According to literature on the model minority stereotype (MMS) in higher education, the MMS is a sociopolitical foil: it conveniently obscures important differences among minority groups—namely, pre-existing economic and educational disparities between non-Hispanic Whites and Asian, Latino, and African Americans. This column shares three reasons why the MMS is detrimental to people of color collectively and destructive to higher education generally: the myth perpetuates wedge politicking, promotes meritocratic logic in higher education, and ignores historical facts.
1. Perpetuates Wedge Politicking
Mainstream American society identifies Asian Americans as model minorities, especially when compared to African Americans and Latino Americans. The academic success and scholastic achievement of Asian Americans are touted in higher education since this perception seems to confirm the notion that such success can be accomplished without assistance; in other words, it reinforces the idea of self-reliance in a meritocratic system with a level playing field.
Meanwhile, African Americans and Latinos are frequently demonized as affirmative action recipients who depend largely upon handouts and aid. Frank Wu, author of Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White, has written about the impact the MMS has on affirmative action discussions in higher education. Wu laments not only the stripping away of affirmative action protection from Asian Americans who may need it, but also warns that the stereotype “generates anger and resentment, especially in an economic downturn, because the assumption is Asian Americans are doing well while others suffer.”
By its very nature, the MMS serves as a politically divisive tool. Rhetorically speaking, the model minority characterization is part of a wedge politicking strategy that higher education officials and politicians fall back upon during times of educational unrest: it is their failsafe. Policies and procedures can be declared objective and meritocratic if Asian Americans can achieve success. So goes the trope.
Devastatingly, the imagery of Asian American success stories produces specific minority positions within the racial structure in American society and higher education; Asian Americans are one level lower than Whites and one level higher than other minorities. Jean Kim has called this “racial triangulation.” Triangulation is one reason that some scholars have written that Asians in the United States have become “honorable” Whites. Since Asian Americans are not fully accepted, they are said to bump up against “glass ceilings” that prevent them from moving up the ranks in higher education.
Inevitably, then, the MMS is part and parcel of the intentional dividing of Asian Americans from other subordinated communities of color. In short, the MMS is a divide-and-conquer tactic deployed by the educational and social mainstream thereby reducing the chance that Asian Americans will form coalitions and voting blocs capable of reforming existing unequal societal power structures, especially within higher education. Higher education has bought into the ploy since the success of this population promotes meritocratic logic within academe. Wu counters that the MMS “isn’t true of many millions of Asians in America.”
