As for who identifies as Asian that’s up to the individual, they self-identify when they check off a box when they join the NIH. My own daughter is mixed race, and I fully expect she will create her own identity and her own label as she gets older, and I support her no matter what she chooses as her self-identification.

And finally, on the topic of women in glass ceilings, just look at amazon.com and the number of books on the topic of women and glass ceilings (almost 50) versus the number of books on the topic of Asians and glass ceilings (seven), and you’ll see why I say the topic for women is more “popularized” than it is for Asians. It’s certainly not my opinion, many more researchers have found reason to comment and study the phenomenon around glass ceilings and women, than they have yet to around Asians and the glass ceiling.

As for who identifies as Asian that’s up to the individual, they self-identify when they check off a box when they join the NIH. My own daughter is mixed race, and I fully expect she will create her own identity and her own label as she gets older, and I support her no matter what she chooses as her self-identification.

And finally, on the topic of women in glass ceilings, just look at amazon.com and the number of books on the topic of women and glass ceilings (almost 50) versus the number of books on the topic of Asians and glass ceilings (seven), and you’ll see why I say the topic for women is more “popularized” than it is for Asians. It’s certainly not my opinion, many more researchers have found reason to comment and study the phenomenon around glass ceilings and women, than they have yet to around Asians and the glass ceiling.

You’ve observed and cited a proportional inequality between NIH “asian” tenured staff and–I presume–”non-asian” NIH tenured staff; should you argue for proportional equality for “asian” tenured staff, you argue for quotas. Should conditions require in future NIH to promote disproportionately great number of “asians” to tenure, would you then sue for greater proportions of “non-asians”? You haven’t yet defined “asian”, which deficiency I’d indicated with quotation marks. Do “asian-indians” number among “asians”, even though many Census do not? How about scientists with only one “asian” parent? How about scientists with only one “asian” grandparent? As for women, whether their “dilemma” be more “popularized” than “asians” causes is your opinion not a fact. “Non-asian” women number greater among law partners and managers than “asians”. Who promotes women in such great numbers, and who depresses or excludes “asians” from the same promotion? You cite your observations, but you clearly don’t yet comprhend the matter, and thus you clearly you’ve no cause.

You’ve observed and cited a proportional inequality between NIH “asian” tenured staff and–I presume–”non-asian” NIH tenured staff; should you argue for proportional equality for “asian” tenured staff, you argue for quotas. Should conditions require in future NIH to promote disproportionately great number of “asians” to tenure, would you then sue for greater proportions of “non-asians”? You haven’t yet defined “asian”, which deficiency I’d indicated with quotation marks. Do “asian-indians” number among “asians”, even though many Census do not? How about scientists with only one “asian” parent? How about scientists with only one “asian” grandparent? As for women, whether their “dilemma” be more “popularized” than “asians” causes is your opinion not a fact. “Non-asian” women number greater among law partners and managers than “asians”. Who promotes women in such great numbers, and who depresses or excludes “asians” from the same promotion? You cite your observations, but you clearly don’t yet comprhend the matter, and thus you clearly you’ve no cause.