By Andrew Lawler
Science
November 10, 2000
Angered and emboldened by the Wen Ho Lee case, many Asian-American
researchers at national labs are decrying their status as "high-tech
coolies"--and demanding change
When physicist Shao-Ping Chen sifted through his e-mails one Monday morning
in August, he came across an unsettling message. "Wen Ho Lee should be
supported (by the neck), cut down, drawn, and quartered," read part of a
diatribe from a colleague at New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory that
had been forwarded to Chen. At that point, the federal government, after
conducting a massive investigation of Lee for possible espionage and keeping him
in solitary confinement for 9 months, was preparing to put the former Los Alamos
physicist on trial for mishandling classified data. For Chen, the e-mail, with
its allusions to a lynching, was a frightening reminder of the racial overtones
that he believes tainted this case from the start. "It had a very chilling
effect on me," he recalls.
In response to the Lee saga and its fallout, Asian-American scientists and
engineers like Chen are turning up the heat. The government's case against Lee
imploded in September, when prosecutors dropped all but one of 59 charges
against him and a federal judge set him free with a stinging indictment of the
government's conduct. But many Asian Americans at the nation's weapons labs are
now aggressively protesting a culture that they believe has not only singled
them out as potential security risks but has also held back their careers. They
also have compiled figures, which are disputed by lab officials, indicating that
on average they lag in terms of pay. "The term going around now among us is
that we're high-tech coolies--if we work hard, we're given more work," says
Joel Wong, an engineer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
It's a sudden and surprising turn of events for a community that
traditionally has avoided political organization, legal recourse, and conflict
with authority. "They don't sit at the back of the bus," says Hugh
Gusterson, an anthropologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who
has studied both Los Alamos and Livermore. "But they feel marginalized,
alienated, and persecuted." And given the growing numerical muscle of Asian
Americans in both public and private labs, the budding movement--if
sustained--will be felt far beyond the secure fences of the Department of
Energy's (DOE's) weapons labs. AIDS researcher David Ho of the Rockefeller
University in New York City, who sits on a presidential panel examining the
status of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, says that the case is having a
"dramatic effect" on Asian-American researchers. And he predicts those
effects "will ripple through the academic community as well."
The ripples likely won't stop there, others add. "The Lee case is likely
to be seen as a watershed" for Asian Americans by future historians, says
Paul Igasaki, vice chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
which is investigating discrimination charges at both Los Alamos and Livermore.
Steven Aftergood, a security analyst at the Federation of American Scientists in
Washington, D.C., agrees. "The case has catalyzed a new degree of
organization and activism--among Chinese Americans in particular and Asian
Americans in general--that is irreversible," he says.
Chen, who spent nearly 2 weeks of his vacation time sitting through hearings
on the Lee case this summer in Albuquerque, gives lab management 2 years to
address what he sees as egregious salary and managerial inequities. If there's
no change, the 15-year Los Alamos veteran adds, "I'll leave the lab."
And Wong says that he, too, is ready to quit. "The Wen Ho Lee case woke us
up," he adds. "It tells us that hard work and being humble are not
enough."
Number power
Such strong statements are reverberating through the weapons laboratories,
which are already struggling to retain and hire high-quality researchers amid a
post-Cold War economic boom. Although Lee is now a free man, and many of the
most drastic security measures imposed in the past 18 months have been relaxed,
the allegations of espionage, concerns about racial profiling, foreign travel
restrictions, plans for polygraph testing, and a call for a national boycott of
all DOE labs by Asian Americans have made the labs seem less than welcoming
(Science, 6 October, p. 22).
Feelings of alienation are far from universal among Asian Americans in the
labs. Many say they have not experienced overt discrimination, and others point
to language difficulties and cultural traditions which frown on self-promotion
that can block career advancement. But the growing sense of anger and
frustration that many Asian Americans are now expressing is a particularly
worrisome development for those who oversee the labs. "If we can't make the
labs an attractive place for Asian Americans," says Livermore director
Bruce Tartar, "then we lose big time."
The number of researchers and managers who are leaving the weapons labs is
increasing. Attrition rates at Los Alamos have risen from 2.7% in 1996 to 4.1%
in 1999. Jonathan Medalia of the Congressional Research Service estimates that
about half of the entire workforce of the weapons labs will have retired by
2010. Finding a new generation to baby-sit the world's largest nuclear arsenal
is already an enormous challenge. The higher salaries, stock options, greater
flexibility, and fewer intrusive security measures in the booming private sector
already have made the competition tough.
Asian Americans--a heterogeneous group that includes recently transplanted
Indian computer scientists, highly educated physicists who fled China's Cultural
Revolution, and biologists who are third-generation Americans of Japanese
descent--are an increasingly important source of top-notch recruits. They
constitute the fastest growing ethnic group in the country--expected to more
than double to 10% by 2050. They are also highly concentrated in science and
engineering. Almost 70% of doctorates earned by Asian Americans are in the life
sciences, physical sciences, and engineering--far above the average for other
ethnic groups. One-fifth of all U.S. doctorates awarded in these fields go to
persons of Asian heritage, and Asian Americans are three times more likely to be
scientists or engineers than is the average American. At Los Alamos, 4.5% of
professional staff members are Asian American--a jump of one-third in just 5
years--while at Livermore nearly one in 10 professional staff members is of
Asian heritage. There is already evidence that fewer Asian Americans are
applying for jobs since Lee's firing in March 1999. From June 1997 through
February 1998, there were nearly 900 applicants for jobs at the three weapons
labs, 18% of whom were of Asian origin. From March 1999 through February of
2000, the number of applicants stayed roughly the same, but the percentage of
Asians dropped below 10%.
DOE officials say there is little question that the Lee case and its
aftermath are partly responsible for the decline. And they agree that morale has
suffered. "The Wen Ho Lee case has raised a lot of fear, distrust, and
suspicion," says Jeremy Wu, appointed by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson
in January to monitor potential discrimination. It also raised
"long-standing issues of the glass ceiling and pay inequity."
Data dispute
The scant data available on those "long-standing issues" appear to
support Asian American concerns. Their growing numbers have not translated into
managerial power. As with women, Asian Americans easily enter the doors of
academia and government laboratories but then generally fail to rise as high or
as fast as their white male colleagues.
At Livermore, nearly one in 10 members of the professional staff is Asian
American, but only one in 25 is a manager or supervisor. Similarly, at Los
Alamos, about one in 25 professionals is of Asian heritage, but just one of 99
top managers at the lab is Asian American. Employees and lab managers alike
acknowledge this glass ceiling, although there is disagreement over why it
exists and how it should be broken.
Documenting pay inequities is more difficult, because employees and lab
managers disagree on how to interpret the data. According to a group of
Livermore Asian Americans, the average salary of an Asian-American physics Ph.D.
at the lab is as much as $12,000 a year below that of other physics Ph.D.s. The
group also maintains that salary discrepancies increase with the length of
service, and that the inequities have changed little over the past decade.
Robert Kuckuck, Livermore's deputy director of operations, disputes this
analysis. "We see no significant differential in salary," he says.
But he declined to provide data, noting that "it's still in a
preliminary state." Likewise, Los Alamos managers take issue with an
analysis by Chen that shows a $3000-a-year average salary gap between Asian
Americans and their Los Alamos colleagues. "The lab found a statistically
insignificant difference in salaries between the two groups," says
Jacqueline Paris-Chitanvis, a lab spokesperson. But Los Alamos officials, like
their Livermore colleagues, say they cannot release their data.
Catalyst for action
It took the Lee case to bring these issues of pay and the glass ceiling out
in the open. Lee's treatment, and the harsh lab security measures imposed in the
wake of his March 1999 firing, prompted two organizations--the Asian Pacific
Americans in Higher Education and the Association of Asian-American Studies--to
call for an employment boycott of all DOE labs.
Asian Americans, however, are sharply divided over whether a boycott is the
proper approach. "It is hurting the labs and creating a wall at a time when
we need dialogue," says Manvendra Dubey, a Los Alamos atmospheric chemist
and chair of the Asian-American diversity working group. But during a recent
gathering of a half-dozen Asian-American Livermore employees, five of the six
said they backed the boycott as a way to put pressure on management. Says
Ling-Chi Wang, the ethnic studies professor at the University of California (UC),
Berkeley, who proposed the boycott: "This is a vehicle to express our
collective outrage and get the message across."
Although the media spotlight has primarily been on Los Alamos, the level of
distrust between employees and managers seems particularly intense at Livermore,
which is located in a region with the highest proportion of Asian Americans in
the country. As the Lee case snowballed last fall, nine Livermore employees
submitted formal complaints charging UC--which operates both Livermore and Los
Alamos--with discrimination in pay and promotion opportunities. Kalina Wong, one
of the nine and a group leader in controlled materials, says management has not
taken Asian-American concerns seriously enough. Adds one of the employees:
"I haven't gotten a promotion in 16 years--I feel blackballed."
The complaints prompted the California Department of Fair Employment to
investigate. If the department's report backs the allegations, says the group's
lawyer, Jack Lee, he expects to file a class-action suit. Meanwhile, the federal
EEOC is conducting its own investigation. "It's very unusual for both to be
investigating the same entities," says Lee, of the San Francisco law firm
Minami, Lew & Tamaki.
Livermore managers decline to discuss the investigations but dismiss the idea
that there is systematic discrimination. "We've been looking at these same
issues for 5 years," says Susan Houghton, public relations chief at the
lab. "And you are always going to have people who feel differently."
Reluctant critic
George Kwei, a senior physicist who has worked at both Los Alamos and
Livermore, is one of the reluctant activists. Kwei, who came from Taiwan at the
age of 12, would seem to be a poster boy for Asian-American success. He arrived
at Los Alamos in 1974, excelled in laser research, rose to deputy associate
director at the lab, and continued vibrant research in neutron scattering.
"He's done a lot of fine work in a remarkable number of fields," says
his Harvard mentor, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Dudley Herschbach.
Kwei also helped Los Alamos director John Browne's office draft memos and
public releases during the Lee crisis. He vociferously opposes the boycott and
fears that both Los Alamos and Livermore are losing prestige. But recent events
have put him in the critics' camp. He was shocked by what he felt were an
intelligence official's racist comments during a lab security seminar and by the
pay and promotion data passed around among Asian-American employees. So when a
pet research project he proposed at Los Alamos was continuously rebuffed, and
when he was passed over this summer for a senior job at Livermore for which he
believes he was well qualified, Kwei says he began to wonder if his ethnicity
played a role.
He reached this conclusion reluctantly, he says, but last month he filed a
request for an administrative review as to why he was not selected for the job.
"Their response was totally unsatisfactory," he says, adding that he
has since asked for an independent review. "I could find a lawyer and sue
the lab and UC," Kwei adds. But he says the real purpose of his complaint
is to underscore that management must be more aggressive in putting Asian
Americans into leadership positions.
Lab managers declined to discuss Kwei's case. Joseph Thompson, Kwei's former
Los Alamos group leader, says he doubts Kwei's proposed project was derailed
because of prejudice, and other former co-workers say that Kwei sometimes could
be prickly and abrasive. But Kwei's disaffection, whatever the particular merits
of his complaints, illustrate that distrust has reached the highest level.
Asian Americans disagree on whether lab management and DOE are taking their
concerns seriously. Kwei believes senior management at both Livermore and Los
Alamos are sincerely attempting to address the problems, although he worries
that that commitment drops off at lower levels. But Livermore's Dorothy Ng is
skeptical that the senior management will make changes without intense pressure
from DOE and employees. "If we don't hold the lab accountable, nothing will
get done," she says.
DOE's Wu notes that the department is hampered by its arms-length
relationship to the labs, which are run by private contractors. But he points
out that Richardson last month ordered DOE's inspector general to investigate
whether security clearance procedures mask racial profiling. He also recently
ended a ban on foreign visitors from certain countries--including China and
India--to the weapons facilities. And Wu hosted a recent conference bringing
together various Asian-American researchers from around the DOE complex. DOE
managers also say that they aim to give Asian-American employees a voice through
a new ethnic organization. But critics say the department has made many blunders
beyond the Lee case, such as last year's security video that included a woman
with East Asian features in a trench coat, fedora, and carrying a spy's tiny
camera.
Lab managers say that they are trying to create a dialogue by promoting
discussion of diversity and strengthening career-enhancement efforts. Both
Browne and Livermore's Tartar have met in recent weeks with groups of
Asian-American employees to discuss their concerns. With the 2001 budget out of
the way, Tartar says he intends to make it a top priority. Adds Steve Younger,
who leads Los Alamos's famed X division where Lee worked and which oversees the
design of nuclear weapons: "It's not our intention to exclude people."
But he agrees that the lab has "its own peculiar culture--and it's a
culture that needs to change."
Culture clash
Indeed, change is coming to all the national labs, as well as to academia and
industry, says Rockefeller's Ho. "How many Asian Americans do you see doing
science, and how many do you see as leaders?" he asks. "There's
clearly a huge gap."
Many Asian-American researchers acknowledge that smashing the glass ceiling
and redressing apparent pay inequities require change within their community as
well. Language difficulties can pose an obvious barrier to advancement, but many
Asian-American researchers say that cultural differences discussed less openly
also are holding them back. "People of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
backgrounds generally do not want to rock the boat," says William Chu, a
Korean-American biologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in
California. "It's a cultural thing." Kwei agrees. "In general,
Asian Americans have been brought up to work hard and not make waves--to let our
work speak for itself."
Don Tsui, a physicist at Princeton University in New Jersey and a 1998
Nobelist born in China, says this low-key and self-effacing approach no longer
is enough in the competitive world of U.S. research: "The general attitude
that you just do your work is completely out of date." U.S. researchers, he
adds, must realize that "if you don't toot your horn, no one will do it for
you."
Asian Americans also may have trouble adapting successfully to a system that
tends to reward aggressive and outspoken individuals. "That is treasured in
American culture," says Kunxin Luo, a rising biologist with a joint
appointment to Lawrence Berkeley and UC Berkeley who came from China a decade
ago. "In most Asian cultures, being modest is the number-one virtue."
She recalls her difficulty in negotiating her own salary: "My American
supervisor said I should be much tougher, but I just couldn't do it."
The result is a form of self-imposed discrimination in which Asian Americans
avoid the managerial track and stick to the lab bench. Simon Yu, a senior
high-energy physicist who has worked at Livermore and now is at Lawrence
Berkeley, insists he prefers research to shuttling back and forth to Washington
or chairing administrative meetings. Although he's vocal on technical issues, he
acknowledges that he becomes "shy when jostling for a position." He
recalls a meeting of U.S. and European physicists where everyone literally
fought for the best seat. "I told my wife that night, 'I don't belong
here.' "
Americans of East Asian heritage say that they must constantly navigate the
conflicting currents of their two cultures. "I've tried--consciously--to be
as Americanized as I can," says Luo, as she bustles around her office.
"Until Asian-American scientists can understand the differences and
purposefully try to melt into this culture a little bit better, there will be
problems." But others put an emphasis on what their native cultures can
bring to the lab--such as a more careful and collaborative approach. "Since
we come from a basically poor resource environment, we usually plan two or three
steps ahead," says Livermore's Joel Wong. And the East Asian tradition of
collaborative efforts, as opposed to the rugged individual model of the West, is
a good fit for an era of large and complex scientific endeavors, he adds. And,
Wong says, "I don't want to lose my cultural traits. Each immigrant brings
to this country a gift."
But the hard lesson from the Lee case, says Berkeley's Wang, is that Asian
Americans must learn to play by traditional American rules when necessary:
"It's fine to retain our traditional cultural values, but democracy only
works for those who participate." If you don't take part, he adds,
"you'll be run over." But there is an alternative--at least for those
who have not been in the United States for generations--Wang notes. An
increasing number are voting with their feet by moving to the booming
universities and high-tech companies of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South
Korea, which often offer tempting salaries, benefits, and working conditions.
"The best and brightest will move on, which will hurt American
science," worries Henry Tang, chair of a New York-based group of prominent
Asian Americans called the Committee of 100. Adds Wong: "So if this country
wants to avoid a reverse brain drain, it will have to accommodate us."