The edited version of this article first appeared in New America Media.
Dr. Haiping Su was a victim
of racial profiling and he sued the United States government and NASA for
smearing his reputation, invading his privacy, depriving him of realizing his
full career potential and causing him emotional stress and mental anguish. He sued to clear his name and he asked for
$5.2 million in damages.
Six (6) years later, after
various delays, legal maneuvers and challenges, the judge heard the arguments
and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, namely Dr. Su, and against the defendant,
in this rare case the US government. As
compensation for damages, Su was awarded $10,000.
The lesson of Su’s experience
with American justice has implications for all Chinese Americans working in
technical disciplines in the United States and is worthy of more detailed
examination.
In June 2008, Su was abruptly
escorted off the premises of Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California
and his access badge taken from him. The
only explanation given to him was that he had somehow become a security risk to
NASA.
At the time, he had been
working for about 3 years as a staff member of University Affiliated Research
Center operated by UC Santa Cruz under contract to NASA. He had come to the US from China in 1986,
earned his PhD in agriculture science from Kansas State five (5) years later
and became an US citizen. His work for
NASA related to his technical expertise.
The work was non-classified.
Approximately a month after
getting his new identification badge to Ames in January 2008, the FBI asked to
interview him for a “background check.”
The FBI did not approach any other member of his work group for a
similar sort of background interview.
There was a second interview
in March at the end of which he was told that he needed to take a lie detector
test. Afterwards, the FBI agent told him
that he “did not do well” on the polygraph test but did not otherwise explain
why Su was being investigated.
Early in April, Su was
grilled by four (4) people representing FBI and NASA security to “clarify
issues raised by the polygraph.” Then on
June 24, Su was handed a letter signed by Robert Dolci, head of security at
Ames, stating that his continued presence constituted a security risk and he
was escorted off the premises.
Dolci then called a meeting
of Su’s coworkers and to their surprise, informed them that Su constituted a
security risk. Some of his coworkers
later testified that Dolci implied that Su was removed from NASA Ames because
he took money from a foreign government.
Early in July, Su’s
supervisor at UCSC issued a letter of dismissal because he had allegedly failed
the lie detector test. Fortunately for
Su, his supervisor compared the flimsy accusations against Su’s exemplary work
record and decided to rescind his letter of dismissal. He simply asked Su to telecommute and
continue working from his home.
Su was understandably
distraught by the treatment he received.
He contacted me and his story was still fresh in my mind when I happened
to attend one of those Silicon Valley dinner meetings for technical
professionals. Jim McManis, partner in
charge at McManis Faulkner, a prominent law firm in San Jose, was the speaker
and he spoke about fair employment practices.
I was impressed by his
forthrightness and his attitude about the importance of being fair, so I
related Su’s story to him. McManis was
appalled and invited Su to contact him.
His willingness to take up Su’s case without fee made the historic
lawsuit possible.
McManis’ firm filed the
complaint on behalf of Su against NASA and the FBI on the grounds that Su was
not involved in classified work, had no criminal history, was never told of the
charges against him nor given a chance to defend himself, and lastly was not
told of his right to appeal.
The complaint further charged
that NASA in handling this case did not follow their own internal procedure and
policy and thus deprived Su of due process, ruined his reputation and caused
undue hardship and mental anguish.
In the court hearing, testimony
by Su and his wife indicated that he had suffered greatly from this
experience. His wife testified that Su
had undergone a personality change from outgoing to reclusive, from engaging to
distrustful of people, and suffered from frequent bouts of depression.
The trial judge acknowledged
that Dolci invaded Su’s privacy but he was unable to accurately assess damages
done to Su, because Su continued to be employed. In the end, the judge found for Su a sum of
$10,000 as compensation for damages he suffered.
After the judge rendered his
verdict, I asked Su if he felt vindicated and if he had any regrets. He said that even though it became a six-year
nightmare and he had to pay a personal price suffering from insomnia and
hypertension, he would do it again.
He was convinced that the
only way to stop racism was to stand up and object. He didn’t fight just for himself, he said,
but also for all Chinese Americans working in the U.S.
The Wen Ho Lee case at the
turn of the century was perhaps the most notorious, but racial prejudice since
then against professional Chinese Americans working in technical disciplines
has not subsided.
Chinese Americans have
continued to be accused, harassed, and thrown out of work. Subjected to personal ordeal, including
sitting in jail without bail, the victims frequently find the government
accusers lose interest and drop all charges—not before, of course, having
inflicted financial devastation and character destruction on their hapless
victims.
Su’s case has been one
exception where the Government did not get away with arbitrary and
discriminatory actions and not have to pay a penalty.
