Clearly, I wasn’t the only reader irritated by Seattle Times editorial columnist Sharon Pian Chan’s fact-free commentary on SeaTac’s $15 an hour minimum wage initiative. I posted my thorough smackdown yesterday. And today the Seattle Times posts a critical letter to the editor from Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment (APACE) president Benjamin Sung Henry:

I am an advocate for Pacific Islander communities and a son of an immigrant small-business owner. I disagree with Sharon Pian Chan’s commentary on SeaTac’s Proposition 1 [How a $15 minimum wage would devastate immigrant businesses,” Online, Oct. 30].

While appearing to champion the cause of immigrant small-business owners, Chan conflates the issues and ignores the fact that SeaTac’s initiative exempts some of them from the $15-an-hour wage rate. Further, grandiose claims that “a higher minimum wage would sound a death knell” lack empirical evidence. What we do know is that small businesses in other airport cities (L.A., San Francisco, Oakland) that have raised the minimum wage have remained strong and vibrant.

Minimum-wage workers do indeed “dream of something bigger” — but how can they possibly achieve those dreams when their realities are a never-ending struggle for basic survival? Proposition 1 gives workers a fair shot at prosperity.

Here are the facts: Raising the minimum wage in SeaTac will benefit an airport workforce that is disproportionately immigrant. It would create opportunities for workers so their children have better access to education, their families can get on the road to financial stability, they can have better health outcomes and they can afford the training and education needed for career advancement.

That is the American dream.

Benjamin Sung Henry, Beacon Hill

The paper’s editorial page editors—Pian Chan and Kate Riley—made several minor and justifiable edits for the sake of readability. But one edit jumps out: In the original text of the letter (appended after the the jump) Henry describes himself as an advocate for “Asian Pacific Islander” communities, which the editors curiously truncate to just “Pacific Islander.” Further, Henry was writing in his role as “President, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment”, a signature the editors changed to “Benjamin Sung Henry, Beacon Hill,” omitting all reference to the fact that Henry was writing as an advocate for the interests of, you know, Asians. (Henry himself is the son of a Korean American immigrant mother.)

Which is weird. Because Pian Chan’s commentary was largely framed as a defense of Asian immigrants, backed up by her personal experience as the daughter of Asian immigrants: “My parents immigrated to the U.S. from Hong Kong in 1975,” Pian Chan wrote in an effort to establish street cred on the subject. So Henry’s claim to represent the Asian community as well would seem entirely relevant to his critique.

To be clear: “Asian Pacific Islander community” is the politically correct term around these parts. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve slipped up, referring to the “Asian” community only to be politely reminded by an Asian politician or community leader that it is “Asian Pacific Islander.” And a quick glance finds plenty of Asian Americans on the APACE board. So to edit Henry’s letter as to leave the false impression that he only advocates on behalf of “Pacific Islanders,” well, that’s not just misleading, it’s insulting.

Likewise, the editor’s refusal to acknowledge Henry’s title and organization in his signature seems totally arbitrary. Yes, the usual format in their letters to the editor is to list the author’s name and neighborhood, but that’s not a hard and fast rule. So why don’t Henry and APACE deserve the same consideration the page showed, say, “Isiaah Crawford, Ph.D., Provost, Seattle University,” in his October 20 letter appropriately credited as such?

Again, weird. It’s almost as if the Seattle Times editorial page believes itself to be the arbiter of who can legitimately speak on behalf of Asian Americans.

[Original unedited text of Henry’s letter to the editor:]

An advocate for Asian Pacific Islander communities and son of an immigrant small business owner myself, I disagree with Sharon Pian Chan’s commentary on SeaTac’s Proposition 1.

While appearing to champion the cause of immigrant small business owners, Chan conflates the issues and ignores the fact that SeaTac’s initiative exempts them from the $15-an-hour wage rate. Further, grandiose claims that “a higher minimum wage would sound a death knell” lack empirical evidence. What we do know is that small businesses in other airport cities (L.A., San Francisco, Oakland) that have raised the minimum wage have remained strong and vibrant.

Minimum-wage workers do indeed “dream of something bigger” — but how can they possibly achieve those dreams when their realities are a never-ending struggle for basic survival? Prop 1 gives workers a fair shot at prosperity.

Here are the facts: Raising the minimum wage in SeaTac will benefit an airport workforce that is disproportionately immigrant. It would create opportunities for workers so their children have better access to education, their families can get on the road to financial stability, they can have better health outcomes, and they can afford the training and education needed for career advancement.

That is the American Dream.

Benjamin Sung Henry
President, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment (APACE)

[FYI, I emailed Riley and Pian Chan for an explanation, and have yet to hear back.]