The Model-Minority Myth: So Much Scarier Than You Think!

Reading Stacey Lee's article, "Behind the Model-Minority Stereotype," I couldn't help but think that, although she tries to illuminate differences between different ethnic groups, she doesn't fully refute the myth. The main difference that Lee points out between different groups of students is ethnic/cultural. She notes the separation in the school between Koreans and all "other" Asians, but this separation is only constructed since both groups have the same high-achieving goals. Lee emphasizes that within both groups students feel pressure to work hard because they feel responsibility to their parents' sacrifices: "Asian-identified students were motivated to work hard because they felt obligated to their families for the sacrifices that they had made. Asian-identified students spoke about their desire to get good jobs in order to help support their parents" (Lee 418). Surely, Lee makes clear that "the experience of the low achievers suggests that positive attitudes and hard work do not necessarily guarantee school success" (Lee 418), but this disclaimer does not remove the fact that she is seeing this through racial lenses. Many of the students interviewed had parents who were professionals and encouraged them to seek good careers. Even Ming, who was failing many of his classes, felt that he was shaming his father. But what about Asian students who come from working-class backgrounds? If a parent has never been to college and has never had access to information about college, they are less likely to talk to their kids about college, no matter how high their hopes and dreams. They would live in poorer neighborhoods and thus their kids would go to the worst schools. These students might perform at lower levels than other Asian-identified students, but it has nothing to do with race or familial piety, but rather with SES.

Although Lee does point out the danger of the model-minority myth (Ming was failing his classes but refused to speak about his academic problems), she does not entirely refute it. She doesn't link high performance to something natural in Asian students, but she does link it to "positive attitudes toward schooling" and education's ability to help them "achieve social and economic stability" (427). Where does this leave the children of working-class parents who have not had the same opportunities as other children? They are perceived as being responsible for their (more likely) failure. Blame is placed on the victim. Even more dangerous is Lee's and Ogbu's buying into the idea that "involuntary minorities" such as Latinos, Blacks, and Native-Americans choose "to underachieve in school because they view schooling as a threat to their oppositional cultures and identities" (Lee 414). Again, blame is placed on the victim and even on their entire culture, and I feel that it normalizes the presence of other minorites under Asian students on the academic achievement ladder. Thus, students have to reform, school systems do not.