UpFront News Briefs
June 27, 2003
OVERHEARD
“It was just getting out of control. This year the decision was made that we would do everything we could to help our ceremony be more dignified and formal.”
– Rick Call, principal at Woods Cross High School, Woods Cross, Utah, on the school’s decision to ban leis in graduation ceremonies. A complaint about the ban has been lodged with the school district by the Utah Office of Pacific Islander Affairs.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Court Reconsiders Unocal Suit for Burmese Atrocities
Unocal Corp. has asked a federal appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit seeking monetary damages on behalf of indigenous farmers in Burma who allege the oil giant was complicit in human rights violations carried out by that country’s military.
The El Segundo, Calif.-based oil concern argued on June 17 before an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that an obscure 1789 federal law used to bring the suit is being misapplied.
The Bush administration also weighed in on the case, telling the San Francisco-based court that the law in question, the Alien Tort Claims Act, does not grant overseas victims of atrocities access to American courts.
Nothing in the act “suggests an intent on the part of Congress that it would furnish a foundation for suits based on conduct occurring within other nations,” the Justice Department wrote in a filing.
On June 3, a different 11-judge panel of the same appeals court ignored the Bush administration, ruling 6-5 that a doctor whom U.S. agents ordered kidnapped and brought to the United States to stand trial for murder charges could sue the United States under the act. The doctor was acquitted.
Several Alien Tort Claims Act cases similar to the Unocal case are pending across the country. One targets ChevronTexaco Corp. for alleged human rights violations in Nigeria, and another is against ExxonMobil Corp. for rights abuse allegations in Indonesia.
But the government says the law has become a threat to U.S. foreign policy and the war on terrorism. A group of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, captured by the United States in Afghanistan, is invoking the law against the United States.
In the Unocal case, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit overturned a lower court and reinstated the case in September on behalf of indigenous farmers of Burma. The appeals court, which said the Alien Tort Claims Act allowed the lawsuit, put the ruling on hold to rehear it with a larger panel of judges.
The allegations against Unocal include complicity in slavery, murder and rape, which the local farmers say was carried out by the Burmese military. The military provided the company with security and other amenities for a pipeline venture with the government of Burma.
— The Associated Press
SUPREME COURT
Both Sides Claim Victory in Affirmative Action Ruling
Both sides at the heart of the affirmative debate claimed victory Monday after the Supreme Court issued a ruling on how much of a factor race can be in the selection of students.
University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman called the court’s affirmative action decision Monday a victory not just for Michigan, but for all of higher education.
“This is a resounding affirmation that will be heard across the land, from our college classrooms to our corporate boardrooms,” Coleman said in a statement.
She said the university will modify its undergraduate system to comply with the ruling.
But she said, “We will find the route that continues our commitment to a richly diverse student body.”
Curt Levey, spokesman for the Center for Individual Rights, which filed the lawsuits on behalf of the plaintiffs, said, “Obviously we’re very gratified that the college’s racial preference system was struck down.”
Levey said it shows that there can’t be a mechanical system that treats races differently.
By upholding the law school policy, however, it leaves “a little bit of room for schools to use race,” he said. “I think what the court did is probably a reasonable compromise.”
The high court on Monday ruled that minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions to universities, but limited how much of a factor race can play in the selection of students.
The court struck down a point system used by Michigan for undergraduate admissions, but approved a separate program used at the Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.
“I’m delighted by the undergraduate decision,” said plaintiff Patrick Hamacher. “However, I’m baffled that the Supreme Court didn’t see the same principle at work in the law school.
Leading APA civil rights organizations applauded the court’s decision. At least twenty-seven APA groups had filed amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs supporting Michigan’s affirmative action programs.
Margaret Fung the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) Executive Director of New York deemed the law school decision a “great victory for civil rights.”
“Although the Court rejected the [undergraduate admissions program], it recognized that affirmative action is an important tool to promote equal opportunity and racial diversity in higher education,” Fung said.
AALDEF staff attorney Chandra Bhatnagar pointed out the need for affirmative action when APAs are under-represented in particular fields.
“One misconception about affirmative action is that Asians and South Asians are not under-represented in academic institutions, do not face discrimination and have no need for programs that take into account a wide range of factors that circumscribe opportunity,” he said.
He cited an AALDEF national survey which found that 13 percent of Asian and South Asian females — 4.5 times the rate for white females — had completed less than an 8th grade education. APAs are underrepresented in fields such as social sciences (2 percent or less), education (1.6 percent ), English/literature (2.1 percent), and law (0.9 percent). Two-thirds of Cambodian, Hmong and Laotian Americans do not complete high school.
Amicus briefs also came in from corporate America, including Fortune 500 companies such as Microsoft, Procter & Gamble and Eastman Kodak and from the military.
“The Court’s decision once again reinforces what the military, institutions of higher education and corporate America have been living for decades — that diversity on campuses and in the workplace builds strength and benefits not only the students but also all Americans,” said Floyd Mori, National President of the Japanese American Citizens League.
The Supreme Court divided in both cases. It upheld the law school program that sought a “critical mass” of minorities by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor siding with the court’s more liberal justices to decide the case.
The court split 6-3 in finding the undergraduate program unconstitutional.
— AP
AsianWeek staff contributed to this story.
Comments
Got something to say?