Featured Post
Migration is Beautiful | Favianna Rodriguez | I am OTHER
"Meet powerhouse artist/activist Favianna Rodriguez — a leading voice in the movement of artists raising awareness about U.S. ...
Thursday, April 24, 2014
The model minority myth
 |
| Most people in the U.S. believe that Asian American success in the academic field is indicative of idealized immigrant assimilation, but this image is not completely accurate and may be more harmful than beneficial |
It is
commonplace to assume that Asian Americans’ academic and monetary success in
the United States can be attributed to “natural” intellect and a culture that
inherently places emphasis on education. However, this attitude silences Asian American
and Pacific Islanders’ (AAPI) voices in discussions of racial injustice in
addition to numerous, serious repercussions.
What the model
minority myth is
In
short, it is the idea that AAPIs are a prime example of an immigrant group that
has reached a higher level of achievement than the rest of the population
average. This success is typically measured in high achievement in academics
and in the workplace, as well as other factors such as low crime rates.
AAPIs
have had a history of being seen as the “Yellow Peril”, a fear that manifested
itself as initiatives to restrict immigration from Asia and the Japanese
internment camps of World War II. That is, until it became convenient for them
to be portrayed otherwise.
During
the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, blacks mobilized across the nation
calling for action against segregations laws, voter disenfranchisement, and
mass racial violence at the time. In response, the white American press began
publishing rags-to-riches stories of AAPIs who achieved success in the U.S.
despite facing similar racial segregation and marginalization as blacks. White
America essentially broadcast the message that if AAPIs are doing so well,
black America’s concerns were unfounded and the system was fine as is.
 |
| By the 1980s, every major U.S. publication had run a feel-good story about the high achievements of AAPIs |
AAPIs were nonthreatening enough to
utilize as symbols of idealized minority assimilation to American society
because their population was much smaller and their history of political
activism was quieter and less visible. Thus, AAPIs have been a tool to justify
institutional racism ever since, and the model minority myth is taken as fact
to this day.
Flaws of the Model
Minority Myth
The
model minority myth seems to be fairly easy for the general public to
understand. After all, it’s hard to argue against a “positive” stereotype and
the statistics that tell us that AAPIs have “obtained
the highest educational attainment level and median household income of any
racial and ethnic demographic in the country”. This idea alone is
misrepresented, as are many other aspects that constitute the myth at large.
It homogenizes an incredibly diverse group
Asia is
the world’s largest continent, not simply made up of the Chinese, Japanese, and
Korean. AAPIs therefore have many differences in class, ethnic, geographic,
cultural, and religious backgrounds. Claiming otherwise one-dimensionalizes
AAPIs on traits based on stereotypes rather than as complex humans with complex
experiences.
It needlessly pits AAPIs against other minorities
The
model minority myth contributes to the historical tension between “the model
minority” of AAPIs and those who the myth seeks to put down: blacks and
Latinos. This is precisely what the manufacturers of the myth intended in a
classic “divide and conquer” tactic. If minorities are too busy feuding with
each other over harmful stereotypes and illusory privileges of “positive”
stereotypes, they will spend less time resisting the actual oppressors. Black
and Latino communities’ struggles with social inequity are attributed to “bad
culture” without the press exploring whether institutional racism is at play.
In contrast, when a well-educated, upper middle class East Asian community
seems to be flourishing, the media is quick to attribute it to how much the
current system is working. The latter story is easier to swallow at the expense
of creating a very problematic racial hierarchy, leading into the next point.
It makes racism seem less harmful to certain minorities over
others
It’s
very troublesome that success is being measured in wealth and academic success,
and it’s even more problematic that supposed social and economic equality means
there are no significant forms of discrimination left in American society.
Instances
of microaggressions are so prevalent in our society that they are considered
normal, which silence AAPI voices in discussions of racial issues.
It puts undue, unfair pressure on AAPIs
For
starters, reduction of AAPI into superhuman machines thriving in the American
education system and workplace is pure objectification at best. Its
implications beyond that are far worse.
Higher
expectations of AAPIs means Asian-American college students in particular are
more likely than white American students to have suicide thoughts and to
attempt suicide. Additionally, 15.9% of U.S.-born Asian-American women have a
higher lifetime rate of suicidal thoughts than the general 13.5% of the U.S.
population, according to the American
Psychological Association. This is not helped by the studies that show
AAPIs in general are less
likely to seek psychological and counseling services .
Hard facts about the
“model minority”
 |
| Infographic compiled by the Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus |
AAPIs face more economic inequality than the model
minority myth would suggest
First
and foremost, it should be noted that while AAPIs seem to boast impressive
statistics with having a higher median income than white Americans, AAPIs also
have a higher rate of poverty. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, while 12.4% of the general U.S. population is living below
poverty, 37.8% of Hmong (the highest in the country for any one ethnicity),
29.3% of Cambodian, 18.5% of Laotian, and 16.6% of Vietnamese people show stark
poverty rates that are not discussed enough. For reference, 27.6% of blacks and
25.3% of Latinos compared to 9.9% of whites live under the poverty line.
The fixation on the successful
numbers of AAPIs is a result of an inaccurate depiction of their economic
diversity. The reason for the earning disparities in the first place is due to
higher educational attainment by Chinese and Indian Americans in particular.
When white men and AAPI men with similar educational backgrounds and
qualifications are compared, however, it is shown that white men will
still earn up to 8% more. Something in the current system, therefore, still
discriminates against AAPIs.
The relationship between AAPIs and higher education is
bleaker than the model minority myth suggests
The
idea that AAPIs are overrepresented in universities is also, simply, a myth.
University officials have used this myth as justification to cap their “quotas”
of AAPI students during the admissions process. This means that AAPIs have to
actually work harder to score higher than their white counterparts and compete
amongst themselves for a limited number of spots. Prestigious institutions such
as Brown University, Harvard University, and UC Berkeley have been investigated
for their discrimination against AAPIs in admissions.
According to a detailed publication compiled
by College Board, “The AAPI student population is concentrated in a small
percentage of institutions, giving the false impression of high enrollment in
higher education overall.” AAPI college students tend to be distributed in only
a limited number of institutions, such as in 2000 when two-thirds of AAPIs
attended college in only eight states.
Facts
such as these tend to be glossed over in major policymaking decisions, such as
the Supreme
Court’s recent decision to uphold Michigan’s ban against affirmative
action. The model minority myth alone serves as a pillar of color-blind racism
and suggests that for society to move forward, minorities need only to pull
themselves up through hard work rather than protest and policymaking. In the
same way, proponents of the ban of “racial preferences” would rather take away
the social programs and protections that seek to amend historical segregation
and racial bias than openly discuss the inequities inherent in the current
higher education system. The fact remains that minorities in general are still
vastly underrepresented at universities, yet the ban outright ignores
this. Because the model minority myth
persists, bans on affirmative action and related protections persist, meaning
chilling consequences for the advancement and empowerment of already
marginalized minorities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
