Deconstructing the Model Minority Myth
Truth About the Model Minority Myth

In its simplest form, the model minority myth hides the diversity within the AAPI community. It works to obscure social class divisions, racial and cultural differences, and economic circumstances of a community whose only commonality is the continent of Asia. In a more complex form, the model minority myth undermines Critical Race Theory (CRT)[8], suggesting that racism cannot exist if minorities like Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have achieved success.[9]

Some scholars criticize CRT, arguing that it does not explain how and in which ways different races matter, especially in the context of Asian Americans,[10] But, the underlying assertion of CRT is that racism is an everyday occurrence in American society. Hence, the propagation of the myth silences the “voice” of a spectrum of ethnicities under the AAPI umbrella, denying a racialized community of their everyday lived experiences.[11] As Blacks fought for equality and justice, the success of some Asians was capitalized to purposely dismiss the fight against institutional racism and the struggles of Blacks and other minorities in the U.S.[12] This notion creates a wedge between Asian Americans, Blacks, and Latinos, and dismisses the ongoing prejudice faced by AAPI themselves.

From an educational perspective, the invisibility of the socioeconomically and ethnically heterogeneous group, can have long-lasting and detrimental effects on APPI students. The spread of the model minority myth hides AAPIs fight for educational reform and the discrimination towards students today. The internalization of the myth can increase depression and stress-related to academic achievement, and ignore the needs of AAPI children.

The Fight for Educational Reform and Equal Access

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have long faced an uphill battle for equal rights in schools. Viewing the educational achievement of AAPI students through the model minority filter overlooks the struggles of a community that was not always granted equal access to education. It allows us to fixate our focus on the struggles of Blacks and Latinos, when in fact, all three groups face similar struggles and barriers.

While not all efforts were successful in fighting for reform[13], many others set precedence for monumental cases like Brown v. Board of Education. Nearly 70 years before Brown, the parents of Mamie Tape, a Chinese American student in California, filed a lawsuit against the Spring Valley Primary School principal and the San Francisco Board of Education, later known as Tape v. Hurley. The Superior Court, agreeing with the plaintiff’s position, ruled that property tax cannot be justified upon Chinese residents if they are prohibited from sending their children to schools in those neighborhoods. The case eventually made its way to the California Supreme Court, which supported the lower court’s ruling. Although Mamie ultimately never stepped foot into Spring Valley and was forced to attend an all-Chinese school, the case paved the way for desegregation later argued for in Brown.[14]

Though many second and third-generation AAPI students are fluent in English, many AAPI families who immigrated to the United States after the passage of the 1965 immigration bill were not primary English speakers. As such, lawsuits such as Lau v. Nicolas fought to provide equal access to English instruction for Chinese American students. With over 2,000 students in the San Francisco public school system, only 1,000 were provided with English support, with the rest taught in English. Students filed a lawsuit arguing violation of their 14th Amendment right and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, pushing schools to take the appropriate steps to develop bilingual and equal instructional access.[15]

These cases illustrate similar struggles for reform faced by other minorities in the United States. Cases like Mendez v. Westminster School District and Aspira v. Board of Education Of the City of New York brought by the Latinx community also fought against the separate but equal doctrine and the right to bilingual education.[16] However, the continuance and praise over the term model minority, ignores these hardships and discredits the efforts of families who fought to achieve equality.

Discrimination Faced by The AAPI Community

The perception that AAPI families have achieved relative success and therefore are on an elevated pedestal, directly contradicts decades of systemic discrimination through laws designed to limit their presence in the U.S. From the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act to the Immigration Act of 1917 and the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, Chinese and Filipino immigrants were either limited in the number of arrivals or completely banned from entering the country.[17]

Other laws such as the Alien Land Law of 1913, denying Japanese farmers the right to purchase land and the banning of AAPI students from public schools, highlight the on and off treatment of Asians as the foreigner. In this way, the myth erases the oppression faced in the education system and in American society. Even the mistreatment of Chinese male workers during the California Gold Rush and the internment of Japanese Americans on U.S. soil are now distant memories since the Asian community as a whole has worked their way to success.

Discrimination in Schools

Yet, even today, the children of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are subject to harassment and seen as outsiders. Pressure to excel in school and the inability to succeed in STEM subjects, AAPI children are faced with increased judgment. After the events of 9/11, many South Asian students, particularly Pakistani Americans, were subject to accusations of being terrorists. Others reported being kicked in the abdomen and having their hair pulled. A survey in 2019 by the Council on American-Islamic Relations in California reported that 55 percent of Muslim American students between the ages of 11 and 18 experienced some form of anti-Muslim harassment in California schools — more than double the national average.[18]

Moreover, an increase in racist language towards Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic has escalated hate crimes towards the group. These events bring hesitation to families who weigh sending their children back to school, fearful that they may also become subject to bullying and provocation. As a result, the decision to opt for remote learning instead can have grave academic implications on AAPI students. For students in immigrant and refugee communities who often come from multigenerational households and are English learners or have parents who speak limited English, the consequences can be far worse.

Lifting the Veil on Mental Health Issues

Asian Americans are at least three times less likely to ask or seek help for issues related to mental health. At the same time, they are more likely to attempt suicide.[19] Internalization of the model minority myth becomes a source of pressure and chronic stress-related to the demand to succeed, ultimately resulting in lower physical and mental health.

A study by S. J. Lee reported increased anxiety in Asian American high school students who internalized the myth. In contrast, another study by Thompson and Kiang found a positive relationship between internalization of the myth and higher aspirations, success, and expectations. The competing outcomes of the two studies can explain the way students perceive their ability and success. Those who prescribe to the belief of comparative success based on hard work, but do not possess the intellectual capacity or desire, may experience greater stress. On the other hand, internalization of the myth reinforces the concept of hard work for students who already excel academically.[20]

However, a study by Yoo et al. reported results that aligned with both outcomes. Low-achieving students were harmed because they could not live up to the model minority image, while for high-performing students, the term — irrespective of its harm — validated their diligence.[21] But, the results of these studies do not highlight the lived experiences of AAPI students. Even students who perform academically well experience text anxiety and struggle with classes like Geometry and English.[22]

The examples show the harm of the model minority myth and illustrate the difficulties of AAPI students who experience mental health issues, but are unlikely to speak up. Whether it is the fear of asking for help, parental pressure to excel, or the fear of being considered “not Asian enough”,[23] one or more of these factors can contribute to high rates of mental illness. Commonly seen from a model minority lens, these incidents are far too often overlooked and leave students to struggle on their own.

Breaking Down Diversity–Considering the Needs of AAPI Students

The academic needs of AAPI students are generally disregarded under the generalized model minority term. Social class, ethnic variation, and economic circumstances can affect the individual needs of AAPI students and their academic performance. The APPI community has immigrated to the United States through many different channels and events. These factors relate directly to the educational endeavors and strains of AAPI students in schools.

Class and Economic Factors

A standardized view of the group disregards the vast variation in poverty, financial circumstance, and class that AAPI students come from. For example, the 1965 immigration bill opened the door for Asian Americans to migrate via family reunification, refugee status, or employer sponsorship. 70.5 percent of Asian immigrants who immigrated post-1965 spoke a language other than English,[24] lived in tenements and impoverished neighborhoods, and worked blue-collar, low-income jobs.[25]

At the same time, some were brought to the U.S. as sharecroppers to replaces Blacks after the Civil War[26], or were well-educated, high-income families of privilege.[27] Additionally, there are significant economic differences within ethnic groups. The earliest waves of Vietnamese had higher income, more capital, and were more educated than ones that immigrated later on. Even amongst Cambodians, ethnic Chinese merchant families who experienced civil war and mass imprisonment are treated the same as the indigenous Khmer Cambodians in the U.S. However, the educational outcomes of children of the ethnic Chinese differ from the Khmer, whose educational and financial trajectories are similar to low-income African Americans.[28]

Even the Hmong community, who arrived in the United States throughout the 1970s as refugees, were resettled in mainly African American neighborhoods and still fear deportation, unlike the educated immigrants from Taiwan and India who advanced more quickly.[29] Today, even though Asians as a group experience lower levels of poverty than Americans overall, the poverty rate between U.S.-born Asians and foreign-born Asians was 9 percent and 11 percent, respectively, in 2019. Immigrant Asian minors under 18 have even higher poverty rates at 16 percent.[30] Digging deeper, Mongolians have the highest rate of poverty at 25 percent, while South Asians have the lowest.

<a href=”https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-americans/ft_2021-04-29_asiankeyfacts_08/"><img src=”https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ft_2021.04.29_asiankeyfacts_08.png?w=613"></a>

Though it may seem as if the AAPI community is doing very well compared to the overall U.S. population, when disaggregating the data, the myth begins to crack. Bhutanese Americans have the lowest household income of $44,000, while South Asian household income tends to lean upwards to $119,000, and Filipino Americans bring in about $90,000.[31] From an monetary perspective, there are wide pay disparities amongst AAPI women when compared to White males. For every dollar a White male makes, South Asian women make $1.21 an, Taiwanese women are paid $1.16, Samoan women are paid $0.62, and Burmese women make even less at $0.50.[32]

Hidden beneath these inequalities are cultural factors that are often not considered. The average household size for AAPIs is 3.3. and they tend to live in states that skew towards a higher cost of living on average, reducing their overall disposable income and living standards.[33]

The different circumstances that determine the backgrounds of AAPI students can affect the academic resources they have access to, the schools they attend, and the educational opportunities presented to them. The stereotypical image of the “successful Asian” makes it difficult for AAPI from underprivileged communities to seek assistance. Educators who disregard these differences and instead view AAPI students the same as one another run the danger of failing to offer individualized support.

Parent’s Education Background

The educational backgrounds of parents of AAPI students vastly diverge. Proponents point to over half the share of college-educated Asian Americans to discredit opposition to the model minority myth.[34] However, the spectrum ranges from highly educated CEOs to factory workers. According to the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of Asian adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 33 percent of the U.S. adult population. However, similar to the other misconceptions described in this brief, the model minority myth hides the deviations within the community. While South Asians do comparatively well — 75 percent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher — 15 percent of Bhutanese adults hold a college degree.[35] Additionally, 45 percent of Nepalese adults,[36] 17 percent of Laotian adults,[37] and 57 percent of Pakistani adults[38] have a bachelor’s degree or higher, highlighting the range of educational attainment amongst the AAPI community.

To that extent, parental attitudes towards education and the degree to which they are involved in their children’s education differ. Some students report a lack of assistance from their parents because of language barriers and a lack of exposure to the U.S. education system. Despite the common assumption of AAPI parents pushing their children towards STEM careers, some parents do not demand straight As or express indifference toward their children’s career aspirations.[39]

Furthermore, a parent’s education level disguises the amount of support students receive from their parents. Within the Chinese American community, middle-class moms have more time, resources, and educational knowledge to guide their children than working-class moms. This divide is also reflected in the Korean American community, where children from working-class families underperform in New York City schools compared to Korean American children from middle-income households.[40]

Ethnic Diversity

The ethnic diversity within the AAPI group is blurred, making it challenging to categorize students within the Black-Brown-White divide. Filipinos, for example, do not necessarily fit in the Pacific Islander category, nor do they identify with South, East, or Southeast Asians. Some argue that their lineage is more closely related to Hispanic/Latino ancestry due to their colonization by Spain. Hence, many Filipino students consider themselves “brown”.[41] Further, Chinese Americans and Samoan Americans are considered members of the same under the AAPI umbrella. Yet, the two groups come from distinct geographical locations, have different histories and migration patterns, and speak different languages.[42]

<a href=”https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-americans/ft_2021-04-29_asiankeyfacts_03/"><img src=”https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ft_2021.04.29_asiankeyfacts_03.png?w=640"></a>

Language Acquisition and Academic Needs

Given the pervasiveness of the model minority myth, it is easy to believe that AAPI students do not require help. However, low academic achievement is a continuing problem for AAPI students from different backgrounds, which is overlooked because they are seen as trouble-free and uniformly academically successful.

A study on the equity and achievement gap of AAPI students found that in reading, White children outperformed students from nine AAPI ethnic groups, including those from Cambodian, Lao, Vietnamese, and Native Hawaiian backgrounds. One in four AAPI students identify as English learners[43] and struggle with English proficiency. Moreover, there can be cultural differences in literacy material, such as unfamiliarity with yacht clubs for Lao Americans who may not be exposed to elite social organizations. This adds to the difficulty of learning new reading skills and unfamiliar vocabulary. In math, seven AAPI groups underperformed compared to White Americans, among them being Filipino, Guamanian, and Samoan. These findings dispel the myth that all AAPI students naturally excel in math without any trouble.[44]

Even after many years in the U.S. school system, AAPI students are still placed in ESL programs, and those who immigrate to the United States as teens have even a harder time mastering the English language.[45] A 2010 Education Trust-West report found wide disparities in English proficiency levels of AAPI eighth-graders in California schools. Less than half of Cambodian and Laotian students scored proficient in English. In math, 80 percent of Korean students were proficient, compared to only 35 percent of Laotian students and 23 percent of Samoan students. The report further found that only 3 in 10 AAPI students were prepared for college-level work by the end of high school.[46]

The need for bilingual and ESL support is often dwarfed by the erroneous view that all AAPI students are high achievers because of their overrepresentation in gifted and talented programs. Reading and writing difficulties are common among AAPI English learners, but many do not receive the support they require. Furthermore, most bilingual education support circulates around Spanish and does not consider the variety of languages that AAPI students speak. The indifference or ignorance of educators towards the needs and problems of AAPI students can exacerbate their difficulties in the classroom.
['Pooja Vora']
['Education', 'Aapi Heritage Month', 'Asian American', 'Model Minority']