Legal-Rights on SVCAF — Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

Defending the US Constitution as Owners of the USA

Tue, 01 Nov 2022 19:50:09 +0000

Unabridged speech transcript for the “Equal Education Rights for All” Rally

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！

美国政府诉陈刚案-刑事起诉书

Tue, 26 Jan 2021 02:52:57 +0000

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。

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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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

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

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

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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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

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。
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。
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：

promote chinese collaboration 推广与中方合作
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。
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。
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
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。
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。
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）
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
For basic research, flexibility for scientist 基础科研，给予科学家学术自由
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。

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。

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。
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。
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。）
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

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。
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。
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

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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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

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）。
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。
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。
而在2014年和2015年度里，CHEN也都没有提交FBAR。
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。
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

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

加利福尼亚州未成年人医疗同意和保密法（手机版）

Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:19:28 +0000

加利福尼亚州未成年人医疗同意和保密法 CALIFORNIA MINOR CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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:

inform the minor that the report will be made, and
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:

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:

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
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
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).

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)).

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

加利福尼亚州未成年人医疗同意和保密法（电脑版）

Sun, 10 Jan 2021 00:45:03 +0000

加利福尼亚州未成年人医疗同意和保密法

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）

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)).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:

inform the minor that the report will be made, and
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）

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:

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

The individual or program is:

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
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
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。

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.

Reference:

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

学区赔偿亚裔学生66.5万美元案件的来龙去脉

Thu, 23 Apr 2020 00:33:24 +0000

编者按：圣拉蒙山谷联合学区（San Ramon Valley Unified School District）最近赔偿亚裔学生65万美元的案子在本地引起巨大反响。Nextdoor上邻居们七嘴八舌争论不休。很多不明真相的群众认为受害者家庭滥用诉讼让学区就范，舆论一时对亚裔受害者家庭非常不利。SVCAF三年里一直跟受害者一家保持联系，了解其中艰辛。幸好有真正花时间阅读法庭公开文件的居民写了案件的总结。现摘录如下，让华人社区也清楚本案的来龙去脉。

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。

亚裔学生告赢学区,将获66.5万美元赔偿及公开道歉

Thu, 09 Apr 2020 20:15:30 +0000

北加州东湾的丹维尔的学生在针对圣拉蒙山谷联合学区的言论自由的诉讼中获得和解，将获665,000美元及公开道歉

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

End Racial Discrimination: Lawsuit at Critical Juncture

Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:02:48 +0000

Dear Friends,

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

An Open Response to Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky

Sun, 06 Aug 2017 22:21:28 +0000

August 6, 2017

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

SVCAF Advises White House Against 2020 Census Proposal on Racial Data Subdivision

Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:29:11 +0000

In April 2017, SVCAF submitted formal written feedback to the White House opposing the proposed changes to racial data subdivision in the 2020 Census. The full letter is shown below.

《知道你的权利 — 当遭遇执法人员时》中英文对照版本 v1.0

Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:32:20 +0000

美国民权自由联盟《知道你的权利 — 当遭遇执法人员时》中英文对照版本 v1.0由硅谷华人协会基金会 (Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation or SVCA Foundation) 组织资源编写。编写的动机是近年来多起涉及华人的案件（例如江波，Sherry Chen 案件）出现涉案者因为所说的话而被控告对执法人员撒谎（lying to federal agents / officers）。希望本手册能帮助普及和执法人员打交道的背景知识和相关法律。为了更大范围服务华人，欢迎自由转载传播本文件。

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