类学教授，随着海沃德开始推进成为美国最多元文化的大学校区之一，他目睹了校园里的人口结构变化。在1989年，海沃德采用了政策，允许少数族裔族裔群体和女性候选人无需部门里有空缺就可以直接申请系里的职位。Custred认为新政策实质上对少数族裔族裔群体教职员采用配额，他称其为种族歧视。[10] 他争辩说他的部门不应参与其中，反对除了少数族裔族裔群体身份外仅凭能力和资格聘用教师。他引用了1964年民权法案，得出结论说法律没有问题，该法律宣布基于种族、肤色、性别、宗教或民族血统的歧视是非法的，只不过该法律没有得到执行。他最终加入了并日后成为加州学者协会的执行理事，该协会是全国学者协会在加州的分会，它是其他同意他在多元文化和平权行动上的观点的学者联盟。

Unlike Custred, Wood became interested in the topic of affirmative action policy as an applicant struggling to land a job with the philosophy department at San Francisco State University. He claims to have ran into a member of the search committee before he applied for the job, and was told that he would have been hired instead of a woman of color had it not been for the school’s affirmative action policy.[11]

和Custred不同，Wood在作为一名努力在旧金山州立大学哲学系里找工作的申请者时对平权行动政策话题产生了兴趣。他宣称在申请工作前曾遇到招聘委员会的一名成员，并被告知如果不是学校有平权行动政策，其实会聘用他而不是一位有肤色女性。[11]

Wood continued to take on research jobs while pursuing a permanent position until he came across the Supreme Court’s Bakke decision. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Justice Powell, writing for the Court, concluded that the UC Davis Medical School’s policy of setting aside seats for minority students during the application process amounted to a racial quota and violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because students were split into two pools and considered separately.[12] Powell also said, however, that the university’s goal of creating a diverse student body was constitutionally permissible, and that race could be considered as a “plus factor” for an applicant. Wood disagreed entirely. He believed that including race in the decision process amounted to discrimination against those not of minority status and concluded that his inability to land a job in academia was a result of affirmative action.[12] He called the National Association of Scholars to see if they had a local chapter, and by the end of 1991 had become friends with Custred.

Wood在努力追求永久职位的同时继续从事研究工作直到他得知了最高法院的Bakke裁决。在加州大学董事会诉Bakke案（1978年）里，为法院裁决执笔的大法官Powell做出结论，加州大学Davis医学院在申请过程中为少数族裔族裔群体学生留出席位的政策造成了种族配额并违反了第14条宪法修正案的平等保护条款，因为学生被划分成两组并被分别对待。[12]  Powell还说，不过大学产生多样化学生族裔族裔群体的目标在宪法上是被允许的，并且种族可以被看作是申请者的“加分因素”。Wood对此完全不同意。他相信把种族因素包括进作决定过程里是针对那些非少数族裔群体的歧视，并下结论他无法在学院里找到工作是平权行动的结果。[12] 他打电话问全国学者协会是否有本地分会，而到1991年底已经和 Custred成为朋友。

Inspired by the success of recent ballot initiatives, the two began drafting a constitutional amendment of their own in 1992, which they titled the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). According to Custred and Wood, the purpose was simply to reaffirm the principle in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: non-discrimination means your race or gender cannot factor into how you are treated when it comes to contract, employment, and admissions decisions — even if you are white.[13] Drawing on their backgrounds in research, the two began to investigate the issue in depth, paying close attention to the language surrounding affirmative action and public opinion polling data. Their findings were striking. Support for affirmative action programs fluctuated massively depending on the wording of the question. One poll found that when asked if they would support affirmative action, provided no quota system was used, 75 percent of respondents were in favor, including 71 percent among whites. However, when asked if they would support a system of racial preference for minorities over equally qualified white candidates, 72 percent of white respondents and 42 percent of black respondents answered negatively.[14] This discovery was a breakthrough for Custred and Wood. First, it suggested that many Americans may actually be less supportive of affirmative action than previously thought because not everyone actually knew that it entailed preferential treatment based on race. Second, knowing that support plummeted when affirmative action was presented as a racial preference provided the perfect blueprint for how to frame the issue for the initiative and the campaign. Instead of attacking affirmative action head on, Custred and Wood could attack the much less attractive concept of racial preference for minorities.

受到最近投票选举动议成功的启发，他们两人在1992年开始起草自己的宪法修正案，他们将其冠名为加州民权动议（CCRI）。据Custred和Wood称，其目的只不过是重申1964年民权法案的原则：不歧视意味着你在合同、雇佣和录取决定方面受到的待遇不能把你的种族或性别考虑进去——即使你是白人也不行。[13] 利用他们的研究背景，两人开始深度调查该问题，密切注意围绕平权行动的用词和公众观点民意调查数据。他们的发现非常惊人。对平权行动计划的支持根据问题的措辞有大幅度的波动。一项民意调查发现当在不使用配额系统的情况下询问是否会支持平权行动时，75%的调查对象表示支持，其中包括白人中的71%。然而当问到他们是否会支持比起同等资格的白人对少数族裔候选人给予种族优待的系统时，72%的白人调查对象和42%的黑人调查对象给出了负面答案。[14] 这个发现对Custred和Wood来说是个突破。首先，这表明和之前的看法相比许多美国人可能实际上不那么支持平权行动，因为不是所有人都真的知道它包含了基于种族的优先待遇。其次，知道把平权行动作为种族偏向时支持率暴跌了，这为如何为倡议和运动定义该问题提供了理想的蓝图。与其正面攻击平权行动，Custred和Wood可以攻击对少数族裔群体的种族偏向这个吸引力低得多的概念。

Without the support of either political party, and still lacking key connections to fundraising, the initiative failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 1994 ballot. However, the issue caught fire in the wake of the November election, in large part due to Custred and Wood’s capitalizing on the divisive language surrounding Proposition 187 driven by Governor Wilson.[15] They formed a committee with Larry Arnn, the President of the Claremont Institute, as Chairman. Other well-connected conservatives flocked to the cause, including Los Angeles based Republican pollster Arnold Steinberg, who would later lead the campaign, and William Rusher, the founder and Publisher of the National Review. With campaign staff assembled, the group began work on drumming up sources of funding.[16]

没有两党中任何一方的支持以及仍然缺少取得筹款所需的关键关系，倡议未能收集到足够的签名以获得进入1994投票选举的资格。然而，紧随着11月大选，这个问题引起了关注，很大程度上是因为Custred和Wood利用了围绕由州长Wilson推动的187号法案的分歧性用语。[15] 他们和克莱蒙研究所的所长Larry Arnn成立了一个委员会，由Larry Arnn任主席。其他人脉广泛的保守派蜂拥至该事业上，其中包括位于洛杉矶的共和党民意调查专家Arnold Steinberg，他日后将领导该运动，以及国家评论的创始人以及出版商William Rusher。组建好了运动工作人员，这个小组开始竭力争取资金来源。[16]

Gaining Momentum

势头增强

While Custred and Wood had been engaged in laying the theoretical framework for the fight against affirmative action, Governor Wilson had enlisted the help of a longtime friend, Ward Connerly, to lead the charge. Connerly became friends with Wilson in the late 1960s and was asked by Wilson to join the Assembly Committee on Urban Affairs and Housing.[16] Wilson eventually convinced him to join the private sector, where his firm was successful consulting on public development projects. In 1993, Wilson appointed Connerly to the UC Board of Regents where he quickly gained a reputation of an active and thoughtful member. Through Wilson, Connerly met with Jerry and Ellen Cook, whose son had been rejected from medical school, where Cook presented evidence that white and Asian students were being denied admission to California schools despite having better grades and test scores than Latino and black students who were admitted.[17] Connerly concluded that the affirmative action policies of the state schools amounted to racial discrimination, and began his campaign as regent to stop the process.

在Custred和Wood忙于为反对平权行动之战铺好理论框架时，州长Wilson谋取了旧交Ward Connerly的帮助来带头冲锋。Connerly在60年代晚期和Wilson成为朋友，并且Wilson让他加入城市事务及住房议会委员会。[16]  Wilson最终说服了他加入私企，他的公司在为公共开发项目提供咨询上做得很成功。在1993年，Wilson任命Connerly加入加州大学董事会，作为一名活跃而有思想的成员，他很快赢得了声望。通过Wilson，Connerly遇到了Jerry和Ellen Cook，这两人的儿子被医学院拒绝了，Cook拿出了证据说尽管白人和亚裔学生的成绩和考试得分比被录取的拉丁裔和黑人学生好，但是他们被加州的学校拒绝录取。[17] Connerly得出结论，州立学校的平权行动政策构成了种族歧视，并以委员的身份开始他的运动以制止这一过程。

Wilson, who had selected affirmative action as the next issue divisive enough to attract white voters to his campaign and rally public support, encouraged Connerly’s efforts. His mission attracted special attention due to his being African American, which some suggest was why Wilson had selected him for the position.17 Connerly admitted that even though it was never explicitly mentioned, the presence of a charismatic and intelligent black man leading the charge against affirmative action neutralized potential attacks from opponents that animus towards minorities motivated the campaign.[18]

Wilson选择了平权行动作为分歧足够严重的下一个问题以吸引白人选民到他的运动并争取公众支持，他对Connerly的努力加以鼓励。因为是非裔美国人，他的行动吸引了特别关注，一些人认为这是Wilson为什么选他担任这个职位的原因。17  Connerly承认尽管从未明确提及，一位有超凡魅力和聪明才智的、带领反抗平权行动的黑人的存在抵消了反对派的潜在攻击，即发起者因为对少数族裔群体的敌意激发了该运动。[18]

On July 20th, 1995, Connerly and Wilson took their campaign against affirmative action to the UC Board of Regents meeting where they were met by Rev. Jesse Jackson and civil rights organizers protesting. Wilson played hardball, ensuring the protesters had minimal effect and allowing Connerly to forcefully present his case calling for the end of affirmative action in the UC system which was first approved by the board in 1975.20 Connerly and Wilson were successful and the regents voted 15-10 to end affirmative action in hiring and 14-10 to end affirmative action in admissions decisions. Despite the UC Academic Senate voting 124-2 to ask Regents to rescind their votes, the policy was upheld and Wilson’s polling soared, especially among white voters. [19]

1995年7月20日，Connerly和Wilson把他们反对平权行动之运动带到了加州大学董事会会议上，在那里他们遇到Jesse Jackson牧师和民权组织者抗议。Wilson采取了强硬手段，确保抗议者影响在最小程度，并允许Connerly强有力地陈述自己的案例，要求终止加州大学系统里的由董事会于1975年首次批准的平权行动。20 Connerly和Wilson取得了成功，委员们以15对10的投票通过终止了招聘过程中的平权行动，以及14对10的投票通过终止了录取决定里的平权行动。尽管加州大学学术评议会以124对2投票通过要求董事会撤销他们的投票，该政策继续维持，而Wilson在民意调查中的位置急剧上升，尤其是在白人选民当中。[19]

Just over one month later, CCRI filed for a spot on the 1996 ballot. The campaign immediately benefitted from the heightened publicity stirred up by Connerly and Wilson as it raced to meet the signature requirement of nearly 700,000 signatures.[20]

仅仅过了一个月后，CCRI申请在1996投票中占有一席之位。该运动立即得益于Connerly和 Wilson作出的大力宣传，同时它竭力争取达到将近700,000个签名的要求。[20]

Filing for the second time, Custred and Wood were eager to keep the phrase “affirmative action” out of the ballot title and summary due to its higher favorability among voters. They met with Chief Deputy Attorney General David Stirling to ensure that no mistakes were made the summary reflected the language of the measure.[21] In December of 1995, Connerly was asked to join the campaign as the Chairman. Shortly after, Wilson’s fundraising with the California Republican party provided a much-needed donation of $500k to resume collecting signatures to qualify the measure. Just two months later in February of 1996, the campaign turned in over a million signatures and qualified for the 1996 ballot as Proposition 209.[21]

第二次申请时，Custred和Wood渴望将“平权行动”这个词组排除在投票选举标题和摘要之外，这是因为其在选民中有更高的支持。他们和首席副司法部长David Stirling会面以确保没有犯错误，即摘要反映了措施的语言。[21] 1995年12月，Connerly被要求以主席的身份加入运动。不久之后，Wilson从加州共和党那里获取的筹款提供了急需的50万美元捐赠来恢复收集签名以使该措施取得资格。就在两个月后的1996年2月，运动提交了超过1百万个签名并作为209号法案取得资格进入1996年投票选举。[21]

Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren was in charge of preparing the ballot summaries, which are crucial to informing voters as they are likely the only non-partisan information they will see before voting. [21] State law requires that summaries be impartial, but Lungren was outspoken about supporting the proposition and even signed one of the rebuttals in favor in the voter’s guide.[22] Titled Proposition 209: “Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities”, the summary text read:

共和党派司法部长Dan Lungren负责准备投票摘要，它们对告知选民至关重要，因为它们很可能是投票前选民能看到的唯一非偏党派信息。[21] 州法律要求摘要公正中立，但Lungren公开宣布了支持该法案，甚至在选民指南中签署了一项反对声明，以表示支持。[22] 209号法案标题为：“禁止州级和其他公共机构实施的歧视或优先待遇”，摘要文字是这样写的：

“Prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools, and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”[23]

“禁止州、地方政府、区、公立大学、学院和学校以及其他政府机构在公务雇用、公共教育或公共承包方面基于种族、性别、肤色、族群或民族血统歧视或提供优先待遇给任何个人或族裔群体。”[23]

When the summary was published in July, the opposition campaign was furious that the summary made no mention of affirmative action and took Lungren to court. [22] Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Ford sided with the opposition and made Lungren rewrite the summary as it was clearly biased. Nevertheless, Lungren appealed and the Third District Court in Sacramento overturned Ford’s decision, stating: “The title and summary inform the public of the general purpose of the measure.”[24] This marked a monumental win for the campaign as, according to an LA Times poll in September, 59 percent of voters did not understand that Prop. 209 would effectively end affirmative action.[25] Read without qualification, the measure enjoyed 70 percent support.[26]

当摘要于7月公布时，反对派运动对摘要没提及平权运动感到十分愤怒，并把Lungren告上法庭。[22] 萨克拉门托高等法院法官James Ford站在反对派一边，让Lungren重写了摘要，因为它明显有偏见。然而Lungren进行了上诉，而萨卡拉门托的第三地区法院撤销了Ford的判决，表示：“该标题和摘要告知了公众该措施的一般用途。”[24] 这对运动来说标志着巨大的成功，据9月的洛杉矶时报民意调查显示，59%的选民不明白209号法案实际上会终止平权行动。[25]  无条件地阅读后，该措施获得了70%的支持。[26]

The 209 campaign continued to lead in the polls until Election Day, bolstered by their advertising that emphasized equal opportunity and color-blindness. Featuring Connerly in a soft, moral and unifying tone, the first radio ad highlighted his support for the issue as an African American and ended with the wholesome catchphrase: “Equal opportunity without quotas. Yes! Proposition 209. Bring us together.”[27] Another ad featured a young white woman who claimed to be the victim of reverse discrimination after being removed from a remedial English class intended for minority students.[28] Instead of adopting the severe language surrounding the Proposition 187 campaign, the emphasis of an inclusive campaign predicated on fairness and equal opportunity resonated with voters, particularly white voters. Proposition 209 ultimately passed with 55.5 percent of the vote.[29] According to the LA Times exit polls, 63 percent of white voters supported the measure while 74 percent of African Americans, 76 percent of Latinos and 61 percent of Asians voted against.[30]

209运动继续在民意调查中领先直到大选日，由其强调平等机会和不看肤色的宣传加以增强。首个电台广告以柔和、道德和统一的语气表现了Connerly，强调了他作为非裔美国人对这个问题的支持并以有良好影响的口号结尾：“没有配额的平等机会。是的！209号法案。把我们汇聚在一起。”[27] 另一个广告展示了一位年轻的白人女性，她宣称在被专门面向少数族裔群体学生的英语补习班移除后成为反向歧视的受害者。[28] 与其采用围绕187号法案运动的严厉措辞，强调公平和平等机会的包容性运动引起了选民的共鸣，尤其是白人选民。209号法案最终以55.5%的选票得以通过。[29] 据洛杉矶时报投票后民意调查显示，63%的白人选民支持了该措施，而74%的非裔美国人、76%的拉丁裔和61%的亚裔投票反对。[30]

A Better Path for the Opposition

反对的更好途径

A ragtag coalition of civil rights groups, women’s advocacy organizations, and grassroots organizers, the opposition campaign faced a long, uphill battle to defeating Prop. 209. Unlike their adversaries, the opposition did not enjoy the support of the political party that closely aligns with their interests and constituents. Outmatched in terms of fundraising, the proponents were able to conduct an ad campaign that dominated the radio waves and television stations without a proper response from the opponents. Opponents also did not benefit from sympathetic elected officials in positions capable of shaping the outcome in the way that Governor Wilson and Attorney General Lungren assisted the proponents. Nevertheless, despite all of these hurdles, the most significant obstacle was the simple and deceiving language of the measure that confused many voters. According to exit polls, a majority — 54 percent — of voters supported affirmative action programs, yet nearly the same number also voted in favor of Prop. 209, ending programs that they likely supported.[31]

反对运动是民权族裔群体、妇女倡导组织和草根组织者的散漫联盟，它在击败209号法案上面临着漫长而艰难的斗争。不像其对手，反对派没有受到与他们的利益和选民密切相一致的政党的支持。支持者在筹款上胜出，他们能够开展一场主导电台和电视台的宣传活动，而没有收到反对派的适当回应。反对派也没有从有同情心的当选官员那里受益，这些官员能够像州长Wilson和司法部长Lungren协助支持者那样有能力改变结果。然而，尽管有着所有这些障碍，最大的障碍是该措施的简单且具有欺骗性语言，它使很多选民感到疑惑。据投票后民意调查显示，大多数选民——其中的54%——支持了平权行动计划，但几乎相同数目的选民也投票支持了209号法案，终止了他们很可能支持的计划。[31]

To successfully defeat Prop. 209 would require a campaign that effectively combated the ambiguity surrounding the issue of affirmative action while still providing enough of impetus to mobilize minority voter support. The best way to achieve this would be through an alternative ballot initiative, a tactic that the opposition attempted but failed to capitalize on.[32] Over nearly six months, activists in the Bay Area organized a group of lawyers to draft an alternative amendment, eventually settling on the Equal Opportunities Without Quotas initiative after producing hundreds of drafts. The amendment explicitly prohibited racial quotas, the hiring of unqualified applicants, and threatened fines for anyone who fraudulently benefited from affirmative action programs. [33] Essentially, the initiative reaffirmed the current standards of acceptable affirmative action practices as decided by the Supreme Court. The same length as Prop. 209 and with broadly appealing language, it was sent in to the Legislative Analyst’s Office for review as their best hope. Nine months of hard work were immediately dashed, however, when the analyst concluded that the state’s enrichment programs targeted at minority students qualified as a racial quota. Dismantling these programs as a result would alienate far too many voters and potential donors, but it was too late to appeal the decision and the campaign had to quickly change direction to defeating Prop. 209 flat out. [33] If there had been less infighting between members of the coalition and it was decided earlier to pursue an alternative amendment, there would have been time to petition the analyst for reconsideration or to revise the measure until it did not produce the same unintended consequences.

要想成功地击败209号法案需要一个有效地与围绕平权行动问题的歧义搏斗同时仍然提供足够动力调动少数族裔群体选民支持的运动。达成这一目的的最好方法是通过替代投票选举倡议，反对派尝试过这个策略但未能从中获利。[32] 在接下来的将近6个月里，湾区的积极分子组织了一群律师起草替代修正案，在写出了数百份草稿后最终定为“没有配额的平等机会”倡议。该修正案明确禁止种族配额、雇用不合格的申请者，并且威胁对以欺诈性质从平权运动计划中得益的任何人进行罚款。[33] 实质上，该倡议重申了由最高法院裁决的被大家认可的平权运动做法的现行标准。它和209号法案长度相同，并有着有广泛吸引力的用语，作为他们最大的希望，它被送到立法分析办公室进行复审。然而，当分析员得出结论说州里针对少数族裔群体学生的强化项目算作种族配额时，9个月的辛勤工作立即破灭了。由此解散这些项目会疏远太多的选民和潜在捐款人，然而申诉该决定已为时过晚，运动需要迅速改变方向以击败209号法案。[33] 如果联盟成员间没有那么多内斗，并且早做决定寻求替代修正案，原本会有时间请求分析员重新考虑或修改该措施直到它不造成同样的意料之外的后果。

The alternative ballot initiative competing directly with Prop. 209 would force voters to choose between two pitches for fairness and equal opportunity. Instead of being presented with a single initiative condemning racial preference and promising to restore fairness to employment and admission decisions, the voter would be presented with an alternative that appeals to the same sensibilities but would be able to invoke the language of affirmative action, which had a significantly higher favorability rating according to the polls. It could even capitalize on the aversion of voters towards quotas by prohibiting them. Likewise, it could assuage the fears of white voters that unqualified candidates could take positions they did not deserve by explicitly prohibiting that practice as well. The biggest underlying problem with Prop. 209, which was illustrated by the number of voters who say they supported affirmative action but nevertheless voted against it, is that voters did not have a clear picture of what affirmative action actually entailed.[33] The opposition campaign fought to explain the history of prejudice, which pushed economic and academic opportunities out of reach for many people of color and women, and described how affirmative action works to correct these patterns of discrimination. This nuanced argument, however, does not fit neatly into a 30 second radio or television ad. The opposition needed a shorter, more palatable appeal for fairness.

与209号法案直接竞争的替代投票选举倡议会强迫选民从两个公平和平等机会的点子中选一个。与其提出一个谴责种族偏向并承诺恢复雇用和录取决定上的公平的单一倡议，不如向选民提出一个诉诸相同感性但能够援引平权行动语言的替代方案，据民意调查显示平权行动有显著的更高支持率。它甚至还能通过禁止配额而充分利用选民对其的厌恶。同样的，它还能通过明确禁止不合格的申请者能得到他们不配得到的职位这一做法而减轻白人选民的担忧。209号法案最大的底层问题，即由表示他们支持平权行动但还是投票反对它的选民数表明了出来，是选民不清楚平权行动究竟包含了什么。[33] 反对运动费了很大劲解释了偏见的历史，这段历史使得许多有色人群和女性无法触及经济和学术上的机会，它还描述了平权行动如何能改正这些歧视方式。然而这个微妙的争辩没有很好地放入30秒的电台或电视广告。反对派需要较短的、更可接受的呼吁以求公平。

On top of cutting through some of the confusion surrounding the issue, an alternative initiative would have shaped the down the road campaign greatly. The language and substance of the initiative aligned closely with President Bill Clinton’s “mend it, don’t end it” stance towards affirmative action, and would likely have engaged the Democratic Party and the President himself in the campaign. Instead, Clinton kept the issue at arms-length, as he did not want to alienate too many white voters by staunchly supporting affirmative action.[34] Likewise, the priorities of the Democratic Party were clear. They were not going to jeopardize Clinton’s reelection for the sake of a state proposition, even if it did align closely with their policy positions and constituents. However, if the campaign offered a positive account that both the Democratic Party and President could get behind, they would have enjoyed significantly larger contributions to their war chest, which could then be used to wage a proper media campaign. Proponents of the alternative measure could then match Connerly’s soft-spoken testimony with countless cases of minorities and women who have benefited from affirmative action. Simultaneously, these ads would appeal to white voters by reaffirming the prohibition on quotas and unqualified applicants benefiting from the program. Ultimately, a competing initiative offered the best chance of success in defeating Prop. 209, as it would broaden the coalition of support to include more donors and high profile voices, as well as enable the opposition to frame the issue in their own terms.

在澄清围绕该问题的一些疑惑之外，替代倡议本可以极大地塑造运动的未来之路。倡议的用语和实质与Bill Clinton总统对于平权行动的”修补它，不要终止它“的立场密切相一致，本来很有可能吸引民主党和总统本人参与运动。但是Clinton和该问题保持了距离，因为他不想因坚定地支持平权行动而疏远太多白人选民。[34] 同样的，民主党的首要事项是很明确的。他们不会为了一项州级法案而损害Clinton的连任，即使它的确与他们的政治立场和选民密切相一致。然而如果运动提供了民主党和总统都可以支持的积极口号，那么他们本来可以添加多得多的资金到竞选运动基金里，这之后能被用于开展一次像样的媒体运动。替代措施的支持者就能用无数从平权运动中得益的少数族裔群体和女性的案例匹配Connerly柔和的证词。与此同时，这些广告能通过重申禁止配额以及从计划中得益的不合格申请者而吸引白人选民。最终，一个有竞争力的倡议提供击败209号法案的最佳成功机会，因为它能扩大支持联盟，包括进更多捐款者和知名度高的声音，还能使反对派以自己的方式定义该问题。

Conclusion

结论

In his first Inaugural Address in 1911, Governor of California Hiram Johnson extolled the virtues of direct democracy and its unique ability to return the power of governance back to the people from the hands of corrupt political parties and special interests.[35] Nevertheless, the creation of the initiative process also opened the door to popular referendums on key civil rights policy, including affirmative action. The events of 1996 attest to Johnson’s claim that average citizens, if sufficiently driven and politically minded, can impose their will over objections in the political establishment by using direct democracy. At the same time, however, the campaign raised new questions about the role of popular consensus in the domain of civil rights. Throughout the campaign, average voters lacked information about the issues, specifically about what affirmative policies actually entail when choosing candidates for a limited number of vacancies. This issue was further compounded by the use of deceptive and ambiguous language by proponent’s campaign. Ultimately, California’s battle over affirmative action highlights the inadequacies of direct democracy when dealing with complex policy issues that intersect with civil rights. Further, the campaign orchestrated by Wood and Custred, and led by Connelly, demonstrated the importance of controlling the narrative surrounding a political issue. By tapping into economic and racial anxieties at the right time, the campaign exposed the dire need for an informed and engaged citizenry for a system of direct democracy to function.

在其1911年的首次就职演说里，加州州长Hiram Johnson赞美了直接民主制的长处和其独特能力，即能把监管力量从腐败的政党和特别利益的手中还给人民。[35] 然而，倡议过程的产生也打开了通向在关键民权政策（包括平权行动）上进行全民公投的大门。1996年的事件证明了Johnson的断言，即普通公民，即使受到了足够的驱动并有政治头脑，可以通过使用直接民主把自己的意愿强加于政治体制里的反对之上。不过在此同时，运动提出了关于民权领域里全民意识的角色的新问题。在整个运动期间，在为有限的空缺职位选择候选人时普通选民缺少关于问题的信息，特别是关于平权政策究竟包含了什么的信息。支持者的运动对欺骗性和有歧义的语言的使用使问题进一步恶化。最终，加州的平权行动之战突出了直接民主制在处理和民权有交叉的复杂政治问题时的不足性。更进一步，由Wood和Custred策划并由Connelly领导的运动显示了控制围绕政治问题的叙述的重要性。通过在正确时刻利用了经济和种族方面的焦虑感，运动暴露了对有见识以及有参与性的公民的迫切需要，以使直接民主制系统能发挥职能。

备注

[1] The California economy in 1990s. Legislative Analyst’s Office.

[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local area unemployment statistics: Statewide, California. 1990-1998.

[3] The California economy in 1990s. Legislative Analyst’s Office.

[4] Jack Citrin. 2013. State of change: Immigration politics and the new demography of California. 31-33.

[5] Educational Demographics Unit. Statewide enrollment by ethnicity, 1993-1994.

[6] Peter Schrag. 1998. Paradise lost: California’s experience, America’s future. 228-231.

[7] Summary of votes cast for state offices: November 8, 1994.

[8] Peter Schrag, 230-234.

[9] Lydia Chávez. 1998. The color bind: California’s battle to end affirmative action. Berkeley: University of California Press. 31.

[10] Lydia Chávez. 9-13.

[11] Lydia Chávez. 13-16.

[12] Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978).

[13] Lydia Chávez. 18-20.

[14] John Brennan. “Key words influence stands on minorities.”

[15] Cathleen Decker. “Affirmative action: Why battle erupted”.

[16] Lydia Chávez. 25-29.

[17] Lydia Chávez. 32-33.

[18] Ward Connerly. “Affirmative action and proposition 209”. The California Republic. 258.

[19] Lydia Chávez. 61-67.

[20] Lydia Chávez. 67-69.

[21] Lydia Chávez. 144-145.

[22] Daniel Lungren, Quentin Kopp, and Gail Heriot. 1996. Rebuttal to argument against of proposition 209.

[23] Proposition 209: Text of proposed law. 1996.

[24] Lydia Chávez. 145.

[25] Bettina Boxall. “A political battle grinds on as a war of wording”.

[26] Lydia Chávez. 154.

[27] Lydia Chávez. 188.

[28] Lydia Chávez. 215.

[29] Statement of vote: Votes for and against November 5, 1996 statewide ballot measures

[30] State propositions: A snapshot of voters.

[31] Lydia Chávez. 237.

[32] Lydia Chávez. 105-108.

[33] Bettina Boxall. “A political battle grinds on as a war of wording”.

[34] Lydia Chávez. 223.

[35] Hiram Johnson. First Inaugural Address.

作者：EIP-Ca （加州选举完整项目) 立法监督总监Ruth Weiss， ruthweiss@eip-ca.com

加利福尼亚圣克拉丽塔。由于加州AB 860法案的生效，今年11月普选所有加利福尼亚州的选民将收到邮寄选票。这引起了许多担心，其中一个担心是邮寄选票的丢失。今年3月份初选时丢失的选票数量达到数十万！

为确保在11月的选举中不会发生这种选票丢失的情况，请立即前往 WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov进行注册以接收有关您的选票的电子邮件，SMS（短信）和/或语音呼叫通知。我刚刚做了，大约只需要20秒。

注册后，当选举时间到来时，您会收到如下通知：

• 您的选票由您的选举办公室（或供应商）放到邮件中- 您的选票在10月5日至10月9日之间邮寄出来- 邮政的预计递送日期- 如果它未能如期到达，您可以致电取消并更换，以防止有人用你的名字进行选票欺诈- 什么时候选举办公室收到您的选票- 您的选票被计算或拒绝- 如果被拒绝：为什么以及可以采取的步骤- 如果在特定日期之前未收到您的选票会提醒您。

目前加州58县中的52个县正在提供这项服务。（请看文章最后有关列表）。如果您的县尚未提供此服务，请点击此处，了解如何检查你的选票。

在忘记之前，请立即执行此操作。然后告诉每个人您都知道。

WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov 

下面的县提供WheresMyBallot选票跟踪服务

• Amador- Butte- Calaveras- Colusa- Contra Costa- Del Norte- El Dorado- Fresno- Glenn- Humboldt- Inyo- Kern- Kings- Lake- Lassen- Los Angeles- Madera- Marin- Mariposa- Mendocino- Merced- Mono- Monterey- Napa- Nevada- Orange- Placer- Plumas- Riverside- Sacramento- San Benito- San Bernardino- San Diego- San Francisco- San Joaquin- San Luis Obispo- San Mateo- Santa Barbara- Santa Clara- Santa Cruz- Shasta- Siskiyou- Sonoma- Stanislaus- Sutter- Tehama- Trinity- Tulare- Tuolumne- Ventura- Yolo- Yuba

点击此处，可以直接转向选票跟踪网站

编者按：Mr. Haibo Huang is one of the recipients of SVCAF’s Voice of Chinese Americans Award. He published an op ed  about ACA-5 in San Diego Union Tribune on June 9th. Here is his unabridged article in both English and Chinese.

**ACA-5 is a Wolf-in-Sheep’s-Clothing

ACA-5, 一只披着羊皮的狼**

ACA-5 seeks to repeal Prop 209 under the guise of “Affirmative Action”, “Equality” and/or “Diversity”.  Like its predecessors SCA5 and AB1726, it seeks proportional representation, a.k.a. “racial balancing”, a patently unconstitutional goal under the California and the U.S. constitutions. Thereby, the California constitution must be amended to make way.

ACA-5 以“平权行动”，“平等”和/或“多元化”等美丽字眼为幌子提议废除（1996年通过的）209号加州宪法修正案。像其前身SCA5和AB1726一样，它真正寻求的是比例代表制，又称“种族平衡”。这样做明显违反加利福尼亚和美国宪法，因此，加州宪法本身必须被修改以为其让路。

The phrase Affirmative Action originated in President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 in 1961 and in President Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 in 1965.  The exact original words are:  “Take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”  The focus is to stop discrimination using racial criteria, a goal ACA-5 seeks to revoke by repealing Prop 209.  The so-called “Affirmative Action” ACA-5 seeks is to change “without regard to” into “must consider” race in all government decisions.  Through such a “bait and switch” tactic, ACA-5 spins “Affirmative Action” on its head to accomplish the exact opposite.  It also spins the concept of “equal opportunity” by equating it to “equal outcome”, presented deceptively as “Affirmative Action”, “Equality” and/or “Diversity”.  Who would be so audacious, unreasonable, reactionary and repugnant as to oppose such noble ideals?  Under the resplendent cloth masquerades the ravening wolf of “racial preference”.

平权行动起源于1961年肯尼迪总统签署的10925号行政命令和1965年约翰逊总统签署的11246号行政命令。确切的原文是：“采取平权行动，以确保应聘者申请工作过程中，以及在被雇用期间所享受的待遇不受其种族，肤色，宗教，性别或国籍因素的影响。” 重点是要停止因使用种族标准而产生的歧视，ACA-5旨在通过废除第209号提案来销毁该目标。ACA-5寻求的所谓“平权行动”是在所有的政府决定中将种族因素从“不考虑”变为“必须考虑”。通过这种“偷梁换柱”策略，ACA-5打着“平权行动”的幌子以达到完全相反的效果。它还将“机会均等”的概念与“结果均等”划等号，欺骗性地将其等同成”平权行动“，“平等”和“多元化”。对于这样金字招牌包装下的“崇高理想”又有谁敢对它大胆妄议，批评和反对呢？于是，“种族优先”之实的恶狼就藏在伪善的羊皮底下悄无声息地来到了羊群之中，谁是它饥肠辘辘肚子里的下一餐呢？

San Diego Asian Americans for Equality (SDAAFE) firmly supports Johnson/Kennedy Affirmative Action and opposes the anti-affirmative-action attempt of the ACA-5 authors to bring back race into government decisions.  We support the compassionate ideal of helping socioeconomically underprivileged people of any race without regard to race, for which no constitutional amendment is needed.  Race is a forbidden classification for good reason, because it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of his or her own merit and essential qualities.  Racial preference is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ into a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial diversity’.  The Equal Protection Clause commands the elimination of racial barriers, not their creation in order to satisfy our theory as to how society ought to be organized.  As Chief Justice John Roberts put it succinctly: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

圣地亚哥亚裔平权会（SDAAFE）坚决支持约翰逊/肯尼迪原版的平权行动，坚决反对ACA-5作者盗版并偷梁换柱将种族优先重新合法化的反平权行动。我们支持那博爱和“帮助任何种族里社会经济地位低下的人群”的崇高理念。这种理念不分种族，根本无需修宪即可执行。宪法禁止以种族因素作为分类标准是很有道理的，因为它根据一个人的肤色和祖先，而不是个人的基本素质和贡献所来决定其社会价值是对个人价值和尊严的侮辱。简单的贴上“种族多样性”的标签是不能将明显违宪的种族优先概念伪装成重要的国家利益。美国宪法第十四条《平等保护条款》要求消除已有的种族障碍，而不是通过人为设置新的种族优先障碍来满足我们对公义社会的理解和渴望。正如首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）所说：“禁止种族歧视最好方法就是禁止用种族的眼光来区别对待所有事情。”

Racial preference passes over better qualified candidates for schools or government jobs based on innate characteristics a person cannot change.  It papers over deep-rooted social problems, condemning under-privileged kids of all races to a permanent cycle of dysfunctional schools and compromising academic missions in the long run.  It seeks to disregard rules and standards by rigging the outcome for the “chosen people,” not unlike the ongoing college admissions   scandal. It unpatriotically hurts American competitiveness in this age of global economy.  President Barack Obama also recognized that we Americans are not living in a bubble.  In his commencement speech to the historically black Morehouse College students on May 19th, 2013, he told the aspiring graduates “…in today’s hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with a billion young people from China and India and Brazil entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything you haven’t earned.  And whatever hardships you may experience because of your race, they pale in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured and overcome.”

种族优先会使资历条件最合格的人选因个人无法改变的先天特征而失去入学或在政府工作的机会。它掩盖了根深蒂固的社会问题，迫使所有种族的弱势群体的孩子们永远接受劣等学校的教育，从而坑害国家的发展和教育大业。它试图无视规则和标准而为 “被拣选的人”篡改结果，这与最近震惊全美的大学入学丑闻有什么不同？在这个全球经济时代，这样做就是挥刀自宫美国的竞争力。奥巴马总统很早就认识到，我们美国人并非只生活在自己的圈子里。早在2013年5月19日，他在对历史悠久的黑人学校莫尔豪斯学院学生的致辞中，就对有抱负的毕业生说：“…在当今这个高度互联，竞争激烈的世界中，来自中国，印度和巴西的十亿年轻人与你们一起进入全球劳动力市场，如果你没有本事，你就会被淘汰。别整天为你们由于种族因素而经历的种种困难而叫苦。你们经历的困难与前几代人所曾经忍受和并且已经克服的困难相比，根本算不上啥。”

Judging people by their skin color is morally repugnant. Equal opportunity is referenced to individual merits, it never guarantees equal results.  To the contrary, enforcing equal outcomes regardless of qualification and effort bears the hallmark of Communism.  Racial preference fosters victimhood, removing any incentive to excel.  It also stigmatizes the “beneficiaries”, degrading the perceived worth of their qualifications in the eyes of others.  Even the leading liberal Justice of the 1970s, Justice William O. Douglas, admonished that “All races can compete fairly at all professional levels.  So far as race is concerned, any state-sponsored preference to one race over another in that competition is in my view ‘invidious’ and violative of the Equal Protection Clause.”

以肤色取人在道德上令人不齿。机会均等是以个人能力为标准而不是以结果相同为标准。相反，若无论资历和努力如何，结果都是一样的，则是搞共产主义。“种族优先”会滋生被害臆想，磨灭追求卓越的动力。它也给所谓的“受益人”蒙上污名，使其资历价值被别人看低。就连70年代的自由主义者先驱大法官威廉·道格拉斯（William O. Douglas）法官也告诫道：“所有种族都可以靠自己在所有职业中公平竞争。就种族而言，在我看来，任何被国家和州政府优先对待的种族，都会因“享受特权”而被人憎恶，因为这违反了 （宪法十四条修正案）《平等保护条款》。”

True diversity is the diversity of ideas, the celebration of our differences; it is not clumsy attempts to equalize everything. If the United States is a melting pot, why is it necessary to identify each ingredient?  More than half a century ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously proclaimed, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  He must be rolling in his grave!

真正的多样性是思想的多样性，是尊重并拥抱我们的差异；而非盲目肤浅地追求大同社会。如果美国是一个大熔炉，为什么必须天天识别大熔炉里的每种成分来区别对待？早在半个多世纪以前，马丁·路德·金博士就在著名的演讲中说：“我梦想有一天，我的四个孩子将生活在一个不是以他们的肤色，而是以他们的品格优劣来评判他们的国度里。” 看到ACA-5披着“平等公义”的羊皮，干着种族优先的勾当，还挂上他的招牌， 估计金博士急得要从棺材里蹦出来了。

I have a dream. Do you?  

我有一个梦想。你有吗？

Dr. Haibo Huang

黄海波 博士

Co-founder, SDAAFE

SDAAFE 联合创始人之一

Criteria

• The articles are related to at least one of the items listed in SVCAF’s mission statement: The Foundation shall advance better integration of Chinese communities in Silicon Valley and its neighboring areas into the U.S. society by: providing education to Chinese communities on legal and political systems in California and the nation;
• encouraging active civic engagement and political participation by Chinese communities; and
• promoting recognition of Chinese communities’ contributions.- Due to restrictions on 501(c)3, the articles should be non-partisan. Nor can they be tied to any election campaigns. - The articles should be first published within the past six months at the time of the nomination. - The articles can be written in either English or Chinese.

How to Nominate An Article

If you think you have found an article meeting our criteria above, please send us (info@svcaf.org ) your nomination with the following information:

• Email title: Nomination for VCAA- Email body：The link to the article to be nominated - The name of the author and - The author’s contact information (email, phone number, wechat ID, etc.).

Self-nomination is allowed and encouraged.

Sponsor this Award

If you would like to donate to us to support this award, please click on the link below: /donate/ . In your donation message, please mention the keyword VCAA so we will use your donations to fund this award.

Recipients of the Award

• 2020/06/29 凌飞《美国公校的左派历史教育对华二代的恶劣后果》, Certificate pdf.- 2020/06/30 Kenny Xu, Dropping SAT from college admissions hurts minorities in the name of wokeness, Certificate pdf.- 2020/06/30 谢滨《加州到底应该赔偿谁？》, Certificate pdf.- 2020/06/30 Haibo Huang, Commentary: Why California should keep Prop. 209, which prohibits state institutions from considering race , Certificate pdf.

**A Warm Thank You Letter **for SVCAF’s COVID-19 Contribution

Dear SVCAF leaders,

I hope your organization is doing well amidst this special time. 

We are a small group of college students working alongside UnitedUSA to highlight people in the AAPI community who have gone above and beyond to help others during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

On behalf of UnitedUSA, we wanted to reach out due to the incredible 15,770 masks you’ve donated to your local community and hospitals. United USA is a platform for promoting both grassroots organizations and prominent leaders in the AAPI community who are fighting tirelessly in the COVID-19 battle. We would be honored to have your organization featured on our website to pass forward the positive message along with your contribution information. 

Your accomplishments in delivering free masks for seniors and local businesses have amazed us and we would like to pay tribute to your #StrongerTogether Project by documenting stories of your donors, volunteers, and essential workers. 

Please contact us if you are willing to schedule a brief conversation to talk about SVCAF’s relief efforts.

We are grateful for your service to society and look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Yanni Zhang from the 2020 International Leadership Foundation Team 

/pages/strongertogether/

For Immediate Release

June 14, 2020

Fremont, San Diego & Irving, California: Representing a diverse and broad-based coalition of concerned organizations to oppose Assembly Constitutional Amendment ACA 5, the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF), San Diego Asian Americans for Equality (SDAAFE), TOC Foundation and Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE) issued the following statement denouncing several members of Californian Asian & Pacific Islander (API) Legislative Caucus. 

During a recent Assembly floor held on June 10th, San Francisco API Caucus Chair Assemblymember David Chiu and members of the API caucus turned a blind eye to fierce opposition of ACA 5 from their constituency, including a large majority of the Asian-American community. They passed ACA 5 on a majority party-line vote – 60 to 14.  Members of the API Legislative Caucus who voted to pass ACA 5 included: David Chiu (17 D), Al Muratsuchi (66 D), Ash Kalra (27 D), Rob Bonta (18 D), Todd Gloria (78 D), Evan Low (28 D), Adrin Nazarian (46 D), and Phil Ting (19 D).

Lacking transparency and using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, Assembly Democrats only held one committee hearing for ACA-5 which was heard in the Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Assembly Democrats purposely ignored holding policy hearing for ACA 5 in the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

In addition, Chiu, Muratsuchi, Bonta, Gloria and Low delivered floor remarks to tout their support of ACA 5, endorsing the blatant lies that are perpetuated in the language of the legislation. ACA 5 would not advance the interests of hard-working Asian Americans in California.

Adding insult to the situation, Chiu and Low slandered the strong grass-root outreach efforts to legislators. Instead of embracing their constituency’s high level of civic engagement, both members ignored their constituents’ deep concerns of ACA 5. Chiu egregiously insinuated that the voters’ anti-discrimination movement is anti-civil rights and misquoted a debunked survey on Asian Americans’ attitudes toward affirmative action, an over-loaded and often misused concept. Low took one step further to disparage first-generation Asian Americans as ignorant to our nation’s history on race relations. In essence, their remarks were slanderous and xenophobic. 

ACA 5 has triggered growing resentment and opposition within the community, including Asian-American parents and families. Proponents are blatantly claiming that ACA 5 would offer “government preference” of contracts to women and minorities. Rather, the true intent of ACA 5 is to repeal Proposition 209 which prohibits the state from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin”. 

ACA 5 is a divisive and discriminatory legislation and will only perpetuate the blatant practices of racial balancing against Asian American students in California. Proponents of ACA 5 like Chiu and Low are advocating for de facto quotas, stereotypes, and higher standards. ACA 5’s proposal to legalize racial preferences erodes America’s fundamental principles of equal opportunity, merit and individual liberty. It further hurts the unity of our society, at a particularly vulnerable moment facing our nation and California.

“Assembly Democrats in Sacramento who voted to pass ACA 5 sold us out. They caved to identify politics and betrayed public trust. They shamelessly stomped on our interests and virtues of the Asian-American community with blatant disregard for the future of our younger generation to pursue the American Dream. Their political pandering and misrepresentation of Asian American’ voices will be accountable,” said members of the Asian American Coalition working to defeat ACA 5.”  said members of the coalition working to defeat ACA 5.

Click here to review the growing and diverse list of organizations working to defeat ACA 5.

San Diego Asian Americans for Equality

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

TOC Foundation

Asian American Coalition for Education

**MEDIA CONTACT: **Dr. Wenyuan Wu, wenyuan.wu@californiansforequalrights.org; (760) 705-8262.

About SDAAFE: http://www.sdaafe.org/.

About SVCAF: /. 

About TOC Foundation: https://www.tocfoundation.org/.

About AACE: http://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/home/.

June 8, 2020

**FREMONT, Calif. — **On behalf of a growing civil rights campaign against state government-sponsored racial discrimination, the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) denounces the insidious attempts of American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) to incite racial tension. Under the pretense of racial justice, ADOS operatives have relentlessly denigrated the Asian-American community and its grassroot representatives who have been courageously fighting against discrimination since 2014.

ADOS’s deliberate tactics of defamation and intimidation were intended to silence SVCAF’s opposition to a controversial bill ACA-5, which would reinstitute government preferences in California’s public programs. 

On June 3, 2020, a Zoom townhall meeting regarding ACA-5 was organized by June Yang Cutter, a candidate for California’s Assembly District 77. The townhall was hijacked by a group of ADOS members who rudely interrupted all featured speakers and chanted inflammatory rhetoric. Afterwards, ADOS started trolling the “#NoOnACA5” twitter account and circulating racist comments against Asian Americans. It even made death threats at civil rights leader Ward Connerly who champions the racial equality campaign. In several social media posts, ADOS labels Chinese Americans as  “bat-eating” “white supremacists,” and insulted Asians’ cultural heritage.

“SVCAF strongly protests ADOS’s malicious attacks on our fight against government discrimination based on race and gender. During the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing social unrest, racist and xenophic actions such as ADOS’s only serve to incite hate crimes against Asian-American communities,” states SVCAF President Crystal Lu. 

She continues, “Reviving racial preferences in government programs, as intended by ACA-5, does nothing to solve structural issues impacting disadvantaged or underserved communities in California. ACA-5 supporters are at best offering a political bandage decorated with toxic identity politics and tribalism.”

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

MEDIA CONTACT: info@svcaf.org **

About SVCAF: /.

Case summary     案件摘要

I read the original complaint filed when this all started back in 2017, and the one in these documents looks pretty much the same, with apparently some amendments along the way. In broad strokes the legal complaint was: 这诉状始于2017年，我读过其原始档案，这些文件中的有一份资料看起来几乎一样，只是有一些明显的修改。大致的法律控诉是：

The student was an exceptional student with great grades and accomplishments. 这个学生成绩优异，出类拔萃。

In conjunction with running for office the student shot a video with some other students. Two of those friends were Muslim Afghan-Americans who played the antagonists and adlibbed their own parts as there was no script. 在竞选职务时，这名学生与其他一些学生一起拍摄了一段视频。这些朋友中有两个是阿富汗裔美国穆斯林，扮演反角，即兴演出，没有脚本。

Another student actually took all the raw video and edited it and uploaded it before the student even had a chance to review it. 实际上另有一个学生拿走了所有的视频原稿，自行编辑后就发布到了网上，这名被案子牵连的学生连审核一下的机会都没有。

The video was produced off campus, was not even produced and posted by the student in question but another student, and only viewed by a small number of individuals with the YouTube stats showing only 30 views. 该视频是在校园外制作的，被质疑的学生并没有制作和发布该视频，这是由另一个学生做的，且仅有极少数人看了这个视频，YouTube统计的播放量只有30次。

The next morning a student sitting next to him let him know that a couple students who saw it found it offensive, so he immediately took it down. (Obviously, the intent was not to offend, because if it was, he would have just kept it up right?). 第二天早上，坐在他旁边的一个学生告诉他，有几个看过这个视频的学生觉得它令人反感，所以他立即将视频下线。（显然，他的目的不是要冒犯别人，否则，他就会一直公开这视频，是不是？）

Janet Willford (apparently the main instigator of the actions against the student) had a close relationship with the family of the person running against him for office (they have fellowship at the same church where Willford’s father in law is a deacon). Her friend’s family stood to directly benefit if the student was removed as an ASB President candidate. When she couldn’t get her hands on the video she contrived to pretend she was looking to help protect the student and convinced the boys who made it to meet with her and show her the video bringing her a copy. Immediately thereafter she showed the video to other administrators as well as students in the leadership program. Janet Willford 珍妮特·威尔福德（显然是反对这名学生的主要煽动者）与他的竞选对手的家人关系密切（她们在同一所教堂联谊，威尔福德的岳父是该教堂的执事)  。如果该学生被取消ASB主席候选人资格，她朋友的家人将直接受益。她因为拿不到视频，就假装自己是来保护这个学生的，说服制作视频的男孩们来见她，让该学生给她看了视频，还给了她一份拷贝。随后，她立即将视频展示给其他学校管理人员以及参加领导力班的学生。

Thereafter ensued a nightmare of hours of intense interrogation, threats, and intimidation and disqualification from the ASB Presidency. 随之而来的是噩梦般的几个小时的激烈审讯、威胁、恐吓和被取消竞选ASB主席的资格。

Janet Willford also disseminated private information about the student and the video out to at least one other school and private friends in an attempt to bring public shame and pressure on the student. Janet Willford珍妮特·威尔福德还将这名学生的个人信息和视频泄露给至少一个同事和一些私人朋友，试图公开羞辱这名学生，给他压力。

Although defendants (various members of the school and SRVUSD leadership) later admitted there was no hate speech in the video punished the student. 尽管被告（  学校和SRVUSD领导）后来承认视频中并没有仇恨的言论，但这名学生却遭受了惩罚。

There was no clear standard set for “appropriate” or “permissible” content, especially given that other many other videos reviewed by the same teacher produced by other students featured the same sorts of things and were not punished, flagged as inappropriate, or if so were punished much less severely. 学校对于“合适的”或“允许的”内容并没有明确的标准，尤其是考虑到其他学生制作的由同一名教师审阅的许多视频也有类似的内容，而无人因此受到惩罚，或者即使被标记为不合适，惩罚也要轻得多。

The punishment was overly severe in response raising the question of racism against the student by the defendants, or at the very least discrimination and unequal treatment. 对该视频的惩罚过于严厉，由此引发质疑被告对学生有种族偏见，或至少是歧视和不平等对待。

The first amendment and various court cases establishing precedent for how it is to be interpreted made it appear that those rights were being violated by the extreme nature of the attack and punishment of the student. 第一项修正案和解释如何处理此类案件的各种法庭案例表明对这名学生的惩罚和极端攻击侵犯了那些权利。

Three months after having been punished, the decision by SRVUSD was reversed and he was re-instated as Junior Class President and also informed that he had also received the most votes for the ASB Presidency and had won becoming the first Asian American ASB President at the School. 在被处罚三个月后，SRVUSD的决定被推翻，他被重新任命为11年级主席，并被告知他在ASB主席【全校学生主席】选举中也获得了最多的选票，并成为该校历史上第一位亚裔ASB主席。

That didn’t stop Mrs Willford and others who continued to attack the student by staging walkouts and super emotional District Board Meeting. (What teenager isn’t going to get emotional after being whipped into a hysterical frenzy by an adult mentor they trust?) 但这并没有阻止Wilford和其他人继续攻击这名学生，她们上演了罢课和超级煽情的学区委员会议。(有哪个青少年不会在被他们信任的成人老师反复敲打洗脑之后变得极度疯狂呢?)

Here’s some direct quotes of other SRVUSD attacks, “Nate’s history teacher, Heidi Stepp, falsely reported to the media, local politicians, Muslim organizations, and numerous other non-school officials that Nate mocked and disparaged Muslims and that he refused to apologize. Ann Katzburg, another District employee, sent correspondence to numerous non-school officials regarding Nate and the Parody. In one email to Defendant Schmitt and at least one other non-school official, Ms.Katzburg falsely reported that the District determined after an investigation that Nate violated the California Penal Code’s “hate crime” statute in connection with the Parody. In another letter sent to more than 1,000 people, Ms. Katzburg accused Nate of engaging in religious discrimination against Muslim Americans in violation of the Civil Rights Act.” 以下是其他SRVUSD攻击的一些直接引语，”Nate的历史老师Heidi Stepp海蒂·斯特普向媒体、当地政客、穆斯林组织和许多其他的非学校官员错误地报告，说Nate挖苦和贬低穆斯林并且拒绝道歉。另一名学区雇员Ann Katzburg安·卡兹伯格给许多非学校官员发了关于Nate和视频的信件。在一封致被告Schmitt 施密特和至少另一名非学校官员的电子邮件中，卡兹伯格错误地报告说，经过调查，学区认定于Nate在模仿他人的过程中违反了《加州刑法》的“仇恨犯罪”条例。在另一封发给1000多人的信中，卡兹伯格指控Nate对美国穆斯林进行宗教歧视，违反了《民权法》。”

In summary, the case was about the SRVUSD member’s “unconstitutional conduct caused Nate to suffer actual damages, including multiple constitutional deprivations, severe emotional distress, financial loss, reputational harm, and fear resulting from, among other things, actual threats of violence to Nate’s life. Nate is entitled to the relief detailed below, and respectfully requests that the Court, after a trial or dispositive motion on the merits, enter judgment in favor of Nate, and award all relief available at law and equity to which Nate is justly entitled.” 综上所述，本案是关于SRVUSD成员“违反宪法的行为导致Nate遭受了实际的伤害，包括多次被剥夺宪法权利，造成极度的精神痛苦，经济损失，名誉损害，以及其他对Nate的生命构成实质威胁所带来的恐惧。Nate有权获得以下详细的补偿，并尊敬地请求法院在经过审判或对案情的决定性动议后，作出对Nate有利的判决，并裁决Nate有权获得所有合法的公平的补偿。”

结束语：遗憾的是，因为教师工会的袒护，涉案的老师至今没有一个受到任何惩罚。

As of today, we have proudly donated a total of 15770 masks to the hospitals, local cities, local stores and our community.

Below is a summary:

N951590Medical Surgical8300Disposable5880Total15770Masks Donated Summary

The hospitals and clinics we donated to are:

• Kaiser Santa Clara: 1300 (500 N95 and 800 surgical)- Valley Health Center Urgent Care:  1290 (690 N95 and 600 surgical)- Alta Bates Summit Medical Center: 210 (50 N95 and 160 surgical)- San Francisco Department of Public Health: 210 (50 N95 and 160 surgical)Stanford Medicine: 200 N95- Veterans Affairs Hospital: 340- O’Connor Hospital: 3500- Asian American Home Health: 300

The local businesses and departments we have donated to are:Sunnyvale

• USPS: 600- Smart & Final at Mary & Fremont: 200- Sunnyvale City & DPS: 2800- San Jose DPS: 1000- Sunnyvale Post Acute: 500

#Community4Community

And 3000 masks for community seniors!

We distributed at 3 Safeway stores on Tuesday 4/7. And we also started online request and delivery on the same day to avoid the need for our seniors to have get out of their houses.

Mask for Seniors Tuesday

So far the cities we have covered for senior delivery are:

• Sunnyvale- Mountain View- Cupertino- San Jose- Santa Clara- Los Altos

Kudos to our delivery volunteers! They have delivered 1480 masks right to the door steps of our senior members of the community in the last week! Brian, Adriana, Swomi, Michele and Thea, thank you!

We Are Truly #OneCommunity

For those who have received their free masks, please refer to this link to learn how to use masks properly, trust me, you need to read this instruction!

And that is 15770 masks donated in two weeks in total!

We are so grateful to have a strong team of volunteers who have made this project a huge success, and who have made our community a true unity! We are also very proud to have such a strong community where everyone is trying to help others! Here is a link to a very touching story (We are indeed #OneCommunity!) on our Facebook page.

Thank you very much, our hard working volunteer team! We started small with 18 friends just two weeks ago, and now we are already much stronger with 45 friends and still counting!

As of 4/10, we have received** $18,254** monetary donation and goods donation of** 7570** masks. Thank you very much everyone for having donated masks and money to this project, we made it together!

We are truly #OneCommunity and #StrongerTogether each day!

And we are having another shipment of masks on the way, fingers crossed! So stay tuned and please keep us in your prayers too!

While we are all waiting for the next wave of mask donations by this project, we are also preparing for the busy work ahead! Please consider join the volunteer team by sending an email to : projectstronger2020@gmail.com

Our philosophy: **Even if we can prevent just one community member from contracting that COVID-19 virus, all of our efforts will be worthy!!! ** If you want to donate to support us so we can purchase more masks, please go here:

**/pages/strongertogether/

And your donation will be tax deductible and corporation match-able.

For further update about hospitals donation request or senior donation request, please like and share our Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/projectstrongertogether

Thank you very much!

Until next shipment of masks!

Team Project #StrongerTogether

4/10/2020

编者按：

三年前一位叫Nate Yu的亚裔学生被他所在高中校方暴凌，他和同学制作的喜剧搞笑视频被污蔑为“种族主义”、“仇视穆斯林”。老师的朋友、同为本校家长而在社区十分有影响力的人物甚至在Facebook贴大字散播谣言，引起社区不了解真相的人在社交网络上围攻未成年孩子，使Nate和他的父母、弟弟、妹妹深受身心的迫害，导致三个孩子数周不能上学。Nate和他的父母对学区提起诉讼，状告学区侵害学生言论自由。他们遭到的不公待遇在华裔社区引起公愤。三年后，案子在庭外和解了。

大家应该记得Yu家三年前用gofundme向社区求助，筹款打官司告学区。加州甚至外州很多朋友都慷慨捐款。本地的朋友不少也参加了学区会议，声援受害者及他的家庭，谴责学区和老师捕风捉影迫害亚裔学生。Nate Yu因为勇敢发声获得2018年度SVCA基金会的The Voice of Asian Americans Scholarship。

他们的诉讼历时长达三年，当初Nate是high school senior，如今已经大三。漫长的诉讼过程中Yu家爸爸妈妈把自己为退休存留的资金和给孩子上大学存的学费拿出来打官司。除了巨大的经济压力之外，Yu家面对“社区领袖”和他们的附和者对儿子的personality assassination，面对无数不解实情听信谣言的群众的白眼，仍然坚持做“硬骨头”。试想一个移民家庭，与掌握着孩子生杀大权的校方和学区官员针锋相对；一份普通工薪阶层的薪水苦苦支撑律师费用，与有雄厚资金支持的学区律师团队相比，如鸡蛋碰石头。Yu家知道自己选择的诉讼道路是不可为而为之，为的是给孩子讨一个公道，也为了其他孩子不会继续受到Nate遭遇的迫害。他们打赢官司，警告了行事不公的学区及其领导，正面回击了利用拿政治正确做幌子对当事人无限上纲上线、甚至谋取私利的恶劣行径，避免类似的群体性霸凌亚裔学生的事件再次发生。

本文转载翻译本地报纸对该案的最新报道，仅供参考

**Case stemmed from discipline for ASB president-elect over controversial ‘parody video’ in 2017 ** 这起诉讼源于2017年学生会主席选举时对有争议的“搞笑视频”的惩戒

by Ryan J. Degan

The San Ramon Valley Unified School District has settled a free-speech lawsuit involving a former student who was disciplined for his part in the creation of a video that at the time had been described as Islamophobic. 圣拉蒙山谷联合学区为言论自由诉讼达成和解，此诉讼涉及一名已毕业的学生，学区当时把他参与制作的视频定性为伊斯兰恐慌，对他进行了纪律处分。

As a part of the settlement, the district will award former San Ramon Valley High School student body president Nathaniel Yu $665,000 and will apologize for “negative effects, disruption and emotional distress” suffered by Yu and his family resulting from discipline inflicted on him from the district. 和解的内容包括学区赔偿前圣拉蒙谷高中学生会主席Nathaniel Yu 66.5万美元，并向Nathaniel Yu及其家人因学区处罚而遭受“负面影响、干扰和情绪困扰”而道歉。

“The landmark settlement figure sends a strong message to public school officials throughout the country that the First Amendment prohibits them from censoring off-campus student speech that does not substantially disrupt school activities,” Frank LoMonte, First Amendment scholar and former Student Press Law Center executive director, said in a statement on Tuesday. “This is especially true in instances such as this where the speech was made on a weekend, entirely off-campus, and with no school resources.” “这一和解有里程碑意义，向全国的公立学校官员发出了一个强烈的信息：宪法第一修正案禁止公立学校审查学生在校外作出的、不严重扰乱学校活动的言论，” 第一修正案学者、前学生新闻法中心执行主任弗兰克·洛蒙特（Frank LoMonte）在星期二的讲话中说道。“这一点在此案中尤其突出，在周末发生、完全在校外进行的、没有动用学校的资源的类似情况均成立。”

According to the lawsuit, the school district violated Yu’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment when it disciplined him for his role in creating what Yu’s representatives called “a James Bond-style parody video,” back in February 2017, during his campaign for student body president. 根据诉讼信息，在2017年2月的学生会主席竞选活动中，学区因为Yu制作了所谓“詹姆斯·邦德式搞笑视频”，对他进行纪律处分，侵犯了Yu受第一修正案保护的宪法权利。

DanvilleSanRamon.com attempted to obtain a copy of the video when the controversy first arose in 2017 but was unsuccessful. Yu’s legal team declined a request to release the video on Tuesday. 当争议在2017年刚刚发生时，DanvilleSanRamon.com试图获得视频的副本，但没有成功。Yu的法律团队拒绝了周二发布视频的请求。

SRVUSD leaders had not responded to a request for comment as of late afternoon Tuesday. 截至周二下午晚些时候，SRVUSD领导人尚未对置评请求作出回应。

Court documents do include an exhibit with proposed verbiage for Superintendent Rick Schmitt’s forthcoming public apology. 法庭文件中确实有一项证据，描述了学监里克·施密特（Rick Schmitt）即将公开道歉的措辞。

“We understand that events that followed were not easy for you and your family. We want to formally acknowledge that, despite various reports on social media and in the press that described the video as ‘hate speech,’ we do not believe the contents of the video constituted ‘hate speech,’” Schmitt’s proposed letter reads, in part. “我们知道接下来发生的事情对你和你的家人来说并不容易。我们想正式承认，尽管社交媒体和媒体上有各种报道称这段视频为“仇恨言论”，但我们不认为视频内容构成“仇恨言论”，施密特(Schmitt)提议的信中的部分内容写道。

“We further believe that the video did not bully, harass, discriminate against, or threaten anyone. Finally, the video did not portray any sexual content. The district recognizes and regrets the negative consequences associated with mischaracterizations regarding you and the content of the video,” the letter added. 信中还提到：“我们还相信，视频没有霸凌、骚扰、歧视或威胁任何人。最后，视频没有描绘任何有关性的内容。学区承认对你和视频内容的错误定位所造成的负面后果，为此感到抱歉。”

The lawsuit describes the video as depicting Yu — who was a 17-year-old junior at the time — as a “James Bond-type hero” who rescued a person kidnapped by two members of an “extremist group” who were attempting to force the victim to participate in a video game competition. 这起诉讼中提到视频描述当时17岁的少年Yu是一名“詹姆斯·邦德式英雄”，他从两名“极端组织”成员的手中解救了一名被绑架的人，绑架的目的是企图让人参加电子游戏比赛。

The video was created off-campus at a friend’s house on Feb. 4, and according to Yu’s attorneys, was an improvised project where “each participant individually developed their characters, improvised their lines without any prior review or consultation, and brought their own props to the off-campus filming location.” 这段视频是2月4日在一个朋友地处校外的家里制作的。据Yu的律师说，这是一个即兴创作的活动，“每个参与者都即兴创造自己的角色，在没有任何预先审查或咨询的情况下即兴创作自己的台词，将自己的道具带到校外拍摄地点。”

The group did not use school property or equipment to create the video, which did not mention SRVHS or the leadership class, and did not feature the school’s or leadership class’s name, logo or other indicia. 该团体没有使用学校的财产或设备录制录像，录像中没有提到SRVHS或领导力课程的课名，也没有显示学校或领导里课的名称、标志或其他标记。

After uploading the video, Yu was alerted by a fellow student that some individuals may find the video offensive, resulting in Yu promptly requesting that the student who edited the video remove it from YouTube. According to the lawsuit the video was taken down hours prior to when students before students bagan casting their ballots on the Feb. 7 election and had only reached approximately 30 views before it was removed. 上传视频后，有同学提醒Yu，可能有人对视频反感，Yu立即要求编辑视频的学生将视频从YouTube上删除。根据诉讼，这段视频是在2月7日学生们投票前几个小时上传的，撤下前只有大约30人观看过。

Yu would go on to win the most votes in the election, but he was initially disqualified from holding the post and removed from the school’s leadership class because of the video. However district officials would later reinstate him as ASB president. 在竞选投票中，Yu最终赢得最多选票，但学校取消了他的职务，并因视频将他从该校的领导力课上开除。不过，学区官员随后恢复了他ASB主席的职务。

“(Yu) and four of his friends stated that the parody’s purpose was to entertain and was not intended to threaten or demean any person, race, or culture,” the suit read. 诉讼中写道：“Yu和他的四个朋友说，模仿的目的是娱乐，而不是威胁或贬低任何人、任何种族或文化。”

Afterward the district reversed its discipline, but Yu’s representatives said the teen continued to face retaliation and public disparagement from other students and district employees — citing in the lawsuit examples of teachers alerting media, local politicians, local and national Muslim organizations and other officials that Yu mocked and disparaged Muslims. 随后，学区撤销了处罚，但Yu的律师说，这名少年继续面临来自其他学生和学区员工的报复和公开诋毁——例证包括一些教师把他的事情举报给媒体、当地政客以及全国性的穆斯林组织和其他官员，说Yu是在嘲笑和诋毁穆斯林。

Another example cited in the lawsuit was two occurrences where his designated parking spot was vandalized with language that mocked his Catholic faith. 诉讼中引用的另一个例子是他的停车位两次被人故意搞破坏，写上了侮辱语言，嘲讽他的天主教信仰。

“No one should be subjected to what my family and I have been forced to endure. As a child of immigrants, I am constantly reminded that we cannot take our civil rights for granted. We must continue our fight to preserve these rights at all costs,” Yu said in a statement. “任何人都不应该受到我和我的家人这样的折磨。作为移民的后代，我不断的意识到，我们不能漠视自己的公民权利，我们必须继续不惜一切代价维护这些权利，”Yu在一份声明中说。

Last November, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney ruled against the school district’s motion to dismiss the case according to Yu’s representatives, rejecting SRVUSD’s argument that the video constituted school-sponsored speech. Soon thereafter the district proposed to settle after being ordered to release more than 12,000 documents related to the case. Yu的律师说，去年11月，美国地区法官马克辛·切斯尼（Maxine Chesney）做出对学区不利大判决， 学区试图用视频属于学校赞助的观点撤销Yu的指控 。此后不久，该学区在被勒令公布12,000多份与此案有关的文件后，提议和解。

A portion of the most related documents have been released online by Yu’s legal team for additional review by the public. 一部分最相关的文件已经由Yu的法律团队在网上发布，供公众进一步查看。

“It was an honor and a privilege to represent Nathaniel and his family in this important First Amendment lawsuit. The defendants punished him for the parody video because they found it ‘offensive’ and ‘inappropriate.’ The First Amendment, however, prohibits government officials from punishing speakers for speech simply because they subjectively disapprove of its content,” added Yu’s lead attorney James Carlos McFall, a Dallas partner at Jackson Walker LLP. “能代表Nathaniel和他的家人参加这次重要的第一修正案诉讼，是我的荣幸。被告（学区）因搞笑视频而惩罚他，因为他们认为视频‘冒犯人’和‘不合适’。然而，第一修正案禁止政府官员仅仅因为他们主观上不赞成视频内容就惩罚言论发表者。”Yu的首席律师，隶属于达拉斯合伙人杰克逊沃克律师事务所的詹姆斯·卡洛斯·麦克法尔（James Carlos McFall)补充道。

As a part of the settlement, in addition to the cash payout the district is also obligated to post an apology to the school website under the “NEWS” tab within five business days of the filing of the joint motion for stipulated dismissal. 作为和解的一部分，除了支付现金外，学区还必须在双方联合达成和解动议的五个工作日内，在学校网站的“新闻”一栏里发表道歉。

That dismissal document was filed in federal court on Tuesday, according to Yu’s attorneys. The public apology had not been posted on the SRVUSD website as of early Tuesday evening. 据Yu的律师称，该案件的和解文件已于周二提交联邦法院。截至周二晚间早些时候，SRVUSD网站还没有公布公开道歉。

附录：

https://danvillesanramon.com/news/2020/04/07/danville-student-settles-free-speech-lawsuit-against-srvusd-will-receive-665000-and-public-apology 大家去原英文新闻下留言

对录像内容和相关背景有兴趣的，读读 https://studentspeechrights.org/case-discovery/  有link to original doc。

After a few days of preparation, we are finally ready to distribute the free disposable masks for the senior members of the community, at three Safeway stores.

Important: We really do not want any of our senior members to go shopping just because of the masks. If you are above age of 65, and you need a mask, you can sign this form and send it to me with your home address, we will try to drop off. The liability form can be downloaded here。

Time: Tuesday 4/7 8:00am-9:00am (the senior shopping hours)

Locations: Site1: 20620 W Homestead Rd, Cupertino, CA 95014 Site2: 639 S Bernardo Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Site3: 85 E El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, CA 94087

Each needing senior family can pick up one bag (20pcs) of masks, and we have 1000 disposable masks for each sites.

Steps for picking up:

1. Sign the liability release sheet with the wipe wrapped pen, and after signing, wipe your hand again, and then throw the wipes to the garbage bin provided.
2. Pick up one bag (20pcs) for your family (one bag per family only).

Please keep the social distance of 6-feet with others.

We picked these sites because they are geographically distributed the most, and this hour because we want to give masks to our seniors who HAVE to go out shopping (meaning if you can shop online, do not come. Please do not go shopping at these sites just because of these masks)

Please make sure to only pick up these masks if you really need them, so we can help as many people as possible.

Please also make sure to sign the liability sheet on the table so our volunteers can focus on their good work.

We will avoid conversations at all, please ignore our booth if you don’t think you need the masks.

Let’s work together to flat the curve!

This activity is sponsored by Project #StrongerTogether, and all the masks were purchased new and unopened by volunteers’ money.

For more info or donate to support us, you can go to our website: /pages/strongertogether/

Or you can just scan the QR code under the hearts.

Social media sharing is also encouraged and appreciated:

FB: https://www.facebook.com/projectstrongertogether/posts/102033531468535

Twitter: https://twitter.com/tonyguan2010

0. To be a California based hospital, senior center or essential local business.

1. Legal Disclaimer (liability release form)

**2. Verifiable Title and Contacts **

3.Receipt 4.Pictures with donated PPE

In order to qualify for donations from SVCAF, we require a legal disclaimer to be provided before hand, otherwise, we are afraid that we can’t help.

Please download the template here.

Please Sign and send the disclaimer via your **hospital or clinic’s office email **with your title and contacts (If it’s before the donation and you are not sure about the quantity of donated PPE, please fill in the space of Type x Quantity as ‘See receipt’), so that we can verify your identity.

Due to limited resources and the fluid China/US custom situation, things are changing very fast and many medical personnel are rushing in with requests. We advise you to get the disclaimer to us ASAP or else your organization might miss out.

We also give priority to those who may have direct contact with CoVid 19 patients or suspects.

Emails should be sent to volunteers at SVCAF: projectstronger2020@gmail.com

Upon receiving the donated gifts, we will also need you to send the three of us an receipt indicating how many and what kind of PPEs are received on what date. Signed by recipient.

In addition, please take a picture of the donated PPEs with yourself and if possible your coworkers, so that we can report and document our contributions to be accountable to our donors.

The pictures you provide us will also be used by us for publicity.

A tweet or FB post with the hashtag #StrongerTogether will be greatly appreciated, as we want to more people to get involved in this effort!

To make donation to support our continuous effort, please refer to: **/pages/strongertogether/ **

And we **do not **re-sell any of our PPEs, please do not ask.

Thanks!

Note: Due to the limit of our resources (funding, man power, supply, logistics etc.) , we can only try to help part of the hospitals and essential businesses in (mainly north) California state. If you are care giver out side of California, please try to contact local groups for help. Thank you for your understanding.

One can be nervous about the numbers of confirmed patient all day long, or one can step up and do something to help.

What can a group of people out of Sunnyvale do about this COVID-19 madness?

They can form a social media group worrying about the situation all day long, or they can come up with some plan and see it through to help.

And that’s what we do: step up to help the community!

The Map Reduce Way to Tackle Uncertainty

Originally, we had 18 volunteers, trying to source face masks to donate to local hospitals, city governments, public service agencies and community. All of us were the first timers regarding this import/export workflow, there are a lot of uncertainties we were faced with:

CDC recommendations are changing everyday, which masks are accepted by the hospitals and city?

How do we guarantee the quality of the masks purchased?

How do we pay the vendors?

How do we make sure the shipments can make through two customs and arrive at Sunnyvale?

How are we going to distribute them to the places that are in urgent needs of these masks?

How do we verify that the donees are really who they claim to be?

All of these questions were tangled together so much that we could hardly make any decision. After two days hectic discussion, we finally found a engineering solution:

Let’s do it a map-reduce way! (now you know that I am a software engineer)

Under the same mission, each of us go talk to different vendors, and pay them if enough confidence has been built up; monitor the shipment, and then check the quality and make the donation as soon as it’s available.

By doing this, we can still share information with each other, but we delegate the responsibility to each volunteer, and diluted the risk: If one purchase fails in any way, all we lose is that payment, not all. And if it’s small amount of shipment, it’s more likely to be allowed in two customs, even in this era of tension-love-flip-around.

And it worked!

Within five days, we made the first donation of 800 surgical masks to Sunnyvale DPS! And our dear officers didn’t keep them for themselves, they then donated to the local senior centers in the city! Respect!

Bigger Purchased Donation

When Sunnyvale Mayor Larry Klein told me that in some local hospitals, “they will soon be tying scarves around peoples faces instead of having masks”, my heart was broken. and immediately made an order of 8000 masks, among them are some expensive N95 respirators.

This time the decision was quick, I asked myself, what is your choice:

The money put into risk, or the lives are already in the risk?

I chose the lives, clearly.

After the order, I have been refreshing the UPS shipment update pages everyday, praying that everything goes through. At some point, when people told me that the USA custom may forfeit the masks because it’s in great need in New York state. My first reaction was, that would still be great because I know it’s going to be put into use to protect more people!

Yesterday, it finally arrived at my door in 5 packages!

Immediately, I checked the quality with water, fire and static, to make sure that it’s water proof, the middle layer is high quality cloth material, and enough sticky power to prevent droplets spreading out.

And they all passed the tests!

Within 30 minutes, the first donation was made to our Sunnyvale Post Office via pickup!

The same afternoon, we made another one to Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center.

Looking at the picture above, don’t you think that our doctors and staff at the front of the battlefield against the COVID-19 virus should be wearing masks? But they simply could not because there is no masks to wear! I cannot tell you how saddened I was, specially when I saw their smiling face, it made me more sad…

Kudos to our doctors and nurses, you are the true heroes!

When you are there fighting for us, we will make sure to cover your back!!!

Later, after a full day’s work, Dr. Enoch Choi picked up another 900 masks on behalf of his hospital. He is the new Medical Director of at Valley Health Center Urgent Care (San Jose), and I spent 3 days trying to verify his identity, to make sure he was the one who are leading the doctors at “the county clinic who is the only outpatient (non-admitted to hospital) place to screen for Covid-19”. Dr. Choi later told me that I was the first donor who checked so rigorously before the donation. Sorry Dr. Choi, I just had to make sure these masks be used by people who really need them, and there won’t be a second time of such scrutiny!

Another reason for the identity check was to make sure that these masks, after going through all these days of waiting and praying, should not be handed to the hoarders who want to make money out of it. So I had to be really careful when make the first donation to the hospitals.

What is Next?

More donations will be made to Sunnyvale City and DPS, and a good part of these masks will also be made available for seniors who really need these masks.

After the first donation, medias found me via Sunnyvale DPS, and I did some interviews with two of them (KTVU interview, KTSF Channel 26 interview). It’s a small thing, but if more people could be inspired to do the same thing for the community, why not?

Per the request of a lot of friends who want to be part of this effort, I reached out to Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) for the help to set up a donation channel so we can do more!

Another big order will be made today or tomorrow, thanks to the surport of SVCAF. They not only helped to setup a donation channel so more people can be part of this effort, but also offered $5,000 for sooner purchases!

Thank you SVCAF!

Project #StrongerTogether

Today, after everything was proven to be working, I proudly kick off the Project #StrongerTogether, it’s community helping community, and it’s coming together, covering each other’s back so we can win this battle.

It was started from Sunnyvale, but there is no reason that it should stay in just Sunnyvale. We can definitely do more!

For people who want to take part of this efforts, you can either reach out to me for volunteer opportunities or chip in some amount of monetary donations via SVCAF (/pages/strongertogether/). When you do donate, please make sure that the amount should have a change of $0.19, so that it can be accounted to Project #StrongerTogether; and if you have corporation matching, please donate directly at SVCAF link, then ask for matching from your company.

Because everyday counts, and the sooner we can make the next donation purchase, the safer our community will be.

We may be keeping our social distances nowadays, but we are more united together than ever!

And we will win this battle together and strong!

**For more real time update about this project, please go my twitter handle **@tonyguan2010

To alleviate the extreme shortage of personal protective equipment for healthcare professionals and public service workers, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation has successfully secured the first batch of masks including N95 respirators! More shipments are coming in.

We welcome our supporters to donate toward the purchasing of more PPE. These equipment will go to healthcare providers, first responders, postal workers as well as senior citizens to protect them from coronavirus.

Please consider donating (see below) and share on your social media with following messages:

Project #StrongerTogether — SVCAF Calls for Donation to Supply N95 Respirators and Other Protective Gears for the need of Bay Area communities.

/pages/strongertogether/ Community4Community! #StrongerTogether #Masks4All #ProjectStrongerTogether

**Note: **To indicate the purpose of your donation is for Project #StrongerTogether, your donation amount should end with $.19. And your donation is tax deductible.

Our EIN is 47-3798752 .

For hospitals or essential businesses to accept our PPE donations, please refer to: /pages/pperequests/

[callout size=”col-8″ last_column=”false” title=”Paypal” description=”donations@svcaf.org via Paypal” button_title=”Donate $xx.19 for Project #StrongerTogether” button_icon=”cloud icon” button_link=”https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=Z2GA5GS3DKGRA” button_size=”large” button_rounded=”true” button_color=”blue”]

[callout size=”col-8″ last_column=”false” title=”Check Payable to: SVCAF” description=”Mail to: 39510 Paseo Padre Pkwy, Suite 310, Fremont, CA 94538″]

[callout size=”col-8″ last_column=”true” title=”Zelle to info@svcaf.org” description=”Recipient: SVCAF You have to send us an email or put your email in the description, to receive a receipt, since Zelle does not provide us sender info.”]

More updates on Social Media:

1. Twitter Updates: @tonyguan2010

2. LinkedIn Post: Project #StrongerTogether

3. Project #StrongerTogether Kickoff (03/31/2020)

4. Facebook: Project #StrongerTogether Kickoff (04/04/2020)

5. Facebook Pager: Project #StrongerTogether

6. Update on Project #StrongerTogether (4/10/2020)

7. Mask4Seniors Open for Online Reservation and Delivery! (5/27/2020)

Contact us: projectstronger2020@gmail.com

最近几周，我们亲眼目睹了新型冠状病毒转移攻击目标，从中国转向全世界。从各种媒体报道我们得知一些医疗防卫物资PPE （Personal Protective Equipment）的短缺让在病毒面前裸奔的医疗工作者受到生命的威胁。短缺的物资包括医用口罩，防护衣等，短缺现象在全国大范围内出现。大难当头人性尽显，隔离身体隔离不了大爱。积极响应很多医疗机构发出对社会的呼吁，各个组织/私人发起的口罩募捐活动进行得如火如荼，也得到了受捐医疗机构的正面反馈。为我们的新家园尽自己的一份绵薄之力， 这时不回馈社区，更待何时？

我们以下几个组织讨论了一下，决定立即携手发起口罩募捐活动：

• Herbert Chiu, DDS, Health Chair, Citizens for Better Community (CBC)
• Chunchi Ma, President, Huaren Rotary Club
• Jenny Zhao, President, Bay Area Homeowners Network(BAHN)
• Crystal Lu, President, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF)

目标是未来10天-两周内，募集2万美元的善款，用来购买5-10万只医用口罩。货源是广州的一家厂商，有FDA认证，是援美公益活动提供最低的价格（1.5人民币/只左右)。目 前 运 输通 关 等 准 备工 作 都 在平行进行中， 速度是关键。如果Local医院派送不完，还有大量的机构可以赠送，包括老人中心，警察局，需要口罩的服务性行业人员，及各市府工作人员等。我们现在可以安全的在大后方家里工作，应该感恩那些没得选择而勇敢战斗在第一线的医护人员。

祈福加州，天佑美国！谢谢大家的不懈支持！

CBC网站

http://www.cbcsfbay.org

回顾2019年，SVCAF在会员和各界朋友支持下，开展了一些服务社区的义工工作，例如：

1. 继续与AACE (Asian American Coalition for Education)大力合作，向AACE捐款 $5000；
2. 继续支持SFFA为亚裔争取平等教育权利的奋争，组织支持SFFA的配捐活动，SVCAF配捐$10,000，社区捐助额 $13,865；
3. 协助 American Coalition for Equality (ACE)和 Let People Vote等组织，挫败华州按种族搞配额的法案 I-1000；
4. 与UCLA的Sander 教授合作，协助他跟踪和监督加州大学隐形的种族招生的操作；
5. 与另两个加州草根组织—圣地亚哥亚裔平权会基金会（SDAAFE）、橙县俱乐部（TOC）联合举办"加州青少年立法论文大赛"，在青少年推动对立法议题的了解和参与，获得圆满成功；
6. 推动社区对法律、权益等议题的认识，更新了加州《枪支安全证书学习手册》的中英文对照版本，推出2019年最新版本；
7. 开启加州立法的早期预警系统的开发（Early Alert of Laws)，在Github上建立了基金会的软件库，尝试用软件协助公益；
8. 支持社区关注S386议题，跟踪绿卡职业法律的更改；
9. 协办职场讲座，职场讲座群，社区反响热烈；
10. 为增进华人相互沟通交流，组织传统的一年一度的漂流活动，超过300人参加；
11. 增加华人参与社区、政治议题的宣传力度，开通了微信公众号 SVCAF。

展望2020，我们将会继续在各界会员和朋友的支持下，专注社区关心的热点问题，维护华人的核心权益，包括平等的教育和工作权利。欢迎认同我们的理念和行动的您，加入我们的义工队伍；捐款也欢迎。谢谢大家！

硅谷华人协会基金会

2020年1月1日

The following is the statement from Mr. Liao.

Dear SFFA Members,

My name is Chunhua Liao. I am a scientist, father, volunteer, and a proud naturalized US citizen. As a long-time supporter of SFFA, I would like to take my effort further by serving on its board. I hope to win your support. 

I am a true believer in the equal protection clause of the US Constitution and the cause of SFFA — “a student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university.” 

I have a strong track record in advancing the above causes, being deeply involved in fighting for equal education rights for all students since February 2014 when I first heard about SCA-5. This notorious California Senate Constitutional Amendment attempted to allow state universities to practice admissions policies based on race and ethnicity. Outraged by the bill, I immediately started a change.org petition to urge the California State Assembly to reject it. The petition went viral and gained 112,000+ signatures in a few weeks. In the meantime, I co-founded Silicon Valley Chinese Association (SVCA) with fellow volunteers Alex Chen and Cheney Gao. Since then, SVCA has become one of the leading grassroots organizations in the nation promoting civil involvement of new generations of Chinese Americans. In April 2015, I co-founded a sister 501c(3) nonprofit organization, SVCA Foundation (SVCAF), to promote the integration of Chinese communities in Silicon Valley into the U.S. society. Under SVCAF, I was a key organizer for various endeavors supporting SFFA, including two forums in Silicon Valley featuring Mr. Blum and his team in May 2015 and May 2018, two membership drives for SFFA, a trip to join the Boston Rally supporting SFFA’s lawsuit against Harvard in October 2018, as well as several rounds of fundraising efforts in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Our latest effort in Oct. 2019 immediately followed the U.S. District Court Ruling of the SFFA v. Harvard case, raising $23,865 for SFFA.

If elected to the SFFA Board, I will facilitate the communications between SFFA and the Chinese American communities. This includes continuing to raise awareness for the cause that SFFA is fighting for; encouraging people to join as members; and serving as a voice reflecting values and opinions of these communities. I will also continue to raise funds for the organization. As a trained scientist, naturalized US citizen and experienced volunteer, I will bring my unique skills, perspectives and experiences to the board to help SFFA accomplish its mission under my term and beyond.

Again, please confidently cast your votes to me. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via liao@svcaf.org. 

Yours sincerely, 

**Chunhua Liao **

The Schedule of the Election

In the coming weeks, the members of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) will elect a new Director to the Board of Directors. This Director will have a direct voice in SFFA’s decision-making, including the management and direction of ongoing litigation. This Director will be elected through an online vote by the members of SFFA.

The Election will proceed through the following schedule and procedures:

• December 10, 2019 – Deadline for Submitting Nominations- December 17, 2019 – Members Receive the List of Candidates and Voting Begins- December 24, 2019 – Deadline for Voting- December 27, 2019 – The New Director Will Be Announced

About SFFA:

Students for Fair Admissions is a nonprofit membership group of more than 20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Our mission is to support and participate in litigation that will restore the original principles of our nation’s civil rights movement: A student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university.

由圣地亚哥亚裔平权会基金会（SDAAFE）、硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF）、橙县俱乐部（TOC）三个加州地方组织联合举办的加州青少年立法论文大赛于11月2日下午5:30在圣地亚哥Hilton Garden Inn San Diego Del Mar酒店举行了隆重的颁奖典礼。

圣地亚哥县检察长Summer Stephan、平权会会长谢家树、硅谷华人协会基金会理事廖春华、橙县俱乐部执行会长李嘉济、赞助圣地亚哥地区赛事的阳光地产主席赵京分别为获加州州级前三名以及进入州级决赛的同学颁发奖状和奖金。橙县俱乐部会长、加州68选区州众议员候选人Benjamin Yu（于淼）也来到现场为获奖同学们加油鼓劲。

本次立法论文大赛的主题是今年七月份刚刚通过的AB-392法案（五月份选题时仍在议会讨论中），关于警察使用致命武力的合法性界定问题。县检察长Summer Stephan的发言从执法者的角度介绍了警察日常工作的危险性，还描述了警察所接受的减少使用致命武力的训练，也列举了关于本县警察枪击事件的各项统计数据，还直接阐述了AB-392的相关情况，为参赛的同学们提供了第一手的详尽资料。她还回答了在场听众的问题，她对所从事工作各项数据的熟悉程度令在场听众折服。

在Summer Stephan的讲座结束以后举办了获奖学生的颁奖典礼，大赛裁判委员会主席曾永煌介绍了评奖的流程，以展示评奖过程的公正性。主持人徐佶翮分别介绍了获奖学生各自论文当中的亮点，并鼓励同学们2020年继续参加加州立法论文大赛，鼓励亚裔孩子们能够发挥自己的特长，积极思考社会问题，参与社区建设，回馈社会。

2019年立法论文大赛的获奖名单如下：

The judges have put down the vote!

Congratulation to the winners of 2019 Essay Contest on California State Legislation (The Third ‘Sunrise Realty Cup’ Youth Legislative Essay Contest )

** 2019 Essay Contest Final Round Rankings: **

Proposition Side:

Final RankingAuthor NameTitle of EssayAuthor Associated SchoolAuthor’s Grade in School1Minle GuoAB-392: A Bill to Save Lives Cerritos High School102Sophia FangAB-392: One Less Gunshot Westview High School103Yujia WangNew Bill to Save Lives Westview High School123Lucy LiuCalifornia Act to Save Lives Valley Christian High School9

Opposition Side:

Final RankingAuthor NameTitle of EssayAuthor Associated SchoolAuthor’s Grade in School1Isabelle ZhangNo titleCrystal Springs Uplands School 102Bennett Hochner AB-392 Creates AmbiguitiesSage Creek High School113Harry Huai Guan AB-392: The Purge of Peace Officers?Homestead High School93Kane XuAB 392: A False Reformation Del Norte High School11

And the following is a complete list of those who made into the final round:

• Amy Wang — Westview High School
• Andrew Gao — Canyon Crest Academy
• Brandon Xu — Northwood High School
• Anna Chen — Oak Avenue Intermediate School
• Katherine Han — Westview High School
• Bennett Hochner — Sage Creek High School
• Lucy Liu — Valley Christian High School
• Bruce Zhang — Bowditch Middle School
• Minghui Grace Yao — Mesa Verde Middle School
• Harry Huai Guan — Homestead High School
• Minle Guo — Cerritos High School
• Isabelle Zhang — Crystal Springs Uplands School
• Nicole Cui — ModernBrain
• Kane Xu — Del Norte High School
• Sophia Fang — Westview High School
• Madeleine Chang — Orange County School of Arts
• Yujia Wang — Westview High School
• Natalie Kwok — Heritage Oak Private Education

Congratulation to the above authors!

正方论文第一名 Minle Guo [下载pdf]：

反方论文第一名 Isabelle Zhang  [下载pdf]：

正方论文第二名 Sophia Fang  [下载pdf]

反方论文第二名  Bennett Hochner [下载pdf]

正方论文第三名 Yujia Wang  [下载pdf]

正方论文第三名 Lucy Liu [下载pdf]

反方论文第三名  Harry Huai Guan [下载pdf]

反方论文第三名 Kane Xu  [下载pdf]

这次职场经验讲座是由贺全牵头组织义工举办。邀请了二十多年FinTech退休高管陆先生为给职场的朋友们介绍些经验，建立些联系，以后可以互相帮助，互通信息，乃至互相提携。改变我们自己的一些习惯，提高自己，也在探讨之列。

SVCA基金会资助$500买了pizza, 方便中午参加讲座的嘉宾，义工和听众。

笔记正文

– 专业 vs 职业

技术，沟通力，领导力，业务能力

技术只是手段、工具。代码，专业，要转化为业务。

万能药？ vs 专业domain能力的支撑，精与深; vs 旁边的side track的知识、技能。

– 风险，担当，主人翁精神

出了事，不推；

有了功劳，也不应该推；

危与机，危转化为机会。。。帮公司排忧解难。

这个图是关于passion与skill的4-box；

• 低skill+缺passion, 这个属于混，肯定不行，得改变，不改变的话，会被干掉的。
• 高skill+缺passion, 技术属于大拿，但兴趣缺缺，属于能混的一个comfort zone, 职场中，不少属于此类；
• 低skill+有passion, 会使劲学，提高skill的；
• 高skill+有passion, 这个很lucky，很好。。。

随着时间的推移，上面的情况会变；所以，一年一度，要对自己至少审视一次。

– manager VS Leader

评判：；是否是 1+1 大于2？

不是的话，你只是manager;

是的话，你是leader.

80%的时间与精力，花在与人沟通上。

– 职场环境与找工作

找工作：找公司？找领导？

面试非常重要，双向面试；和找老公老婆差不多认真

去哪个团队？团队是核心业务的，还是打杂的？

好的leader，不会呆在烂公司的。

去面试时，观察流程；去看厕所；去借电话用一下。。。看看管理得好不好。

75%的人，工作的满意度，来自于自己的直接老板。。。选老板，选组，重要过选公司。不要太着意于package.

– 招人：

招人时，写job description…变成了被JD驱动的怪圈。

Hire for career vs Hire for a job

• 应该是Hire这个人的学习、适应能力，
• 有没有担当；
• 脸皮厚，能带领团队、带来贡献。而玻璃心，不行；
• 高维护（high maintenance）需要呵护哄开心的人不行; 时刻都在不开心。

追求卓越， 赋能他人。。。是自然而然的做，不是居高临下的；

Leader, 保持良好的沟通；

分享自己的喜悦。

自己的实例：支付风控部门；本来汇报给CTO, 后来加了2个老板。。。活还都自己干，白白加上2个婆婆；心里很不爽。。。

听了别人建议，“那两个你就不得罪就好”，照样继续干活。

后来，要升级系统，但沒budget…求助于“竞争对手”，讲清了升级的好处，不升级的坏处（万一撑不过黑色星期五的流量，会大大影响公司的revenue…), 没想到得到了大力支持，顺利升级，结果皆大欢喜。

体会就是：对于风险，有担当，为公司考量；也不以小人之心去度人。小人是有的，但人到一定层次后，大家都会以公司利益为重的；不要把自己放在一个被动的位置。

依仗自己的团队，依靠平时积累的生态；

从小我跳出来，对组织架构方面，reporting给谁谁，不必太在意；只要能做事即好。如果不能做事了，那就走人为好。

在美华人的短板：

1）融入不够；

2）团结不够。

在美华人，要入籍参与投票，要融入；

不要老想脚踏两只船。

这个，算是X-Curve,

• 一条随着年龄的增长，你对于公司的综合价值，（越来越低）；
• 另一条是随着年龄的增长，公司对于你的liability、负担（越来越重）

其他人的补充

转JY: 主讲人一开始就说，开会第一排没人，这是典型的中国人会场；如果是印度或白人，第一排会坐满

转JY: 他讲中国人作leader 要勇于担当，对credit and 过失都不退缩。他做code 一个重要项目出现bug, 用户团队的老板emailed him 20 “Fuck!”  他当时把20 fuck 打印下来贴在墙上，激励自己, 很快和人合作fix bug…

曹女士的补充：

我有幸今天聆听精彩讲座，我虽然不是这个行业的（哈哈，混进来），帮其他人听的。但感触挺深。

来之前我老想听到针对这个主题的具体答案，但实际他分享的是普世价值观，适合所有类型公司的 也适合中美一般大企业（排除个别），如何从技术型-技术型管理者，其实技术总有人会解决，但形成对公司有贡献的业务，需要懂点技术的管理者，跳开技术本身而高于技术本身（业务角度出发，公司角度出发），才能对公司产生1+1>2的价值，才具有不可替代性。当然，做事的时候不要太着眼眼前利益，多赋能别人，社会是公平的，适合任何行业。我的浅显体会。

多向各位学习

我再分享一句以前我领导教育的。

只说不做，空把式

只做不说，傻把式

既做又说，真把式

陆女士补充： 主讲人有个建议很好。不要五天都带饭和中国人一起吃中饭。至少有一天和组里的非中国人一起吃午饭。至少有一天和别的组里的非中国人一起吃午饭。

陆女士自己的体会：所以大家要做baseline check. 自己的Organization 上季度growth 有多少？做的产品是公司的cash cow, next generation product? 还是要退休的产品？

自己的老板是大老板的明星手下？大老板是不是大大老板的明星？就像主讲人所说跟对人最重要。

非常感谢组织这次的讲座，很受启发。

Wendy 的补充：

1. 一个优秀的领导人要有大格局，担当。不要把个人利益放在前位，而是把企业团队利益排在第一位。

2. 要脸皮厚，不要玻璃心。荣辱不惊，赋能他人。

3. 不是溜须拍马，而是可以替老板分忧解难。格局和思维方式是Leader和employee的分水岭。

Summary:

1.) 做自己喜欢的业务，成为专家，将技能转化为能为公司带来业绩；

2. 作leader, 不是只做manager; 具领导力

3. 赋能他人

讲座Q&A部分：

1. 俗话说，低头拉车，抬头看路。如何才能抬头看路？怎么看？对各行业的前景，可有观察与预测？

A. 未来十年High tech 前景仍然会很好。但是会有一些新问题出现比如tech integrity. AI对社会影响。

2. 中美关系的大局，时好时坏，在美华人到底应该如何定位？一会美国抓间谍，一会又抓商业剽窃的，如何自处？

A.比如对知识产权的维护，是个人的道德水准。和中美关系好坏无关。道德底线需要坚守也是个人的reputation.

3. 我在组里最能干，老板老给我加活，我都快累死了，而同事都挺清闲的样子。这好不公平。咋办？

A. 拿Prioritized work list和老板商量priority, 说自己可以有时间做多少。但是如果让自己train某组员，就可以完成多少。等到组员都忙的是时候，鼓动老板招人，然后主动来带新人，自然以后就是小老板啦。

4 作为妈妈，孩子也慢慢大了，需要照管，如何处理工作与家庭？

主讲人认为一定是要去take care好家庭。他在外面打拼的时候，他太太就回归家庭。現在他退休了，他太太在外面工作。他们家的family time 规定是不能带手机的，每个人要说出自己身边发生的一件事进行探讨。而且他不鼓励小孩，仅仅是为了上好大学而去做一些事情比如上补习班。

5. 关于最近FB的两宗“离去”，如果时光能倒流，应该怎么处理最好？

部分回答。第一没有任何工作值得去跳楼。如果是他，新老板来，别的组员换组，他可能就不换，也许更能脱颖而出。这个回答要和一开始的跟对人进对组结合在一起看。

如果是进对的组。新老板刚来也许可行。如果组不对， 老板也不会高明。新来的更不知道。答案也许就不同了。

职场讲座聊天群补充经验

主讲嘉宾：

大家提出的观点都很好，我想说的现在华人职场面临的问题只是一只深度问题的表现形式，这个深度问题就是我们华人（尤其是第一代华人）对自己在美国发展根本定位的问题：

当过客还是当主人 ？

只有这个问题想清楚了，初心归零归正，很多看事情的格局和角度就不一样了：老印不是我们的对手，我们自己才是我们的对手！

不客气的说，如果我们这个群大家只是关注职场技巧，最多就是学到的是”术”，不是道。

那么我们就有陷入了华人的怪圈，只有聪明，没有智慧。

我提个建议：我们这个群不要提老印是对手，我们要向老印学习的东西很多

我交流过，也读了微软CEO Staya的Hi Refresh这本书，有几件事情印象深刻，分享给大家：

（1）Staya在微软已经取得了绿卡，他回到印度结婚，发现新婚太太作为绿卡持有者的配偶，只能在印度等待她自己的绿卡签证，要等待很多年。Staya找到微软HR的法务部门，要求自己放弃绿卡，换成H1签证，然后给太太办理了H1配偶者签证，尽快老美团聚。

我自己问自己？我会为了自己的家人而放弃绿卡，重新开始吗 

人生就是要有得有失，关键是如果选择。华人往往什么好处都想占着，突然发现世界已经抛弃了我们

（2）Staya和当时微软的CEO Steve P去硅谷忽悠陆奇加盟微软。和陆奇交流了一天后，在回西雅图的公司商务机上，Satya对Steve P说，陆奇是个人才，微软现在非常需要

Steve说，你这样说非常好。不过现在有一个问题。陆奇如果来微软，他会在级别上高于你，你也会向陆奇汇报，你有问题吗 ？

Staya说让我想一想，第二天一早，他对Steve说，我完全支持你找陆奇来微软，我可以向他汇报，而且会全力以赴的支持他的工作

@硅谷忍者 陆奇在百度是被排挤走的。在微软，Staya离开陆奇的部门后，主持的微软云的业务，由于出色的业绩，可以说挽救了微软，被董事会任命为微软CEO后，陆奇在微软的仕途到头了，自己选择离开

当时微软内部悲观情绪蔓延，很多大牛离职。Bing业务是九死一生，云业务根本没有。Staya也是技术出身，但是作为云业务的一号位，把微软的云业务做到世界第二，成为了微软的新增长引擎，居功至伟。成为新的微软CEO，实至名归

说句大逆不道的话：华人如果永远是有自己的小九九，或者搞不清要坚持什么，放弃什么，脚踩两条船，左右摇摆，那我们搞多少职场讲座和交流，都是浪费时间

其实是很简单的人性：在座的各位谁愿意娶一位有二心的太太或老公回家 ？

要有True Believe ！否则人生会一事无成

Satya分享了很多鲜为人知的个人故事和经历，放弃绿卡，如果照顾自己有智障的孩子，境界，胸怀，视野，同情心。。。他有伟大的人格魅力，不仅聪明绝顶，还是一个善于思考，充满智慧的领导者，让微软1+1》N，是当代最伟大的企业家。本书由盖茨作序，推荐给大家

鸣谢

今天应该有130到150人之间到场；报名到130人时，就关闭报名表了。

今天Jason来到湾区，与大家面对面交流，分享心得体会与经验。感谢Jason倾心分享。

感谢义工们支持。陆琳，June Yang, sherlyn, 冯毅，Danya, 韩颖，Ben Hu, Paul Han, Nicole, 以及诸多帮助布置场地、清洁场地的朋友们。

感谢SVCAF sponsor lunch; 感谢Gold Team Financial Center免费提供这么好的场地与设备。

硅谷华人协会基金会(SVCA基金会)是华人草根自己的501(c)(3)非赢利公益组织。SVCA基金会致力于通过切实的义工行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华人， 研讨华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象，共同建设更美好的加州。

如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款。具体信息见: /pages/donations/

更多现场照片

AB 1356, if passed, would mandate those jurisdictions to issue cannabis licenses if more than 50 percent of the voters in that jurisdiction voted positively for Proposition 64 in 2016. That is in direct contradiction to Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code (“BPC”), part of MAUCRSA as adopted in Proposition 64. More specifically, subsection 26200 (a) of BPC provides, “[n]othing in this division shall be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to second hand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction.” Now, AB 1356 wants to take back the very authority the state legislators had guaranteed to the local jurisdictions as Proposition 64 became law. We are deeply disturbed by a flipflop that is this thorough and this abrupt.

Further, just because the majority of the voters in a particular jurisdiction are in favor of Proposition 64 doesn’t mean they agree that their local government should license cannabis retails stores in that jurisdiction. While legal access to cannabis should be protected, health and safety concern of the general public should also be protected at no less level. Local governments know their people best and should be afforded full authority to determine how they handle matters with regard to their own constituents.

California prides itself as the most inclusive state in the United States by accommodating people with varied backgrounds. That is only possible by letting people build their local communities and exercise control over their daily lives traditionally reserved to them and not delegated this control to the state or federal government. AB 1356, if passed, would undermine this very foundation. 

By blatantly contradicting the law of MAUCRSA, in which state legislators promised to preserve self-governance, AB 1356 would destroy the credibility of these legislators. This would result in a total loss of faith in our state lawmakers, a price tag too high to pay.

For the reasons above, SVCAF, with love of our great state of California, strongly opposes AB 1356 (Ting).

SVCA基金会2019年会报告

(部分赴宴的会员和朋友合影）

2019年2月9日星期六晚上，硅谷华人协会基金会在 Santa Clara 的状元楼举行年会，与大约150位会员和社会各界朋友联谊，汇报工作，展望新的一年。

出席的嘉宾包括：加州众议员朱感生（Kansen Chu）、前加州众议员Catharine Baker、Fremont市长高叙加（Lily Mei）、副市长Raj Salwan、市议员邵阳，、Cupertino议员Darcy Paul、Cupertino学区委员Jerry Liu、前学区委员潘欣欣、San Jose第10区市前议员Johnny Khamis、FUHSD学区委员Rosa Kim、前学区委员Hung Wei和Homer Tong、Orchard学区委员Jeff Tang等。

年会由基金会理事Lily Ding主持，回顾了基金会2018年开展的各项服务华裔社区的公益活动。例如:

— Fought against commercialization of recreational marijuana in Contra Costa County;

— Fought against Asian disaggregation in FHUSD school registration;

— Supported Asian Americans of Rhode Island and Massachusetts in their fight against legislature of Asian-American disaggregation;

— SVCAF board members joined 2018 COMMUNITY LEADERS FORUM of White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Washington D.C. on 5/17;

— Organized annual summer rafting as community outreach on 7/15;

— Supported SFFA: Called for donations from the Asian American community and provided $1,5000 matching fund;

— Hosted the 2nd Edward Blum Forum in Evergreen on 8/25. More than 500 persons attended.

— Attended Boston Rally to support SFFA’s lawsuit against Harvard on 10/13;

— Established the Voice of Asian Americans Scholarship on 12/08.

特邀嘉宾Fremont市议员邵阳做主题演讲。他号召华人多参与投票，学校PTA等社区各种事务。他勉励我们不要再用脚投票，要用手投票，不要只是抱怨，而是积极参与，要珍惜自己的话语权投票权，出钱出力出选票，建设美好明天。

特邀嘉宾UCLA法学教授 Rick Sander 给大家做了关于加州大学违反加州宪法，继续在大学录取过程中推行种族倾斜政策的报告。他正在跟UC打官司，状告他们入学歧视亚裔。他的案子对咱们加州举足轻重，请大家多多关注和支持。

基金会的老朋友加州前众议员 Catharine Baker 回顾和我们的多年友谊，感谢我们的支持和对社区的贡献。

年会的最后，我们表彰了 SVCAF “Voice of Asian Americans” Scholarship 的两位获得者：Isabella Chow, Nathaniel Yu。每人获得2000美元的奖学金和相应的奖状。该奖学金奖励积极参与社区事务，敢于在热点问题上发表自己独立见解的在校高中学生和大学生。如果您知道这样的学生，请向我们推荐。

基金会也获得加州众议院议员 Kansen Chu、Fremont City Coucil, Cupertion City Council的表彰，他们盛赞基金会的义工们对社区的各种贡献。

Kansen Chu夫妇刚下飞机专程赶过来给SVCAF颁奖，并且给SVCAF选中的两位亚裔之声的获奖大学生颁奖，他能够这么旗帜鲜明地表彰华裔保守派孩子，是很令人钦佩的。

Fremont市长高叙加、副市长Raj Salwan和市议员邵阳也特意来给SVCAF颁奖:

库市议员Darcy Paul，律师出身。他带领CUSD 和 FUHSD 历届学委给SVCAF颁奖：

本次聚餐插入了独唱歌曲 , 古筝等表演节目，让活动增色不少。

更多年会照片:

部分参与会议的基金会理事和前理事：

最后，我们引用一段名言与基金会的会员、朋友们共勉： “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款。具体信息见: /pages/donations/

聚餐更多详情请参考当日播放的Slides 2019 Annual Gala Presentation：

/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SVCA-Foundation-Annual-Gala-2019.pdf

义工Tom Liu拍下的更多现场照片：

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/23hn8i8hnsm99a7/AABErz7KlIe689GjH_AItyOxa?dl=0

Crystal Lu

October 14, 2018

Hello everyone! Hello Boston!

My name is Crystal Lu. I come from California. Anyone here also from California?

I am President of a grassroots organization called Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation. Six board members including myself are here today. I know hundreds and thousands of Californians want to join you, but due to the distance, they can’t. However, they donated generously to pay for our trips. They made sure that the six of us can be here to join this amazing crowd. They made sure that I stand here on their behalf for this important and historical moment.

Everyone, can I please ask you to cheer for the Californians and those from all corners of the nation who are watching on livestream? Californians, since you are watching online, we can’t hear you. But we trust that you are reciprocating with some cheering too!

No matter where we are from, two things make Asian Americans stand out. One, extremely hardworking. Two, notoriously apathetic to politics.

We work hard, pay taxes, obey the law and order, and keep to ourselves. We tell our kids to follow the same accountability. Sounds like Model Minority, doesn’t it? When it comes to legal matters, politics, making public appearances, we rarely get involved, or even tune in.

But — Look at us, look at Copley Square, look at Boston. It is here, now, we proudly announce: We have casted that Model Minority stereotype out! We are rewriting history by making our voices heard, loud and clear, in solidarity!

This reminds me of early 2014, when we Asian Americans in California fought a bill called SCA5, short for Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5. It marked a water shedding moment of Asian Americans’ involvement in public affairs. SCA5 intended to amend the state constitution and re-establish the consideration of race, skin color and ethnicity in public university admissions in California. Sounds familiar to what Harvard is doing, right?

SCA5’s hidden agenda was to squeeze out the so called overrepresented groups like, you guessed it, Asian American students!

Just like that, the sleeping Tiger Moms and Dads woke up! This racially discriminatory agenda drove people out of their comfy little homes where they previously hid by working extra hours for their jobs, where their kids quietly studied extra math and sciences to stay ahead of school, and obediently practiced piano or violin every day, where TV was strictly limited. But this time Asian Americans rebelled! We demonstrated and protested in Sacramento and other cities. We labored and gathered petitions. We shamelessly lobbied legislators. In fact, my organization SVCA Foundation was born right there, right then.

In the end, we defeated SCA5. You know why? Because we broke apart from our role and got loud and obnoxious in 2014!

Today, we once again got loud and obnoxious! So if you ask me now what are the two characteristics of Asian Americans? No. 1 – the same – hardworking. No. 2, yes, YOU GUESSED IT, loud and obnoxious!

Growing up, my parents told me: If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it. They told me: Don’t raise your voice. They also told me: Avoid saying things that may upset the authority!

All sounds familiar?

My fellow citizens, don’t worry about being loud and obnoxious. Because, look, what had Model Minority gotten us? Our children’s personalities got assassinated despite their grit, perseverance and the many sacrifices they’ve made through all aspects of their lives. Harvard deems them lacking positive personalities such as likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected.

Believe it or not, being loud and obnoxious like we are right now won’t make it any worse. What do we have to lose?

My friends, I thank you for coming today to further buck that dispassionate, apathetic stereotype. I thank you for coming today to tell Harvard that we have American Dreams too.

We are at a time when our nation is sadly balkanized. We are seeing political and social tribes further divided than ever.

Therefore, I thank you for showing up today to tell Harvard to stop putting a wedge between various groups, to stop tearing up the very social fabric that our founding fathers and our great nation have worked so hard to build and strengthen.

All children deserve equal education rights. Today we say it loudly and obnoxiously!

The Historical Rally of Thousands of Asian Americans at the Boston Copley Square Supporting SFFA’s legal fight against Harvard   The link will be posted at round 11:45 am ET / 8:45 am PT Sunday, October 14, 2018.  

For decades, Harvard and many other elite universities have been discriminating against Asian American students, just as they did to Jewish students in the 1920s and 30s. Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA), a not-for-profit organization led by Mr. Edward Blum, sued Harvard in 2014 for its discriminatory practice in admissions. Last week, documents detailing Harvard’s admissions processes were made public. Discrimination evidenced in these documents is so overwhelming that SFFA moved for a summary judgment, “a request that the judge rule against Harvard without a trial, based on facts not in dispute.” Media coverage has been extensive, appearing in numerous major outlets.

• *Wall Street Journal: *Harvard Is Too Discriminating
• *USA Today: *Why is Harvard discriminating against Asian Americans? ‘Diversity’ is no excuse for racial bias
• *New York Times: *Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says
• *Reuters: *Harvard records show discrimination against Asian-Americans: group
• *CNN: *Lawsuit: Harvard ranks Asian-Americans lower on personality traits
• *National Review: *Discrimination and Deceit at Harvard
• *Washington Post: *Harvard can’t have it all

The trial of this Harvard lawsuit is most likely to take place this October. The stakes are high for Asian Americans, and the impact would last for generations. In order to win this battle, SFFA needs help on two fronts. First, they need to find more Asian American students who were recently rejected by Harvard. The students’ privacy will be protected, and their time of involvement will be minimized. If you know any courageous students or parents who are interested, willing to step up, please contact:

Edward Blum, Founder and President, SFFA (EBlum@aei.org); or

Alex Chen, Board Member, SFFA (alexchen@svca.me)

Second, SFFA needs your financial support. Since 2015, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) has been actively involved in SFFA’s causes. We have being helping to promote membership, raise funds, increase awareness and search for potential victims. The Harvard lawsuit is expensive. We call for each of you to donate to SFFA to fight for the battle.

In two swift motions, SVCAF sent SFFA $5,000 up front, and then matched $10,000 to the donations flooded in from our network of thousands of Asian Americans. Within 48 hours, aside from SVCAF’s seed of $15,000, a whopping $20,000 has been raised as a result of our Tuesday’s call for donation.

We still need more generous support! To donate, please visit studentsforfairadmissions.org/donate/.

Donations to SFFA are tax deductible. If your employer has a donation matching program, now is a good time to take advantage of it.

We thank you for standing with us to end racial discrimination!

Regards,

Crystal Lu

President, SVCAF

       受此文攻击的Edward Blum先生多年来一直致力于控告大学录取中的种族歧视政策，已先后将多个涉嫌种族歧视的大学如德州大学、哈佛大学以及北卡莱罗纳大学等告上最高法院，为我们发出了正义的呼声。这两个法学教授却如此污蔑他，也污蔑了我们亚裔！是可忍，孰不可忍！

       **作为对《华盛顿邮报》那篇谬文行动上的反击，以及表示对Blum先生多年来为亚裔维权而积极奔走的由衷感谢与强烈支持，**SVCA基金会董事会于2017/8/7日晚召开紧急会议，全票通过了给SFFA捐款5000-10000美金的决议。第一笔5000美金支票已经发出，后续的5000美金将作为基金对大家的捐款做1:1配捐。        我们这一代人，可能要见证很多重要历史时刻，Blum的诉讼绝对是其中之一，捐款花在这上面目前看绝对是最划算的。一旦Blum的诉讼最终获胜，实施了近半个世纪的已是亚裔入学绊脚石的基于种族的入学平权法，很可能正式被最高法院终结，并被别的更合理的政策（譬如不考虑种族但考虑家庭社会经济状况的入学平权法）取代，而目前蔓延全美的亚裔细分也将被釜底抽薪！

（SVCA基金会捐给SFFA的第一笔$5000）        SVCA基金会再次恳请在美朋友加入Blum的SFFA（501C(3)非盈利组织，入会费和捐款都可抵税）；如果您已经是SFFA的会员，请考虑追加捐款（$10, $20等都可以，金额固然重要，人数也很重要**）**。让我们齐心协力用行动来证明，美国华人坚决反对美国大学尤其藤校在招生录取中针对亚裔的隐性歧视，并坚定支持Blum领导的SFFA替我们争取公平！ 加入SFFA/捐款给SFFA/SVCA基金会配捐指南： 加入SFFA成为会员： https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/apply-to-join/ 捐款给SFFA： https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/donate/ SVCA基金会配捐步骤：        请捐款后（会员费$10也算捐款）将SFFA的回执email给 info@svcaf.org，我们收到后会统计金额对2017/8/7-2017/9/1期间的前5000美金做1:1配捐，并在此表做每日更新： http://tinyurl.com/svcaf-sffa-donation-2017 （特别说明：会员/捐款人不需要是美国公民，但需要是美国居民。合法会员/捐款人的身份很广泛，公民/绿卡/H1B/H4/L1/F1/F2等都可以。不是美国居民的朋友如也想支持SFFA，请告知在美朋友，但请不要自己捐款或者加入会员，以避免给SFFA造成不必要的麻烦。如果您也想顺便给SVCA基金会捐款，请去*/pages/donations/*，我们对捐款人的身份要求与SFFA一样） 如有组织想加入我们一起募捐， 请给SFFA捐不少于$500， 并将组织名称与Logo发送到： alexchen@svcaf.org *想了解更多信息请继续

(照片拍摄于2015/5/30 SVCA基金会主办的关于哈佛诉讼案的论坛)        Edward Blum，出生于密西根州一家左翼自由派犹太家庭，80年代新保守运动的参与者，1990年德州共和党国会候选人，著名的保守派政治与民权活动家以及法律战略家（主打涉及种族的官司）。2005年成立Project On Fair Representation，主要关注投票权/教育/就业以及政府雇佣方面的种族歧视。从上世纪90年代起，Blum一共将6个官司打到美国最高法院，并赢了其中4个，战果斐然。其中2013年Fisher vs Texas University一案（简称Fisher I），高院的第一次判决倾向于支持Blum： “只有在不考虑种族的录取政策不能有效解决校园内种族多样性的前提下，大学才被允许在录取过程中考虑种族因素”；但在2016年第二次判决时，由于保守派大法官Scalia的意外去世，高院最后判决变成4:3支持德州大学的考虑种族因素的录取政策，从而导致Fisher状告德州大学一案（简称Fisher II）最终意外失利，真是人算不如天算。

       2013年Fisher I一案后，Blum继续挑战其他大学里涉嫌种族歧视的录取政策。为了明确目标，主打大学录取中的种族歧视，2014年Blum在Project On Fair Representation组织下成立分支机构Students for Fair Admissions (简称SFFA) ，招募因为种族因素被大学拒绝的学生并代表他们打官司。2014年11月SFFA在Blum领导下将哈佛大学以及北卡罗来纳大学告上联邦法院，目前（2017/8/10）为止这两个案子还在联邦地区法院待审。

       2014年2月中旬为了反对加州SCA5法案而成立的SVCA (Silicon Valley Chinese Association，硅谷华人协会)，得知SFFA状告哈佛一案的消息后，在董事杨云雷的牵线下，于2015年2月主动联系Blum （https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B76Y0ZJJg97aVlExTVZUM3Z2a0E/view），邀请他和他的律师团队与UC Berkeley著名华裔学者和社会活动家胡正明教授以及AACE（Asian American Coalition for Education，亚裔教育联盟）主席赵宇空先生一起于2015/5/30在湾区给大家做个关于哈佛诉讼案的专题论坛（http://www.weidb.com/p14820）。论坛结束后，SVCA很快发文（http://www.weidb.com/p18749），为SFFA拉会员和募捐，得到全美众多友军组织以及在美华人积极响应，2天之内会员人数从最初的400左右一举突破20000，捐款人超过100人，总额也接近20000美金。

(合影拍摄于2015/5/30 SVCA基金会主办的关于哈佛诉讼案的论坛)        随着2016年6月23日 Fisher II案子的失利，全美亚裔反抗美国大学招生歧视的斗争陷入低谷，很多朋友当日痛心疾首，遗憾多少年的奋斗功亏一篑，欲哭无泪。虽然身在加州的我们，因为2014年反对SCA5成功而继续获得Prop 209的保护，但也仅限加州公立大学而已；而且大家心里也都清楚，倾巢之下岂有完卵，如果美国尤其加州左倾的风向不改变，加州的Prop 209迟早会被下一个卷土重来的SCAx推翻，那时结局只会比Fisher II失利更惨，我们亚裔子孙后代的入学空间将会被一步步压缩。所以，当时很多朋友就坚定决心，无论共和党总统候选人谁初选出线，我们华人就应该在大选中支持谁。随着2016/7/20尘埃落定，Trump力压对手正式被党内确认为总统候选人，很多在美华人就用各种形式积极为其助选拉票（尽管其中一些并不喜欢Trump本人，但还是看重其作为总统能提名大法官这个权力；保守派大法官Scalia的空位需要新总统提名候选人来补缺，而Trump已明确给出了一个全是保守派的候选名单）。随着2016/11/8晚Trump实现完美逆转，大比分战胜民主党对手Hillary赢得总统选举，以及随后其指定的保守派大法官Gorsuch的走马上任，最高院保守/自由两派大法官再次恢复平衡。考虑到几位自由派大法官的高龄化以及墙头草Kennedy大法官最近暗示自己可能提前退休，高院双方实力的天平越来越向有利于SFFA和Blum一方倾斜；还未审判的针对哈佛大学以及北卡罗来纳大学的诉讼上，Blum的胜算越来越大。

       时间进入2017年8月，由于Charlie Savage在《纽约时报》的连续两篇报道（https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/asian-americans-complaint-prompted-justice-inquiry-of-college-admissions.html），关于美国大学录取政策中是否应该考虑种族因素的话题，再次在全美主流媒体掀起轩然大波。这两篇报道的核心，是AACE于2015年5月中旬联合64个亚裔组织针对哈佛大学在录取过程中涉嫌种族歧视向当时的教育部发起的行政抗诉，在被Obama时期的司法部搁置2年多后，终于被Trump新政府里Jeff Sessions领导下的司法部捡起来，并准备招聘更多律师调查，且可能为此提起法律诉讼。

       这下可不得了，8月3日，著名左翼媒体《华盛顿邮报》立马登载了一篇奇葩文章“Don’t use Asian Americans to justify anti-affirmative action politics”（https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/03/dont-use-asian-americans-to-justify-anti-affirmative-action-politics）。作者虽是著名法学教授，行文却极不负责任，没有调查事情前因后果，就凭空臆想污蔑我们亚裔（显然指AACE以及其它64个亚裔组织，其中SVCA基金会也在这64个亚裔组织内）被利用，并利用Fisher II一案的失利指名道姓对我们亚裔的战友Edward Blum进行指责。《华盛顿邮报》这篇文章后的700多条读者评论，可以说是骂声一片。知道事情真相的SVCA基金会董事们当然是义愤填膺：我们的创会文刀廖春华很快写出了反驳檄文“My Rebuttal to ‘Don’t use Asian Americans to justify anti-affirmative action politics’”（/posts/my-rebuttal-to-dont-use-asian-americans-to-justify-anti-affirmative-action-politics/）；而我们的祝凯律师看了文章后，也气得熬夜写出长文，大量引用了SVCA及基金会自成立以来的文稿/邮件/照片/录像等资料，用事实驳斥了两位作者的谬论（/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/An_Open_Response_to_Prof_Chemerinsky.pdf），并发送到了作者信箱以及他们的学术圈子。

       《华尔街日报》也看不下去，8月5日由其编委会集体撰文“What Is Harvard Hiding?”（https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-harvard-hiding-1501888626），指出有关其针对亚裔存在偏见的证据，理应得到合法审查！

       Blum本人也很快在《华盛顿邮报》上发文反击（https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harvards-discrimination-against-asian-americans-must-end/2017/08/08/446ebd6a-7bb1-11e7-a669-b400c5c7e1cc_story.html?utm_term=.f0e0001fa65e），用多年调查得到的详细数据，指出哈佛等藤校的录取政策中确实存在隐性种族配额，涉嫌针对亚裔申请人的种族歧视，并呼吁欢迎司法部的调查，希望最终能将大学这种歧视行为制止。

       作为对《华盛顿邮报》那篇谬文进一步行动上的反击，以及表示对Blum先生多年来为亚裔维权而积极奔走的由衷感谢与强烈支持，SVCA基金会董事会于2017/8/7日晚9:30在现主席Crystal的主持下召开紧急会议，全票通过了对SFFA的上限为10000美金的捐款：

“SVCAF donates up to $10,000 to SFFA. The first installment will be in the amount of $5000 and will be donated shortly after motion passes. The second installment will be in the amount up to $5000 as a matching fund.  “

       次日8月8日，财务立即将第一笔的5000美金支票寄给SFFA，我们很快收到Blum先生的感谢回信。后面的5000美金将作为Match Fund，对全美朋友的捐款做1:1的配捐。

（Blum先生的感谢信）        SVCA基金会本身并没有多少资金，平时都很节省，一向不敢随便用大家的捐款，而是尽量将力气和捐款花在刀刃上。我们这一代人，可能要见证很多重要历史时刻，Blum的诉讼绝对是其中之一，捐款花在这上面目前看绝对是最划算的。一旦Blum的诉讼最终获胜，实施了近半个世纪的已是亚裔入学绊脚石的基于种族的入学平权法，很可能正式被最高法院终结，并被别的更合理的政策（譬如不考虑种族但考虑家庭社会经济状况的入学平权法）取代，而目前蔓延全美的亚裔细分也将被釜底抽薪! **想了解SVCA/F的朋友请去官网: **

SVCA(政治): http://svca.me/

SVCA基金会(501c3)：/

Facebook群组:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/SiliconValleyChineseAssociation

Facebook页面:

https://www.facebook.com/SiliconValleyChineseAssociation

关于此文的任何问题请email给： Alex Chen (alexchen@svcaf.org)

Dear Prof. Chemerinsky:

I am writing in response to your op-ed, “Don’t use Asian Americans to justify anti-affirmative action politics,” published by Washington Post on 8/3/2017. “Use”?? As first-generation Asian Americans, many of my friends and I are deeply offended by your politically motivated article that shows zero ounce of scholarship but is fraught with factual deficiency and logical flaws.

I really hate to use such strong words, because you just became the new dean of my alma mater, Berkeley Law. I still want to congratulate you—you deserve it, as there are only so many T-14 deanships. When I received from Boalt the news that you were being interviewed for the job, I joked with others: “Should I feel excited or not. He is a terrific con law scholar, but so liberal. I probably would vote for him because Boalt only chooses liberal deans anyway.” Yet, it was the last thing in my mind that I would be disappointed so quickly, and so profoundly that now I have to write something so emotionally charged.

I will rebut your article in a point-by-point fashion shortly, but want to first explain why I am so disturbed. I also want to tell you that, agitated and motivated by your article, my Asian American friends and I will launch new campaigns to support Mr. Ed Blum and his “white” and “conservative” anti-(race-based)-affirmative action mission.

The central thesis of your article is that white conservative opponents of affirmative action, represented by Mr. Blum, or perhaps the whole Sessions DOJ, want to “use” and “deploy” us Asian Americans as some tools in their anti-affirmative action campaign. Your assertion is beyond being condescending, ignorant, and ridiculous. It is hypocritically discriminating at its worst.

No, we are neither fancy napkins to be easily “used” nor cheap weapons to be readily “deployed.” Today Asian Americans are among the best educated ethnical groups with the highest incomes in America, but you elite liberals still need to “suspect that Asian Americans will see through this clumsy and cynical attempt to deploy them in service of dismantling affirmative action,” as if we are so dumb that we are clueless about who we are or what we are doing.

You have lived in California for almost the last decade. But the sheer ignorance in your article does not suggest you knew what happened in the last four years in California as to Asian/Chinese Americans on the AA issue. Having been involved at every single turn, I will chronicle some major events here:

• In mid-February, 2014, Chinese Americans in California learned of a pending state constitutional amendment bill, SCA-5, that would repeal Prop. 209 (1996)’s ban on race-based AA in California. We immediately realized that this bill would harm us badly. The bill had already passed in the Senate and must be stopped in the Assembly.
• Within a month, we across the whole California worked nonstop in trying to stop this bill, all as political newbies. Thousands of people joined the movement. In the Bay Area, we founded Silicon Valley Chinese Association (SVCA) to lead the effort. On March 17, 2014, California democrats shelved SCA-5, obviously because of our efforts. This was an amazing achievement given that California democrats had super majority in both houses while we had zero political experience/connection before. All of our volunteers worked very hard and contributed tremendously. It was largely a grassroots movement with just a little help from California republicans, but without any outside “white conservative” help. We knew neither Mr. Blum nor his Supreme Court litigations then. We did not even know what AEI was. And all these happened within just one month. Personally, I built a website, launched a snail mail campaign lobbying all 80 members of the California Assembly, and wrote to California legislature leaders an open letter summarizing the movement. Here is a nice video documenting our collective efforts.
• Being keenly aware of the AA issue, SVCA campaigned very hard in the 2014 election for Catharine Baker (who happens to be a Boalt alum and bravely objected to race-based AA on PBS in the fall of 1997 as a Boalt 1L) and helped elect her into the first republican state legislator in the whole northern California in eight years. Here is a nice video on the story.
• In early 2015, SVCA heard of Mr. Ed Blum’s Supreme Court litigation efforts, and immediately wanted to partner with his organization. SVCA reached out to Mr. Blum and invited him to visit Silicon Valley for a forum discussing race-based AA and his Supreme Court cases. The forum event was fully video-recorded. Shortly thereafter, SVCA launched a national campaign and helped Mr. Blum’s organization, Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA), recruit many thousands of new members and raise money. To this day, the majority of SFFA’s 20,000+ members have been those recruited by SVCA.
• In November 2015, SVCA learned that Governor Jerry Brown had vetoed a bill, AB 176, that contained a covert agenda for race-based AA. SVCA reached out to Assemblywoman Catharine Baker to discuss the bill, and issued a statement condemning it.
• In 2016, SVCA learned that a new bill, AB 1726, which was essentially identical to AB 176, had been re-introduced. SVCA organized numerous lobbying efforts, including a well-publicized protest in front of the California legislature, and ultimately defeated AB 1726 with respect to its race-based AA agenda. Afterwards, Daily Journal invited me to publish with them an op-ed on AB 1726.

As you can see, we are nobody’s “convenient tool.” And we are just a single local group in Silicon Valley, while there are many similar Asian American advocacy groups across the nation. In fact, SVCA is just one of 64 Asian American groups that joined an administrative complaint filed with both the DOJ and the DOE in 2015 against Ivy schools for their race-based AA practices. The administrative cases were initiated completely within the Asian American groups, and not driven by any outside “white conservative” influence.

Now, as promised, here come my point-by-point rebuttals to your article.

• –   “Yet affirmative action opponents are trying hard to argue that they are concerned about more than just white people.”

What is wrong with this? Besides a conspiracy theory, are you arguing those opponents should be concerned about just white people? I am surprised that you have quickly deployed a double standard to drop political correctness.

• –   “Anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum has specifically attempted to recruit Asian American plaintiffs, using ads with photographs of Asian American students to do so. (A Blum-backed lawsuit against Harvard University currently features a highly qualified Asian American plaintiff…)”

Are you serious? Again, what is wrong with this? It is law school 101 that to build a strong case, you want to choose the best (strongest) plaintiff whenever you can. In any case, when Mr. Blum did this, we had defeated SCA-5 in California and made headlines for a long time, so don’t you see this was something just natural?

• –   “The argument that affirmative action harms Asian American people is simply inaccurate.”

What did you mean by “simply inaccurate”? And what would be “accurate”? Many other fellow Asian Americans and I can testify that affirmative action does harm us—isn’t that enough? Or, you meant affirmative action does not harm us enough?

• –   “And worse, the argument is strategic rather than motivated by real concern for the well-being of Asian Americans.”

This is purely a conspiracy theory without any evidence.

• –   “Legal precedent, extensive research and experience support the idea that affirmative action has benefits for all students, including Asian American students. The Supreme Court has accepted since 1978, and reaffirmed just last year, that race-conscious admissions policies comply with the Constitution when they promote diversity and include a holistic evaluation of all students. Research supports this view, finding that diverse learning environments improve learning, increase interracial understanding and better prepare students for careers in a diverse society.”

First and foremost, “legal precedent,” by itself, cannot “support the idea that affirmative action has benefits for all students, including Asian American students.” A legal precedent is nothing but an opinion or ruling from a court; it may contain some reasoning or arguments, but it cannot serve as evidence. Besides, I am unaware of any 9-0 Supreme Court case on affirmative action—nothing was undisputed.

Further, “has benefits”—even putting your “for all students, including Asian American students” assertion aside—does not mean “has no costs/harms.” Have you performed any cost/benefit analysis? You cited some research results arguably in your favor, but did you cite any research results not in your favor? There are many of them. I understand your article is advocacy, not research, but your total lack of balance of views simply made your advocacy pathetically weak.

• –   “As professional educators, we can attest firsthand to the benefits of affirmative action.”

So your firsthand attestation only applies to benefits, but not costs/harms at all? Quite amazing. It has been well publicized that AA had made Justice Thomas miserable, not only during his years at Yale Law, but also during his job interviews.

• –   “Diverse classrooms promote discussions that would not occur in racially homogeneous learning environments.”

Wait, are you suggesting that we live in a binary world, and without affirmative action, we would necessarily have no diverse classrooms but only racially homogenous learning environments? Really? Logically, the only way this can happen is, without affirmative action, none of those needy minority students is capable of getting admitted on merits. I have no idea why you had such a condescending idea.

• –   “Moreover, affirmative action programs benefit Asian American students in specific and concrete ways. Historically, such programs were critical in making public higher education available to Asian Americans in the 1960s and 1970s, before which Asian Americans had suffered exclusion and de jure segregation in public education like other people of color. So Asian Americans are already the beneficiaries of affirmative action in education, both firsthand and as the children of people who benefited firsthand and who consequently had improved professional opportunities and greater economic security.”

This is perhaps the most interesting point in your whole article, so I will take it seriously.

This link nicely summarizes the history of AA. When President Kennedy coined the term in his Executive Order 10925 on March 6, 1961, his message and intent were clearly against racial discrimination towards minorities (“take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”). At that time in history, African Americans, for example, were racially discriminated against in many situations, including in college admission processes. Like it or not, over the past decades this “prevention-of-racial-discrimination” has evolved into “doing-racial-favors”—under the same name of AA—towards the very same minorities (except, Asian American minorities, in at least the case of college admission) contemplated by President Kennedy.

So, from then to now, there was mathematically a turning point in time. Before that point, AA was to prevent discrimination against some minorities. After that point, AA was to give preferential treatments towards those minorities. Today, nobody challenges the virtue of the former—it is only the latter that is in controversy.

But you did not elaborate on “benefit Asian American students in specific and concrete ways.” Did you mean Asian American students got the benefits of “prevention-of-racial-discrimination,” or “doing-racial-favors,” or both? Regardless, let me tell you the truth, on half of my own ethnicity (Chinese Americans) or perhaps some other Asian ethnicities (such as Indian Americans, Korean Americans, to name a few) with whom we share some key values:

We only need “prevention-of-racial-discrimination,” but not “doing-racial-favors.” It is deeply rooted in our culture that we believe in education and hardworking like religious zealots. Then and now, even the poorest Chinese immigrant parents want to invest all their savings into their children’s education, which they believe will bring a bright future to those children. A fair chance without being discriminated against is all that we need—nothing more.

As a new Chinese immigrant, I don’t really know whether the generations before me had received the benefits of “doing-racial-favors.” I cannot speak for them. But I can speak for our culture—no, we did not really need such a windfall, if there was one. We did not need it then, and we do not need it now. And any windfall in the past does not justify that we must stay indebted forever.

• –   “Affirmative policies continue to benefit Asian American students and communities today. While not every Asian American subgroup remains underrepresented, many are for at least some schools, including Vietnamese, Thai, Lao, Burmese, Filipino, Hmong, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students. Race-conscious admissions policies give school officials the latitude to take into account the unique experiences of these individuals.”

This is a naked footnote to why the California legislature has tried a series of legislation that would divide API (Asians & Pacific Islanders)—and API only—into many racial groups for the purpose of collecting college admission data:

• –   AB 1088 (Mike Eng and Ted Lieu, 2011, adding additional API racial groups for governmental data collection, but language related to public education was deleted after its first draft; passed)

• –   AB 176 (Rob Bonta, 2015, containing language related to public education; passed and vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown) (see our statement here)

• –   AB 1726 (Rob Bonta, 2016, essentially identically to AB 176 of 2015; passed after deletion of language related to public education) (see my op-ed here)

Essentially, legislation like AB 1726 would divide and identify API groups into two camps: one that has been over-represented in college education and one that has been under-represented. Equipped with such data, SCA-5 supporters will be able to argue that not all API groups support Prop. 209—those under-represented API groups actually oppose it as they covertly want to obtain racially preferential treatments. Your assertion above has explained precisely what such legislation is truly about.

• –   “Given the many ways that affirmative action benefits Asian American students and their communities, we should see conservative solicitude for Asian Americans ‘harmed’ by affirmative action as strategic rather than genuine.”

No, you have not given any good example of “the many ways.” You only listed a few Asian ethnicities that might benefit from a continuing race-based AA practice, but conveniently ignored what would happen to the other Asian ethnicities, only because you knew the latter would be harmed by affirmative action.

• –   “Conservative opponents of affirmative action have not, generally speaking, taken an interest in other issues that affect Asian American welfare in unique ways, ranging from employment discrimination to health care to immigration.”

While your accusation here is highly disputable, it is in any case a straw man argument since we are only in a debate on public policies for college admission.

• –   “So why the conservative concern when it comes to affirmative action? The answer is that Asian Americans provide a convenient tool for opponents of affirmative action. By framing opposition to affirmative action as concern for Asian Americans, opponents of affirmative action can protect the existing racial hierarchy — with white people at the top — while disguising their efforts as race-neutral rather than racially motivated.”

This fancy conspiracy theory is an outright insult on our intelligence. “A convenient tool”?? In Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 (2007), Chief Justice Roberts concludes his opinion eloquently: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” But you think we do not have any independent thinking, and we do not even know it when AA harms us in fact?

• –   “We suspect that Asian Americans will see through this clumsy and cynical attempt to deploy them in service of dismantling affirmative action.”

So you still have a little confidence in our intelligence, as you still “suspect that [we] will see through this clumsy and cynical attempt to deploy [us]”? Actually, we prefer being “deployed” over being discriminated against.

• –   “And at least for the time being, the Supreme Court has been clear that affirmative action policies are constitutional.”

This is really interesting—“for the time being.” It sounds like, as a noted constitutional law scholar, you are not very confident that Grutter can actually survive a new Court after Justice Kennedy’s (expected) upcoming retirement? And you know better than anyone that, but for Justice Kennedy’s inexplicable reversal of himself, Fisher II probably would have overturned Grutter, right?

• –   “But if anything, anti-affirmative action efforts demonstrate the need for racial diversity. One way to improve upon the shallow racial understanding of affirmative action opponents is to ensure diverse educational environments that promote clear thinking and honest conversation about racial issues.”

The empty logic and circular reasoning here are beyond my intelligence. Honestly, I don’t know what you are talking about.

It is quite hard to believe that I just wrote such a long open letter with this much emotion to the new dean of my own law school. I still greatly admire you both as a scholar and as a teacher (although the only class I ever took from you was a BarBri class of constitutional law). I wish you had not co-authored the article. I really do.

Last but not least, as mentioned earlier, thanks to your article, SVCA will launch new campaigns to support Mr. Blum and SFFA. The goal is to recruit at least 10,000 new members and raise money for SFFA.

Sincerely,

Kai Zhu, Ph.D, Boalt ’08

Committee Member, Silicon Valley Chinese Association

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/03/dont-use-asian-americans-to-justify-anti-affirmative-action-politics/?from=groupmessage&utm_term=.cbe00b3d3ea8

Many Thanks to Crystal Lu for editorial improvements.

This is a stunningly biased and prejudiced article in an attempt to advance race-based policies. It blatantly ignores the sufferings of Asian Americans and paints conservative Asian Americans as mindless tools exploited by White Americans.

First of all, race-based college admission is widely reported. Look at the fact: Harvard and many other ivy league universities have maintained a defacto 20% quota on Asian applicants for decades while the population of Asian Americans significantly increased. Asian students are put into a separate bucket and are pitted against one another. The competition gets so cut-throat that it has caused tragedies including numerous suicides. Just talk to any parents of high schoolers in the Bay Area, where I’m from. Saying that Asians are not hurt by racial quota is a bold-faced lie.

The author’s attack on conservative Asian Americans is especially hideous. Somehow she assumes all Asians must uniformly follow liberal views, or else they must be mindless sheep herded by conservative White Americans like Mr. Blum. She preaches against stereotyping but she just proves that she holds a racist view about Asians Americans.

I am an Asian American from Silicon Valley and I take pride in my independent thinking and my conservative views. Many Asian Americans around me have similar conservative viewpoints. Let me set the record straight. In early 2014 there was a groundswell of Asian Americans like me -scientists, engineers, accountants, lawyers, small business owners, stay home moms, etc. – who started to advocate treating individuals equally regardless of races or genders as part of our campaign against the California Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5 [1]. We heard about Mr. Blum’s cause in 2015. We then invited him to California to speak on a forum about his lawsuit[2]. We subsequently encouraged Asian students who have fallen victims to institutional discrimination to join his nonprofit organization (Students for Fair Admissions). In less than one week, we helped Mr. Blum recruit 7000 new members. We, Asian Americans, are taking the initiatives to fight against discrimination. We are “using” Mr Blum as an ally to do so, not the other way around.

As a scientist, I could’t helping diving into the research the author employed to prove her point. The study she cited[3] is not a peer reviewed research paper, but a report self-published by a foundation. Even this report concludes that the key factors of benefits are deeper diverse experiences and viewpoints, not superficial skin color differences: “In a class discussion or on a problem-solving team, bringing together different viewpoints and experiences makes everyone think harder and provide better evidence for their opinions.” You would wonder what skin colors have to do with this?

For real, respectable academic research, you should look no further than the article published by ACM[4]. The author admits: All cited studies about the benefits of gender/race-based diversity were just observations of correlations. None of them were designed to prove causal relationship, which I doubt they could ever do so unless we use meaningful human qualifications to re-design these studies.

Let me clarify what I think diversity really is. Diversity is defined by the collection of different life experiences, thinking models, approaches to problems, and fresh perspectives within a group of people, not defined by the superficial differences in skin colors. Improving education diversity is to improve different thinking methods and problem solving skills for students so they can be better prepared for life challenges later on, not to increase the number of different skin colors.

Using skin colors to decide diversity is racial discrimination since the assumption is that people of the same color must think alike and cannot have diverse qualities. It will also mislead educators that once their students have varied skin colors, they have reached their diversity goal. This is expedient and short-sighted thinking and will undermine the future competitiveness of our nation.

Still I share the same belief of pushing social justice for all people. But I would use a much more effective approach: considering the socioeconomic status of students in college admission, instead of using their skin colors. By doing so, every disadvantaged student can get help regardless of their skin colors. You will not wrongly deprive a poor Asian student of his or her opportunity and give it to Obama’s daughters.

In the end, I wish the author could toss aside her tainted glasses when viewing conservative Asians Americans. Please treat us with respect and don’t assume we are others’ tools only because we disagree with you. I wish she could talk to the Asians American communities and have a little empathy to Asian students hurt by institutional discrimination rampant in college admissions. I hope she can rely on peer-reviewed studies proving causation before advocating for social policies that are race-based.

Citations

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Constitutional_Amendment_No._5

[2] /pages/photo-gallery/

[3]https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/02/29/research-shows-diverse-classrooms-improve-learning-for-everyone/

[4]https://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/11/179827-the-data-on-diversity/fulltext

有兴趣的朋友请查一查自己的公司是否提供这种 volunteer grant program。 也让自己喜欢的非盈利组织在 Benevity.com 注册 (SVCA Foundation 已经注册)。 这样就可以一边给自己喜欢的组织做义工，记录小时数，然后把小时数换钱捐公益组织。一举两得！

下面列举两个例子公司的信息， 给大家参考

https://doublethedonation.com/matching-gifts/microsoft

https://doublethedonation.com/matching-gifts/apple-inc

更多提供该 program的公司列表

https://doublethedonation.com/matching-grant-resources/list-volunteer-grant-companies/

下载链接：　knowYourRights_Chinese_English_v1.pdf

因为时间仓促，出现错误遗漏在所难免。欢迎发信到 info@svcaf.org 批评指正，我们将在下一版本中改进。任何文中有不确信的地方以英文原文为准，我们不负担因为编译错误引起的法律责任。

硅谷华人协会基金会(SVCA基金会)是华人草根自己的501(c)(3) 非赢利公益组织。SVCA基金会致力于通过切实的行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华 人，研讨华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象，共同建设更美好的加州。如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请访问我们的网站，加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款

/ .

硅谷华人协会基金会

2016年2月26日

If you have questions about future SVCAF events, please contact us at info@svcaf.org.

赵宇空的演讲

[译者按：5/30硅谷华人协会基金会 (Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation or SVCA Foundataion)邀请状告哈佛大学的Ed Blum先生和他的律师Will Consovoy到湾区参加教育论坛，与华人听众探讨入学考虑种族因素的政策的合法性。同时参加的嘉宾还有胡正明教授，发起针对哈佛行政申诉的赵宇空先生。 会后，SVCA 基金会组织义工对论坛录像进行了语言整理和翻译。分四部分公布。]

李伟平： 去年， 当SCA5提案出来时，相信很多在座的来宾都参与了对之的反截。当时我们是反对的提案的支持者拥有加州参众两院的绝对优势， 但我们草根组织，从各个方面，各个渠道  合力，就在这里， 硅谷，成功地阻挡了这项修正案的通过。现在， 我们有Ed 和 Will从诉讼的角度， 还有赵先生引领的向教育部和司法部行政申诉哈佛的（歧视行为）。 现在， 我们请赵先生介绍一下针对哈佛的申诉的情况。

赵宇空：对不了解我的朋友，我先来自我介绍一下。 我是一名美国华人作家，曾经在2年多前首先在美国英文媒体专栏发表文章, 声援在美华人针对Jimmy Kimmel杀光中国人的不当言论的抗议。当加州政府试图推出SCA5的时候，我也率先在世界日报撰文发动亚裔居民行动。我居住在奥兰多，但我关心亚裔权益，心系华人权益。

• ** 对哈佛行政申诉的介绍**

我想到两点。 第一，我想说团结就是力量。这次哈佛行政申诉递交后，我们得到媒体的广泛报道。先是Associate Press，紧接着，Bloomberg, NBC, CNN, Fox News等等众多传媒， 以至于，李春艳教授和我， 我们都忙的来不及答复所有媒体问询。直到这周，还有媒体跟进支持我们的行动。有不止一位编辑问我，你们为什么不早点，早几年就申诉。他们是什么意思？我们太沉默了。我们关注家庭，努力工作， 可是我们却忽略了作为一个族裔，我们需要用行动争取我们的权益。因此，我希望我们每一位都参与到Mr. Blum和Will引领的诉讼行动。 同时也欢迎大家， 各组织参与我们3个月后的申诉补充中来。 我们也将发动个人申诉。 在这儿，我也跟大家分享一些事情。 4月，Mr. Blum在寻找诉讼受害人时，我看到了80-20吴博士的微信消息，我就立即在一次新书发布活动中， 号召哈佛受害学生参与诉讼。

几个月后，我就找到了发动针对Yale和Princeton的申诉的Michael Wang. 后来，我就试图联系Mr. Blum。当时的讨论中，我就想这一件事，每次，在我们亚裔受害者自己挺身而出申诉时，我们并没有多少组织，而只有80-20在背后支持他们，提供资源，给于鼓励。这是我们所欠缺的。

我们将要讨论, 一会儿Alex Chen等从别的组织过来的, 将和我们一起讨论。Mr. Blum 的案件上诉时, 有一些文章抨击它, 一些是从亚裔权益来的, 另一些从NPR Cleminn来, 他们并不能代表亚裔。我感觉缺了什么, 在有争议的法案上, 我们习惯保持沉默。SCA5让很多人醒悟, 不仅仅是加州人, 加州是主力军。这是一个机会, 我们一定要发出声音。 我们有组织地准备, 决定启动这个运动。由于Will的努力, 和我过去做的工作, 把状书写出来, 经过亚裔人民基金组织的审核, 利用微信平台, 联系到更多的组结。 我来汇报一些反馈, 一个巴基斯坦组织犹豫很久终于加入, 感谢你们的勇气。一个香港组织说,“如果是今天的好事, 我们就应该做, 如果是明天的好事, 我们就必须做。” 我们有很多支持, 不仅有亚裔， 印裔，还有巴基斯坦裔， 和韩裔的支持。我们战斗, 也得到了美国议会的支持。3个议会代表人收到了我们的状书, Grace Wang, 亚裔议员, 第二个是Virginia Fox, 负责高等教育委员会, 还有一位劳工组织主席, 他邀请Amy Jones, 议会教育的政策领导,  收听我的讲座, 他理解我们的事件。目前事态正在进行之中。

去年麻省理工学院评出了35位35岁以下的创新人才，亚裔美国人占到里面的40%。 在2006 和2012年，42%的科技初创公司或是被亚裔美国人建立或是有亚裔美国人参与其中。请各位想想，他们中的每一个都具备领导力，创新力，冒风险的精神。甚至说开餐馆的人，也具有领导力和冒风险的精神，不是么？社会上对我们有不少不好的固定形象，这并不公平。在此，我鼓励各位，不要播撒这种形象，而应该为自己的亚裔身份骄傲。我们确实有时候有些人有那么些缺点，但是，不要过于扩大这种形象，那会伤害到每一个人。我写过一本书，叫“华裔的成功秘诀”，书中列出了许多华裔美国人的成就。如果我们把自己描绘成丑小鸭，我们就只会是丑小鸭，我们永远也变不成白天鹅。

• ** 下一步做什么？**

那么，下一步是什么？我们现在的时机正在积累，在这里谢谢80-20的DC分部以及吴博士的支持。我们将首先组织每个人发出他们自己个别的请求，也许一个星期以后，我们会组成一个更广泛的组织，从草根的角度继续来代表亚裔美国人进行战斗。我们也会开始法律上的行动，令人高兴的是，现在参众两院都由共和党人控制，他们更倾向于种族之间的平等，而不是种族之间的选择。未来的路也许很有挑战性，但是我们乐于接受挑战，并且同时能够达到不少目标。

还有一件事我想在此强调一下，我们是为了亚裔美国人而奋斗，但是我们也是在为这个国家奋斗。在我所接受的许多采访中，我是这样表达的：美国是一个伟大的国家因为她提供给每个人合作的机会。亚裔和其他从各大洲来此的人才是被美国所吸引而来把美国建设成一个伟大的国家的。但是，如果常春藤联盟和其他那些排名靠前的学校把我们孩子的未来加了一个限制的话，这会表达出什么样的意思呢？很明显的，平等机会是这个国家不可或缺的原则，我们需要为之而奋斗。谢谢大家！

（主持人）：我想给大家汇报一下现在的事态进展，正如赵先生所说，在哈佛诉讼之后，甚至在Ed和Will组织这一申诉的时候，确实带来了一个良好的时机。在所有的传统媒体上，报纸，电视，都有很多评论，许多人都在说类似的话：终于有人站出来讨论这个问题了。许多人包括许多白人在内过去都比较担心提起这个话题，因为常常他们一提起，就会被标签成其他的事情，不是么？我看到过一个评论，一个白人说：终于亚裔他们受够了，他们要站出来了。我想要说的是，别担心这有多困难，只要我们参与进去，支持这事，从繁忙的一天里挤出一点时间来。我知道很多人在孩子课后还要陪他们去上SAT等的课外课程，对吗？请用一点点时间来研究并支持这事情。我相信如果我们能支持冲在前面的诉讼和在后面支撑的草根组织，我们一定能取得很多成果，而不是亚裔社群们自己和自己在大学录取上的争斗。我们需要团结起来发出我们自己的声音来奋斗。

录像语言文字整理义工

中文，英文文字整理，校对义工:  (如有遗漏请告知)：

Gougou, Big Ben,  Jennifer, Kai, Penny, Jasper Zhou, Angela Zhao, Helen Fu， Peng Zou, Nan Lin, Ning, yyuum , Alex, 林蓉, Grace H. , 江上泛舟, 海英

组织：硅谷华人协会基金会  Crysta Lu, Fann, Jim Yan, C. Liao

7/2/2015

硅谷华人协会基金会(SVCA基金会)是华人草根自己的501(c)3非赢利公益组织。SVCA基金会致力于通过切实的义工行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华 人， 参与华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象，共同建设更美好的加州。如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请访 问我们的网站，加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款。/

胡正明教授的讲话

[译者按：5/30硅谷华人协会基金会 (Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation or SVCA Foundataion)邀请状告哈佛大学的Ed Blum先生和他的律师Will Consovoy到湾区参加教育论坛，与华人听众探讨入学考虑种族因素的政策的合法性。同时参加的嘉宾还有胡正明教授，发起针对哈佛行政申诉的赵宇空先生。 会后，SVCA 基金会组织义工对论坛录像进行了语言整理和翻译。分四部分公布。]

主持人李伟平：下面有请Hu先生。他所在的80-20组织同样也对这个议题十分积极，并且，任职于加大伯克利分校的Hu教授与Blum先生也曾在Fisher对德州大学和哈佛的诉讼中共同合作过。他对加大系统内新生录取的情况以及SCA5法案也十分熟悉。好，下面我把话筒交给他。

（掌声）

Hu教授：谢谢你Weiping.各位下午好，从各位对Ed和Will发言的反应来看，我知道大家来这里是全力支持这项核心事业的。我对你们表示感谢。所以，对于各位来支持Ed和Will的必要性，我不认为我需要再说太多。

• ** 80-20 在反对大学歧视性录取的努力**

我所要说的是，80-20长久以来，在亚裔美国人社区中，是唯一的大声疾呼在常春藤大学联盟录取中需要公正的组织。据我所知，你们中的许多人过去一直读到SB Wu (吴仙标, 80-20的创始人）写的电邮。我们以往的经历是，当我们与其他亚裔美国人组织联系的时候，不是说SVCA，而是一些更大，历史更悠久的组织，我们并没有，现在也没有得到他们的响应。感谢你们的工作和树立的榜样，以及Ed和Will的公众关注度，现在情况正在发生变化。我们并没有得到今天这样正面的支持，恰恰相反，Ed和Will能告诉各位的是，在他们的诉讼中，亚裔美国人的社区基本上完全一致地站在我们的对立面上，反对Amicus意见书。80-20十分高兴能够使用Amicus意见书，来支持Ed和Will提出的Abigail Noel Fisher对德州大学的诉讼。

我不得不注意到这不是一个巧合，当我同那些其他的亚裔美国人组织交谈的时候，我看见那些组织的领导人，他们的子女已经过了大学录取的年纪，因此也不会被常春藤大学对亚裔吹毛求疵的录取标准所伤害。而今天在座的各位对自己子女的未来应该是有所关注。

• ** 大学招生种族歧视是公开的秘密**

所以我认为有些事情是不对的，虚伪的，但是也是可以想象得到的。人人都想觉得他们是公正无私且慷慨的，甚至于想拯救世界。我可以说，大学教授们是最自由派之一，也最想要对自己所作感觉良好的。不仅仅是常春藤大学的教授，任何与大学有关的人，行政官员，校董会都想自我感觉良好。他们认为自己在树立良好的榜样。有一点很重要，也许不像国内很多的警察局那样，这里（公开的）并没有对少数族裔的歧视存在。

我可以保证这一点:  尽管209法案那样的法律被写入加州宪法，说到在录取的时候不应该考虑族裔。 但是，公开的秘密是族裔在每一个录取环节都在被考虑着。更有原录取官员在网上发文说她是如何被告知需要要暗地里考虑种族，虽然表面上并不考虑族裔。 因为有无数多的办法可以用来达到这个目的，你们可以想象得到。这也是为什么Richard Sanders——大概半年前被SVCA邀请在这里演讲过的加大洛杉矶分校的法学教授——不得不控告自己的大学以便能够获得更多的数据来向世界证明他的结论——加大洛杉矶分校考虑族裔录取违反了法律。

所以，（大学方面）不存在歧视或歧视的少数族裔(非裔和拉丁裔)，危险性存在于另一个方向（逆向歧视），也就是那些被伤害的群体们，没有被录取的群体。我可以告诉各位，提醒各位，他们是谁。其中之一当然就是那些亚裔或白皮肤的未被录取的学生们，尽管依照公开标准他们是应该被录取的，这些是明显的受伤群体。

• ** 学校搞种族倾斜入学政策的原因**

考虑种族倾斜的录取方式实质也对少数族裔造成伤害，让我告诉你们原因。学校也是个商业组织。 学校的商业行为不仅仅在于收取学费，那是小部分，也不包括补助，贷款等等，那些并不是大头。更重要的是大学们更在乎保护自己的名誉，他们一方面的确是更愿意录取符合标准的学生，但他们也需要对外形象高大，让世界知道他们在关心少数族裔。按种族偏向录取所带来的结果是，在这些大学中86%的黑皮肤学生是来自于高收入和中等收入的黑人家庭。这恰恰与许多人，许多教授或者其他自我感觉良好的人所希望(帮助那些低收入家庭的孩子的愿望）的背道而驰。

我相信我们都愿意帮助那些不那么幸运的，那些要不然就呆在社会底层无法出头的人。我们愿意给他们一个向上流动的机会，我相信我们大家都愿意这么做。也许这正是我的一些同事们，以及那些其他亚裔美国人社区的领袖们不愿意出来支持你们的事业的原因，因为他们觉得这会剥夺那些人的机会。但是，事实上，在录取时考虑族裔并不能达到帮助那些孩子们的目的。我会给你们举个例子。令人惊讶的是，不考虑族裔反而能帮助到那些孩子。

• ** 去除招生中的种族因素 (加州Prop. 209 法案)对大学的积极影响**

对于Connerly先生今天不在场我表示遗憾 (Mr. Connerly 是加州209法案的发起人，收到本论坛的邀请但是因为健康原因临时无法参加)，如果他在的话，我想我会向他道歉。当他是校董的时候，促成Prop209法案，那时我带领同事们分发传单，告诉我们的邻居们对这一法案投反对票。我们当时真的认为这法案会对那些不那么幸运的孩子们造成很坏的影响。但是事实上，该法案通过后，黑人学生毕业率增加了，他们的录取率尽管下降了一点点，但是他们的毕业率持续增加。从通过前的不到30%到现在的超过60%。

那到底发生了什么？当你不允许高校采取讨巧粉丝阴暗的一面的时候，高校会更加努力的做入学选择。我们不能再投机取巧录取容易的目标，例如有钱人的黑人孩子。我们寻找谁真正展现潜力的孩子，这就是发生的事实。

现在看看加州大学录取中依法禁止考虑种族因素后发生的另一件事。 你知道UC的系统有比其他任何地方的学校多得多的贫困家庭的孩子们。我给你一些数字。大学喜欢用这个定义来找贫困孩子，获得联邦政府资助的大型佩尔助学金 (Federal Pell Grant)的学生。Pell奖学金是完全基于家庭收入。所以，如果你有资格获得佩尔助学金，您的家庭收入将是贫困线上下，例如四万，五万美元一年。根据2009年的统计，加州大学伯克利分校独自一所学校佩尔助学金的学生就比所有的常春藤学校的加在一起还多！同样， 加州大学戴维斯分校一所大学的获得佩尔助学金的学生也比所有的常春藤盟校加在一起还多！ 加州大学洛杉矶分校的佩尔助学金的学生还是比所有的常春藤盟校加在一起还要多。所以，如果你想帮助弱势群体，请不要用不靠谱的种族因素。

我和ED Blum先生关注同样的问题，最高法院的判决还是给大学开了个口子考虑种族因素，说：“大学不能用种族考虑入学，除非是很谨慎的考虑“。 这意味着什么？这只是意味着仍有10000的方式，大学不想做正确的事情来帮助学生，而是做最容易的用肤色来做表面文章。事实上，我们俩有更好的方法。

• ** 大学入学考虑种族因素的危害**

开始我说到大学种族倾斜招生的受害者，我现在补充一点。有一个叫学生和学校不匹配的问题。因此，除了本来合格但是因为肤色原因被拒绝录取的学生之外，另一个受害者是按肤色原因而被照顾录取的申请人。事实上，这些特殊录取的学生经常无法实现自己的愿望。他们都进入了一流大学“法学院，工程学院，医学院，但后来，他们（因为竞争激烈，学业跟不上而）失败，他们被迫转专业，转学一些他们不想学习的领域。他们本来可以是很好的律师，医生，工程师，如果他们没有被降低标准录入那些想表面看起来好看的学校。如果这些学校让学生找到水平更合适的学校，学生会更好。已经多个研究表明，种族因素入学产生的不匹配是一个实际存在的问题。

最后讲的一个受害者，社会是受害者。我们的高中教育的质量已经竞争不过世界其他地区。你知道情况看起来有多可怕： 任何时候你看一个高中学生的科学，技术，工程，和数学(STEM)成绩，它已经太可怕了。我们也知道，世界经济更要立足于知识，知识基础。我们不能容忍这种不匹配，学生的愿望，他们的能力和机会。

• ** 大家一起努力来取消大学入学种族因素**

所以，通过取消大学招生中的种族方面的考虑, 我们将真正地消除许多申请人面对的不公，消除那些因倾斜政策而梦想受损的学生，并且拯救我们的国家，更好的在世界经济增长中的竞争。所以，我认为你们所在做得事情，你们的支持，做得非常好，并且我希望你们会登记成为该组织的成员，力所能及地捐助。

我希望你们也支持80-20. 这是一个监察组织，对于任何美籍亚裔面对的不平等，不只是在学校招生方面，我们为反对在任命联邦法官时的不平等而斗争，我们支持奥巴马总统，当他是总统候选人的时候，想在加州的初选打败Hillary Clinton。我们强烈地支持他，他签署了一份承诺书，承诺增加美籍亚裔在联邦法院的代表。在他被选为总统之后，我可以告诉你，在他6年的执政中，亚裔的联邦法官人数翻了一倍多，但是还是只有亚裔在全国的人数比例的一半（按百分比计算）。但是在这种情况下，如同在大学招生的情况，以及其他是80-20在努力争取的。在私营企业中员工面对的玻璃天花板，更不用提那些在大学，政府里的员工，如果你能相信的话。有明确的证据表明在这三个社會層中都有玻璃天花板。所以，还有很多工作要做。所以我们希望你们都加入80-20，支持对你自己的保护以及对孩子在未来岁月的保护。谢谢！

硅谷华人协会基金会(SVCA基金会)是华人草根自己的501(c)3非赢利公益组织。SVCA基金会致力于通过切实的义工行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华 人， 参与华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象，共同建设更美好的加州。如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请访 问我们的网站，加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款。/

Will Consovoy 律师的讲话

[译者按：5/30硅谷华人协会基金会 (Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation or SVCA Foundataion)邀请状告哈佛大学的Ed Blum先生和他的律师Will Consovoy到湾区参加教育论坛，与华人听众探讨入学考虑种族因素的政策的合法性。同时参加的嘉宾还有胡正明教授，发起针对哈佛行政申诉的赵宇空先生。 会后，SVCA 基金会组织义工对论坛录像进行了语言整理和翻译。分四部分公布。]

• ** 美国法院系统简介**

李伟平: 律师您可不可以给大家简短介绍美国的法院系统， 这样大家对预审和高院终审有个简单的了解。

Will Consovoy: 好。 在美国法院中， 分为联邦法院系统和州法院系统。如果你诉讼关于宪法或联邦法的案子，你的案件将首先呈交联邦地方法院，那是最低一级的联邦法院， 这一级的法官受理这个案件。这个级别的法院在每个城市都有。我们诉讼哈佛的案件就是在麻省的联邦地方法院呈交的， 因为哈佛就在那里， 我们必须在那里起诉他们。不管我们赢还是输，下一步将是第一巡回上诉法庭， 他们审理麻省，罗德岛，缅因州案子。在此之后将是最高法院， 当然最高法院并不一定会接受此案，但如果有四位大法官同意，最高法院会接受。九个(大法官)中要有四位。

• ** 为什么偏偏要告哈佛大学？**

Edward刚给大家做了很好的介绍， 我现在对这个案子本身做一点讲解:  为什么我们选择哈佛，我们的目的是什么，凭借着我们将会发掘出的证据，我们如何认为这些证据将帮助我们终结以族裔背景为考虑因素的大学招生政策。我想明确指出： 这就是我们的目标。我们的目标就是在大学的入学标准中彻底废除以族裔为考量因素。

我们讨论此事的时候，Edward建议说: “要不就以哈佛为起诉对象？”。   通常人们听说要起诉哈佛时的反应都是要倒吸一口气， 因为你的对手是哈佛大学。但正因为是哈佛，所以才会去起诉它。我们也可以起诉耶鲁或其他学校， 但起诉哈佛有个重要原因， 因为哈佛(在入学政策上)被当作是这个国家的典范。当Bakke诉讼案在裁决的时候， 哈佛的入学政策被作为族裔因素得到正确合理考量的典范， 族裔背景只是在很小的程度上受到照顾。(比如说:)在最后筛选过程中只剩下两个名额，此时只剩下两名申请学生在竞争，一位是从印第安那州， 另一名可能是纽约bronx区的非裔学生， 招生人员要从两人中选一， 他们就会说， “族裔只是作为筛选的其中一个小小的考量,我们在严格按照这个思路在做， 我们没有歧视谁， 我们没有歧视某一类人， 也没有歧视某一个地区的人”。  这完全都是谎言。 以前是，现在也是。

• ** 找学生告哈佛**

我们目标就是要证明哈佛在撒谎。 我们将从一个学生开始。当第一个站出来的时候，第二个, 三个也会来。 我们现在已经有10名左右(原告)学生， 因为我们的组织可以召集(原告)学生。原告学生可以起诉哈佛。但(我们的)组织(Students for Fair Admissions)本身不受学校招生政策影响， 因为组织不会去申请大学，当然也不会被大学拒绝。但学生们会申请大学，同时也会被大学拒绝。 所以我们组织SFFA需要找到这些曾经或将要申请哈佛的学生， 不管他们是在读高一， 高二， 或甚至初中， 来站出来表示：“我愿意和你们组织站在一起，成为你们组织中的一员”。 这样当法庭问，”你们组织SFFA中有哪些成员权益受到损害?”， 我们可以说，“我们有如下如下成员受害…” 。 这就是为什么我们选择起诉哈佛的原因。 所以，如果你想让最高法院去重新审查过去30年的招生记录， 你不能只是空口说，“哈佛做法不对”。这样观众会笑话的。

他们(法庭)会说: “谁都说我们(30年前的关于可以用族裔做考量因素的判决)做的不对”。 关于最高法院,有句名言, 最高法院不是因为没有错误而成为终极权威，最高法院只是因为终极权威而没有错误。 最高法院有最终的审判权, 所以你必须要让他们确信自从他们判决(30年前)以后到现在为止， 确实有很多不合理的事情在发生。 我们需要向他们证明， 哈佛在撒谎， 并且如果哈佛没办法做好这件事(在招生过程中合理考虑族裔因素)，那其它学校更没可能做好。事实上这也没办法做对, 没有什么方法能够公平合理地用族裔作为参考因素。如果有两个其他方面都一样好的学生(竞争一个名额)， 如果用族裔作为考量，结果只能是其中一位因为他的族裔背景遭到歧视。而另外一人因为其族裔背景受到好处。这种做法不合理， 一直都不合理。

这就是我们为什么要打这个官司。

4.令人震惊的哈佛歧视证据

所以我们用了六个月时间来写好长达122页的起诉书。我们研读整理了所有的资料和信息， 我们研究了加州理工学院和伯克利的取消族裔为考量因素后的招生数据。我们发现让人震惊的事实，那就是，哈佛的亚裔美国学生入学率一直保持在18%-20%。此数据本身令人困扰，因为类似的人群申请的加大伯克利分校和加州理工学院有超过50％的录取率，而这些学校承认用相同的录取标准，所以首先毫无疑问什么地方已经出错了。但还有一些更令人吃惊和不安的，一个从一开始就令我震惊的发现。有人想猜耶鲁大学的亚裔录取率吗？百分之十八至二十。普林斯顿？百分之十八至二十。布朗？所有常春藤盟校录取亚裔学生都在百分之18到二十。有人认为这是一个巧合吗？不，这不是一个巧合。他们都这样做。他们都在歧视亚裔，出于同样的原因，就像以前他们歧视犹太裔申请人一样。他们就是不希望有这么多亚裔学生。

这是错误的。而且他们这样做，迫使亚裔申请者互相内部竞争。我敢肯定，你在你们的孩子学校的感觉，你们的孩子会觉得，“我不在跟从纽约州的威彻斯特来的白人孩子或那里任何孩子竞争，真的。他们看着我的学校说，’好吧，我们只要这么多亚裔申请者’。这些亚裔孩子都是非常合格的，都是非常优秀的学生，他们不得不互相竞争一争高下。这是不对的，是吗？好了，所以，如果我们能够证明这一点，就可以不太困难的说服最高法院哈佛做错了。老实说我不认为这将是很难证明的。这需要大量的工作，他们已经聘请了大队律师，我们只有较少律师，感谢迈克的帮助，现在稍微多了，但还是比不上哈佛以及北卡罗莱纳大学的律师团，但对我们已经足够，我们将证明这一点。

真正的和最大的问题是“好，那我们要怎么做？”难道我们只是简单的抓住哈佛的手腕并说，“停止这样做”？他们会找到一些新的方式，不再是领导能力了，将会是性格，将会是“喔申请文章不太好”。你会听到这些偏见，他们写老套的东西，你知道吗？他们会想出新的方法来隐藏歧视。或者，最高法院会说“够了”。如果哈佛不能做好，谁可以做得好？答案是没有人。

• ** 继续向哈佛索取录取数据**

所以，这就是我们要努力做的，这将需要很长的时间;我不会讨论太多的诉讼的细节，但你基本上要花费一段时间在所谓的“发现事实”阶段。这意味着，我们要求他们提供文件，他们要求我们的文件，我们也采访了他们所有的员工，我们将审理他们的电子邮件，我们寻找有关歧视的所有证据，审查他们的统计数据。

有趣的是，哈佛隐藏了一些统计数据。他们只给出各种关于录取学生的统计，但是有一个统计，他们自2003年格鲁特诉讼后已经隐藏：每一族裔有多少学生申请哈佛。他们会告诉你多少被录取，但他们不会告诉你有多少人申请，你知道他们为什么不愿意告诉你有多少人申请。他们不想让你看到他们在对一些亚裔学生的做法，对不对？我们从现在起21天将得到/应该得到这些信息。

所以，如果很多人- 不是在这个房间里的人 -说，“哦，Fisher诉讼案没有啥成果，你得到了一个小小的程序上的裁决（procedural ruling），但在下级法院失败，也许最高法院将改正判决，但也许他们不会“。但我要告诉你它的确有影响。它让我们有机会问哈佛这些问题，并强迫他们给我们答案。如果我们没有提起诉讼，他们会一直说，“关闭此案，没有什么新的内容。Grutter已经决定，都结束了“。Fisher案说，“不管它说什么，反其道而行之。Grutter没有决定任何事情，你必须为你自己争取利益。在每一种情况下，你必须争取答案“。因此，不是关闭提交的案例（关闭意味着“我们不应该要求任何文件，这是一个愚蠢的事情，算了”），而是他们提交答辩书说，“我们没有做错任何事，我们将要接受诉讼挑战，我们会回答你的问题”。

• ** 拿到更多数据后的后续工作**

因此，我们问他们，我们要继续问他们，这将持续大约十一个月，然后我们要有三个月的时间让专家审理，所以我们将有专家审查分析数据，我们知道这些数据将证明什么，然后，我们将到达（summary judgement）简易判决阶段，两方辩论是否需要法庭审讯，或者一方基于证据已经胜诉，然后进入上诉阶段，而这将持续四，五，六年。所以你们不要觉得小孩太小因而跟本案无关，不是这样的。我们需要10岁，11岁，14岁，因为孩子长大 – 我们现在的原告是高年级学生和大学新生。你需要受此行为伤害的原告成员。当这些学生成为高校大三学生，他们失去资格，我们需要新的学生，所以我们可以说，“我们仍然有这样的学生。”所以这是一个不停更新的事情。因此，每个人都有份，最终是，我们将有三四十的孩子参与这件事情。我们很高兴。我们深呼吸;我们起诉哈佛，这是一个长期过程。我们很高兴这样做。

硅谷华人协会基金会(SVCA基金会)是华人草根自己的501(c)3非赢利公益组织。SVCA基金会致力于通过切实的义工行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华人， 参与华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象，共同建设更美好的加州。如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请访问我们的网站，加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款。/

Ed Blum 先生的讲话

[译者按：5/30硅谷华人协会基金会 (Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation or SVCA Foundataion)邀请状告哈佛大学的Ed Blum先生和他的律师Will Consovoy到湾区参加教育论坛，与华人听众探讨入学考虑种族因素的政策的合法性。同时参加的嘉宾还有胡正明教授，发起针对哈佛行政申诉的赵宇空先生。 会后，SVCA 基金会组织义工对论坛录像进行了语言整理和翻译。分四部分公布。]

大家好！来到这里，我非常高兴！这是我近三个月来第四次到华人团体来演讲。之前的讲座是在纽约长岛， 新泽西的Livingstong, 和休斯顿举办的。今天来到这里－－北加州， 我也非常高兴。这一次演讲是这几起诉讼背后的真正大律师Will Consovoy第一次加入我和大家见面。我也要向大家介绍Will的伙伴－－Michael Park。Mike 坐在后面，Mike，请你站起来一下！（观众鼓掌） Mike和Will曾在同年为联邦最高法院的两位法官担任法务助理，此后一直保持友谊，现在又并肩战斗，抗击美国一些最强大的教育机构。 这场战斗其实在很久以前就开始了。

在我演讲的大约15分钟时间里，我会讲两个方面。我想向在座每位陈述我们为结束高等教育中使用种族因素这个斗争的历史，介绍一下在过去40年里发生的三个不同的诉讼。之后，我会简介哈佛诉讼。最后我会把话题转交给Will，请他继续详细介绍哈佛诉讼方面的具体情况。

• ** UC Davis 案例 (小段落标题是译者添加的，下同)**

争取美国高校平等入学历程的发源地离这个会议室不远 －－UC Davis。一切都从20世纪70年代一个叫Allan Bakke的人申请UC Davis医学院开始。 那时，UC Davis每年招收100名医学院学生。Allan Bakke的申请被拒绝了。而他发现被拒的原因是：每年被录取的100名学生中，16个名额预留给了Davis认定为未被充分代表的少数族裔，主要是非裔和拉美裔人。尽管Allan Bakke的成绩和考试分数比那16名学生高，他还是被拒了。

于是他发起诉讼，但失败了。 他的诉讼打到最高法院，最高法院裁决：Allan Bakke被UC Davis医学院不公平地拒绝了。他被拒的缘由是Davis使用了硬性的、便利的、纯数字的配额去平衡白人、黑人、和拉美裔人。最高法院判定，这种配额是违反宪法的。然而最高法院并没有说，在高等学府招生中以任何形式使用种族因素都是违宪的。因此，我们现在有案例法允许使用种族因素，但是禁止使用种族配额。

• ** 密西根大学案例**

接下来发生的重要案例是2003年的两个针对密西根大学的案例。一个是一名白人女学生状告密西根大学的本科招生使用配额；另一案例也是一名白人女学生状告密西根大学的法学院招生用了配额。这两个案例在2003年非常引人注目。

最高法院做出了有分歧的判决：在本科招生的那个案子中他们明确判定配额的存在，但是在密西根大学法学院的案子中，他们否认配额的存在。悲哀的是，这正是让我们这些竭尽全力结束按种族搞分类和优惠的人最失望的地方。最高法院 说 按种族分类和搞优惠是合法的，可以做的，只是执行起来必须做到非常精妙地拿捏好分寸。最高法院的意思是，为了达到多样化，按种族搞优惠是可以被允许的，但是执行起来一定得把握好分寸。

而我认为这就是我们大多数人理解的: 一所大学在运用种族和族裔优先政策之前，它必须首先努力尝试去找到一个种族中立的途径来达到多样化。如果没有其他办法了，才能升高或降低某些（种族学生）的升学标准来实现多样化。

• ** 德州大学案例**

这的确令人失望，但是高级法院的这个观点出台的当天发生了一件很有意思的事情：之前一向没使用种族和族裔标准的德州大学宣布会重新把种族和族裔的概念引入他们的录取系统。也就是在那一天，我们很多人意识到要有一个新的案例来让最高法院重新审视这一种族优惠的体系。所以密西根的那个案例（6：48）宣布的那天，我就开始物色这样一个被德州大学拒绝过的白人或者亚裔学生来控告德州大学，诉点就是：他们本来就有一个很成功的种族中立的录取体系，在此基础上再加入种族优惠政策就算是违宪的了。

我花了整整3年才找到了一位这样的原告。她名叫Abigal Fisher, 在休斯顿长大，以班级前11% 的 成绩毕业，记住这一点对于这样一个案例很重要，因为如果你的成绩是班级里前10%，那么不论你的SAT分数如何，你都可以入读德州大学。所以Abigal 只是在自动录取标准之下一个百分点。于是 Abigail 同意提告德州大学，也就是在这个时侯 Will Consovoy 先生和他的律师事务所加入了这个案子。他们由我的法律辩护基金会所雇佣，在法庭上代表Abby, 并进而于2008年对德州大学提启诉讼。  我们在地区法院输了，又在上诉法庭输掉， 这些都是发生在 第 五巡回法院。然后我们向美国联邦最高法院提出上诉。谢天谢地，最高法院于2012年受理了此案，我们阐述了为什么上述的观点。

几个月后，最高法院又出台了一个有意思的说法，我会接下来给你们解释。这一次我们赢了。这一次是七比一的判决，法官Kagan选择了回避，因为他在被任命为最高法院法官之前曾经在奥巴马政府部门就任检察长期间介入过此案。我们胜诉了而且这是一次在原则上的胜利，但是我们并没有在程序上取得我们想取得的胜利。(意指先输掉低级法院再赢了高级法院的诉讼？) 所以联邦最高法院在他们的适用 于全国每一座高等院校的裁决里再次表明，一所大学如果要打种族和族裔这张牌，它必须要把分寸拿捏得非常精准，而且如果已有种族中立的替代途径，则必须在动用种族优惠政策前优先选择替代方法。

你们也许对此有很多问题，我一会儿在回答提问时会解释更多一些。这样联邦最高法院推翻了下级法院的判决，送回去做进一步的听证汇报。 我们也回到德州， Will和他的团队，还有我们，一起做了新一轮的汇报。 我们进行了新一轮论辩。再一次，我们在下级法院输掉了官司。同时Will, Mike与他们的法务团队，再次向最高法院申诉重启此案。在此房间所进行着的、及与哈佛诉讼相关的一切此刻正值良机，因为下周一，最高法院有望宣布他们将再次受理Fisher案 (翻译此文的时候该案已经被高院受理！)。若如我们所愿高院真能接受Fisher案，那我们对哈佛的诉讼、对北卡大学教堂山分校的诉讼，以及遍及全国的六十四个亚裔团体为公民权利投诉美国教育部的巨大的能量，所有这一切汇集一起将成为法律与美国历史上重要的一刻。

而这一刻，已经启程，自此不远——加州人民，包括这个房间中的加州人认定了把血统与民族重新作为大学录取因素不应该发生，正是他们令非常过分的SCA5提案在加州不能得逞！加州人，所有加州人，不论血统与民族，都已经去除了种族因素的政策而获益。这个房间的人们为结束停止SCA5而努过力，而这些立法方面的努力，是成功的，是加州通过草根运动获得的成就。Will、Mike和他的法律团队，如你们所知，已经准备好把Fisher案诉回最高法院。然后我们开始去年11月17日发起新的诉讼。这两个诉讼将为学生赢得被哈佛与北卡罗莱纳大学教堂山分校公平录取的机会。针对这两个诉讼,我们作出了大胆的法律论证。

• ** 哈佛案例**

请允许我谈谈哈佛这个案子，因为我认为对大家来说这最有趣。我们声称，通过论证和海量的数据与历史信息，证明哈佛今天的确有一个配额系统限制录取亚裔学生的人数。 正如我们早在1970年通过加州大学戴维斯分校案例所知道一样，配额当时是违法的。我们坚信哈佛正在实行与戴维斯分校四十年前几乎一模一样的种族配额。有趣的是，这些配额不仅只在过去四十年中，而是在过去近一百年中都被应用。因为回溯到二十世纪二十年代，哈佛大学在1924年，招收新生中有百分之二十七犹太人。我本人就碰巧是犹太人，1924年还未出生。但试想1924年当时犹太人只占美国人口的百分之一，哈佛招收的新生却占百分之二十七之多。为何会如此呢？原因同我们今天见证的现象一样——从招收新生的亚裔比例来看，伯克利大学有百分之四十二、加州理工有百分之四十——重视教育的少数族群能够克服社会经济方面的弱势而在高等教育中胜出。

那么哈佛在1924年当新生中有百分之二十七犹太人时做了啥呢？他们开始实行一个所谓的“哈佛计划”，新的“哈佛计划”。这是怎样的计划呢？简而言之该计划被设计成中断、限制、减少犹太学生的录取。新的哈佛计划执行后，学习成绩和考试结果在哈佛的录取过程被削弱了很多，而领导才能和地域多样性被大大地提升。 所以，学习成绩和考试结果不再那么重要，而 领导才能和地域多样性却变得更重要。从那以后犹太人的录取率有什么变化呢？谁来猜一猜？好，我来告诉你们。犹太人的录取率从以前的27% 下降到10%， 并40年来保持在10%， 近来增长了一点点。

现在，哈佛又发生了什么呢？这个就让Will讲吧，但是我讲完之前，我给你们一个统计数据并提一个请求。在1992年，17% 哈佛新录取的学生是亚裔。在2012年，20年后，19%新录取学生是亚裔。可是，在这段时间里，我们认为经他们筛选的哈佛亚裔申请者大约是过去的两倍多，接近三倍。SAT考试2200分以上的亚裔至少占了哈佛亚裔申请者的50%,  所以我们现在正在诉讼中。

• ** 华人能如何帮助我们？**

有三件事需要你们的帮助，我希望在座每一个人都帮我们宣传一下。Students for Fair Admissions (https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/) 是一个会员组织。我们现在有400名会员，但是，我们需要更多的会员，免费参加。会员有两个类别。

第一类是家长，我们需要更多的家长参与，但不必是亚裔。我们需要那些支持我们的目标, 即在高等教育中终止配额和终止种族为基础的平权法的人士参与。你只需要到我们的网站上，填一下我们的申请表。我们会问你的姓名，地址，邮政编码。我们会给你一封回信并感谢你的参与，你的名字是保密的。

另一类会员是学生，如果你是被一个极具竞争力的大学拒绝的学生， 被哈佛，耶鲁，斯坦福或其它大学拒绝的话，我们也有一张申请表。在那张表里，我们会问你的姓名，你的电子邮件，和介绍你自己，告诉我们你是哪一年申请了哪些大学，哪些学校拒绝了你，告诉我们你的成绩，告诉我们你的SAT成绩和你的课外活动。那些学生，我们会直接跟他们联系，并征求他们的同意，如果法庭或哈佛想知道这些学生的情况，我们是否可以给他们。

最后，我们需要你的财务支持。我们需要向法庭和哈佛大学证明，我们是一个合法的协会，我们要证明我们有上百，上千的成员支持我们。你可以到我们的网站上直接给我们捐款。我不管它只是十块钱，也不管它只是五块钱。我希望能多一点，但是十块钱也可以。如果你能够多捐一点，我们欢迎。这些官司都非常昂贵，尽管Will和他的助手们只收很少的费用为我们提供美国顶级律师事务所的法律顾问服务。这是我们正在做的，以终止这个由来已久的歧视。我希望你们可以以私人和团体的方式给与支持。现在我让Will跟我们讲一下官司。

硅谷华人协会基金会(SVCA基金会)是华人草根自己的501(c)3非赢利公益组织。SVCA基金会致力于通过切实的义工行动服务硅谷和附近地区的华 人， 研讨华人关心的话题，提供教育资讯和讲座，鼓励华裔团结参与社区事务，提升华人形象，共同建设更美好的加州。如果您赞同我们的理念，喜欢我们的行动，请访 问我们的网站，加入我们的义工队伍或者捐款。/