No More Asian Stereotypes

In his article "Distracted by Diversity," Daniel H. Choi argues that students should not "blame Harvard for the under-representation of [Black and Hispanic] groups," by urging Harvard to recruit members of those groups more aggressively. The basis of Choi's argument is his confused association between blame and responsibility. Merely asserting that socio-economic factors have a profound effect on a student's "achievement" in high school is an easy argument--of course we shouldn't blame Harvard for this.

What Choi means by blame, however, are student efforts to convince the University to expand the applicant pool of these minorities. Urging the University to increase recruitment efforts toward lower-income minority students is in no way sentencing the University to pay for a disparity in the educational footing of minorities. To say this would be to say the only motivation for recruiting those students is "white guilt," or some charitable instinct to help the less fortunate, when, in fact, there are a multitude of other reasons why the University should pursue diversity amongst its applicants.

In effect, Choi ignores standards of merit other than SAT scores and grades, in addition to misinterpreting the motive behind Harvard's recruitment policy. Choi thus gratuitously accepts the narrow standards of merit of the dominant culture, such as SAT scores and high grades. In doing so, Choi allows himself, as an Asian-American, to be used as a "model minority." He has bought into the stereotype that Asians, unlike Blacks or Hispanics, are docile, hard-working, law-abiding and respectful of educational and family institutions. He has succumbed to this colonization of the mind to the extent that he actually criticizes the attempt of the dominant culture, the chairs of the reigning power structure, to open up the notion of "standards" by way of minority recruitment.

According to a theory developed by Chinese-American authors Frank Chin and Jeffrey Paul Chan in a 1972 essay entitled "Racist Love," Asian-Americans have accepted a position as "honorary whites" in this country, as a privileged minority whose members are viewed more favorably than Blacks or Hispanics because they are the objects of white racist love, while Blacks and Hispanics are the objects of white racist hate. To serve as an object of white racist love is to act as a foil to troublesome minorities, particularly Blacks, in order to diminish the validity of calls for greater social equality. Choi's article furthers this cause by promoting a "favorable" image of Asians, based on misleading standards like SAT scores.

The concept of Asian-Americans as more industrious and able to succeed "on their own" (i.e. without the benefits of affirmative action) was especially popular in the 1960s, when American racial minorities, particularly African-Americans, were demanding social equality. It was "an attempt to rationalize the relationship between Black and white Americans, at the expense of both the Blacks and Asians," says Elaine Kim, associate professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. Obviously, however, individuals such as Choi maintain this disempowering Asian stereotype even today. Choi's article illustrates the damaging effects of this kind of eurocentric ideology.

In his article, Choi sets up an opposition between whites and Asians on one side, and Blacks and Hispanics on the other. This creates tension based on misconceptions, stereotypes and outright fallacies. The fact that he is an Asian-American, propagating these images, lends them all the more "validity" in the eyes of the general public.

In addition to the basic tenet of eurocentrism inherent in his argument, Choi manipulates statistics to support his argument that Asians are a "model minority." For example, he explains that "many Black and Hispanic communities continue to suffer from low incomes, crime-ridden neighborhoods, broken homes," citing the Black, Hispanic and white poverty rates. He carefully omits the Asian poverty rate, thereby implying that Asians do not experience poverty at a significant rate.

A February 1992 report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, in stark contrast with Choi's skewed presentation, lists the Chinese poverty rate as 11.5 percent, the Korean poverty rate as 12.5 percent, with the Japanese poverty rate only at a low 4.2 percent. Severely under-represented Asians such as Laotians experience a 67.2 percent poverty rate. Furthermore, the median income of, for example, a Southeast Asian (Vietnamese) family lies 35 percent below the national average.

These numbers are all comparable with the 31.9 percent Black poverty rate, 28.1 percent Hispanic poverty rate and the 10.7 percent white poverty rate, which Choi cites. If Choi had, in fact, included the statistics on Asian poverty rates, he would have crippled his argument that "it is completely unreasonable to expect that Blacks and Hispanics be proportionally represented at America's highly selective academic institutions," due to their socio-economic backgrounds, while Asians are obviously present at elite colleges because of their "economic stability."

Furthermore, Mr. Choi makes the error of projecting his personal experience onto the entire Asian-American population. He argues that "heavy family involvement in education" is largely responsible for Asian-American academic success because they spend more time on their homework, on the average. He is again confusing issues, equating hours spent on homework with (Asian) family values and both as an indication of future "success." Again, his acceptance of a "traditional" interpretation of what it means to "deserve" entrance into an elite college. and what being a "good" student entails, underlies his confusion.

He reminds us that "Harvard is not the world," yet he fails to expand his perspective of Asian-Americans to include both the classmates he sees at Harvard and, for example, the many Asian youth trapped in Chinatowns and ghettoes, to whom inter-Asian gang warfare is oftentimes more a reality than SAT scores.

Choi fails even to accurately present the status of Asian-Americans at Harvard--namely, those who do not subscribe to nor wish to reinforce the stereotype of the "study hard-get good grades-go to professional school" student.

No, Dan, don't make me your "model minority." Amy C. Tang '94   Co-Chair, Asian American Association Political Committee