Ethnic Studies 106

CHAPTER TWELVE

Asian Americans as the Model Minority: An Analysis of the Popular Press Image in the 1960s and 1980s*

Keith Osajima

The year 1986 marked an anniversary of sorts: twenty years earlier, the first

articles proclaiming Asian Americans as the ‘‘model’’ minority appeared in the

popular press. Since then, the model minority thesis has been the target of

considerable criticism. Members of the Asian American community have argued

that the image is racially stereotypic, empirically inaccurate, and no longer

applicable to the changing Asian American population. Yet, in spite of these

critiques, the image remains dominant in the 1980s, appearing in numerous

popular press articles in recent years.

The analytic focus of this chapter is the persistence of the model minority

image into the 1980s. It will examine how the image of Asian Americans as the

successful minority has been able to withstand criticism and changing condi-

tions, yet remain an important conceptual force in the popular press. It will

compare the discursive construction of the model minority image as portrayed in

the popular press during two historical periods – the 1960s and 1980s – and

discuss how that discourse has been shaped by surrounding social and political

conditions. The comparative analysis will reveal how changes in the discourse on

Asian American success have enabled it to maintain relevance and explanatory

power in the contemporary literature.

*Keith Osajima ‘‘Asian Americans as the Model Minority: An Analysis of the Popular Press Image

in the 1960s and 1980s.’’ In Gary Okihiro et al. (eds.), Reflections on Shattered Windows: Promises

and Prospects for Asian American Studies (Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1988),

165–74. Reprinted by permission of Gary Y. Okihiro.

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 215

A Companion to Asian American Studies Edited by Kent A. Ono

Copyright © 2005 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Elements of an Image – 1960s

At the beginning of January 1966, William Petersen went to great lengths in a

New York Times Magazine article to praise the efforts of Japanese Americans in their successful struggle to enter the mainstream of American life.

1 In December

of that same year, the U.S. News and World Report also published a story lauding Chinese Americans for their remarkable achievements and praised Chinatowns

as bastions of peace and prosperity. 2 As with the Japanese Americans, the article

praised the Chinese for their ability to overcome years of racial discrimination.

The newfound ‘‘success’’ image for both groups rested upon a foundation of

two basic elements. The first was the empirical evidence for success. Embedded

in each story were a number of ‘‘facts’’ that substantiated Asian American

success. Statistics on the educational achievements of Japanese and Chinese

headed the list. Other evidence of success included movement into high status

occupations, rising incomes, and low rates of mental illness and crime.

Second, the articles offered an explicit theoretical explanation for why Asian

Americans had succeeded. At the heart of this explanation was a direct link

between traditional Asian cultural values and subsequent achievement in educa-

tion and occupations. Petersen argued that Japanese Americans’ adherence to

values such as a deep respect for parents and authority, a reverence for learning,

and a proclivity for hard work created a psychological achievement orientation

that drove Japanese to do well in school. Similarly, the U.S. News and World Report article identified cultural emphases on hard work, thrift, and morality as factors that helped Chinese Americans to overcome obstacles and move up the

socioeconomic ladder.

Asian American Success – Ideological and Political Implications

The 1966 articles marked a significant turning point in the public’s perception of

Asian Americans. After enduring a century of blatant racial discrimination and

negative stereotypes, the Japanese and Chinese suddenly found themselves cast

into a favorable light. In place of the unassimilable, inscrutable Fu Manchu and

the vicious kamikaze pilot emerged the image of the high achieving, successful minority.

This image of Asian American success did not appear in a vacuum. The

definition of a new racial identity emerged at a moment of tremendous racial

upheaval in America. The Civil Rights Movement, increased state intervention

in race relations, urban riots, and black militancy collided in the mid-1960s,

touching off intense debates on the direction of racial politics. 3

In this context, the Asian American success story took on new meanings. The

accomplishments of less than one-million Asian Americans emerged as a model

Keith Osajima

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 216

216

for how all minority groups could ‘‘make it’’ in society. The articulation of

successful Asians in the popular press carried ramifications that extended well

beyond the Chinatowns and Japantowns of America.

On the political level, Asian American success constituted a direct critique of

Blacks who sought relief through federally supported social programs. Asian

Americans, we were told, were able to make it on their own. Welfare programs

were unneccessary. ‘‘At a time when it is being proposed that hundreds of

billions be spent to uplift Negroes and other minorities, the nation’s 300,000

Chinese-Americans are moving ahead on their own, with no help from anyone

else,’’ declared the U.S. News and World Report, 4 and wrote Petersen: ‘‘By any

criterion we choose, the Japanese Americans are better than any other group in

our society, including native-born whites. They have established this remarkable

record, moreover, by their own almost totally unaided effort.’’ 5

Asian American success also sent a distinct political message to the nascent

Black Power Movement. The achievements of Asians diffused the black mili-

tants’ claim that America was fundamentally a racist society, structured to keep

minorities in a subordinate position. The Asian American experience identified

cultural values and hard work as the keys to success. The political implication

for those who had yet to make it was that their culture was not ‘‘good’’ enough.

This delineation of good and bad culture deflected attention away from societal

factors and placed the blame for racial inequality on minorities. 6

Beyond these political implications, the model minority thesis presented a

picture of American society that resonated with dominant ideological precepts. 7

Asian achievement confirmed that the United States was indeed the land of

opportunity. It defined success in narrow, materialistic terms. The movement

of Asians into the mainstream of American life affirmed the ideal that America was

an open society, willing to accept and incorporate those minorities and immigrants

who were willing to assimilate. Perhaps most importantly, the thesis upheld a

fundamental meritocratic belief that America was a fair society. 8 Asian Americans

had made it because America judged and rewarded people, not by the color of their

skin, but on the basis of their qualifications, skills, attitudes, and behavior.

The model minority thesis, then, was far from a neutral construct. It was an

image that carried political and ideological implications specific to the historical

conditions of race relations in the mid-1960s. I now turn to the 1980s, where the

nexus of political, racial, demographic, and economic conditions demarcates a

historical context in sharp contrast to the 1960s. The following sections will look

at how the changing context of the 1980s has altered the discourse on the Asian

American experience.

Incorporating Change and Dissent – 1980s

Between 1982 and 1986, ten articles on Asian American success appeared in major

popular press publications. 9

Two changes in the focus and content of the

Asian Americans as the Model Minority

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 217

217

discussion on Asian American success in the present period are immediately

apparent. First, the articles all recognized the changing nature of the Asian

American population. The focus of these articles was on Korean, Vietnamese, and

other foreign-born Asians, rather than on Japanese and Chinese Americans. This

modification is directly attributable to the tremendous demographic changes that

have occurred over the past twenty years. Since the 1965 Immigration Act, Asians

have become the fastest growing minority in the country. From 1970 to 1980, the

Asian population grew from 1.4 to 3.5 million people. During this period,

the Korean population increased 400 percent from 69,000 to over 350,000,

while the Filipino population more than doubled from 340,000 to 780,000, and

the Chinese population grew from 435,000 to 812,000. 10

In addition to these

immigrants, the Asian American population has grown due to the influx of

nearly a million Vietnamese and Southeast Asian refugees after the fall of Saigon

in 1975.

Second, the articles displayed a greater recognition of the complexities and

critiques associated with the model minority thesis. Three out of the ten articles

presented substantial discussions on the negative impact that parental pressures

have had on Asian American students. 11

Four articles acknowledged the stereo-

typic nature of the success image, and noted the resentment that some Asians feel

toward being considered the model minority. 12

In a related theme, six articles

pointed out that Asians were entering arenas not previously associated with the

quiet Asian image, such as politics, business management, art, fashion, and

music. 13

Six articles mentioned that one of the indicators of success, median

family income, was somewhat misleading because Asians tend to have more

workers per family. 14

That complex portrait of the Asian American experience reflects the recogni-

tion in the popular press that the Asian community has grown more diverse in

the past fifteen years. In addition to the immigration that has brought highly

skilled people into new occupational settings, the social movements of the late

1960s and 1970s, that included the Asian American Movement, heightened the

political, social, and cultural consciousness of many Asian Americans. In this

context, many Asians were encouraged to explore a broader range of political

and cultural arenas.

The inclusion of potentially negative consequences in these articles

also acknowledges a more comprehensive understanding of the model minority

thesis that has been developed through scholarly research. The sensitivity

to stereotyping and the pressures associated with success, for example,

stems from the research on culture and identity that emerged in the early

1970s. 15

The critique of certain statistical indicators of success flows

directly from the critical research on the Asian labor market experience. 16

These studies showed that median family income was not a good measure

for success because it masked the fact that the per worker income rates

for Asian Americans fell significantly below that of comparably educated

whites.

Keith Osajima

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 218

218

Consistency Amidst Change

The incorporation of new information and dissent is one way the discourse

on Asian Americans has changed in the 1980s. The increased comprehen-

siveness of contemporary articles may lead one to conclude that the

popular press is taking a more critical, fair, and balanced view of Asian

Americans, and that the articles are less political than similar stories in the

1960s. Further examination, however, reveals a certain consistency amidst

change. The core elements of the original model minority thesis – the

empirical evidence for success and a culturally based explanation for achieve-

ment – continue to be an integral part of the current discussion on Asian

Americans.

The educational achievement of Asian Americans, for example, remained

a critical indicator of success. In nine of the ten recent articles, the outstanding

performance of Asian students in the Westinghouse Science Talent competition

was cited as a measure of achievement. In seven of those articles, the high

percentage of Asian students in universities was offered as proof of educational

success. In seven stories, Asian student success was substantiated by their above

average SAT scores in math.

In explaining this success in school, the articles offered a theory that is

consistent with the 1960s model minority thesis. At the heart of the explan-

ations are familiar, culturally based attributes. In all ten articles, the Asian

American family was mentioned as a key to educational success. Anecdotal

stories of refugee parents working sixteen hours a day to pay for their

children’s education; of mothers insisting that their children study long

hours; and of parents impressing upon their children the importance of

education were offered to illustrate the influence of the family. Hard work

and a reverence for learning also returned in the 1980s as vital to success.

References to hard work appeared in five of the ten articles; 17

and the

reverence for learning appeared in four stories. 18

In four articles, the reasons

for Asian success were encompassed under the broader influence of Confucian

ethics, where education was sacred and scholarly achievements were a way to

express filial piety. 19

The continued reliance on culturally based explanations for success mirror

the same dominant ideological assumptions that articles from the 1960s rested

upon. Asian American success once again reaffirms that America is a land of

opportunity, where people are rewarded for their hard work and diligence.

The rapid movement of Asian immigrants into the educational and economic

mainstream proves that America is still open, fair, and able to incor-

porate industrious people. The stress on educational achievement and subse-

quent occupational mobility remains the main, albeit narrow, criteria for

success.

Asian Americans as the Model Minority

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 219

219

Political Implications of the 1980s Image

In addition to maintaining the core elements of the original model minority thesis

and conveying dominant ideological messages, contemporary articles continue to

address political concerns. What must be noted, however, are changes in the form

and content of those political messages that reflect changes in the surrounding

racial and political climate. Borrowing from authors Michael Omi and Howard

Winant, these discursive changes represent a ‘‘rearticulation’’ of Asian American

success images in the 1980s, in which core elements of the discourse are infused

‘‘with a new political meaning and link(ed) with other key elements of conservative

political ideology.’’ 20

This rearticulation is achieved in three ways.

First, the overt racial comparisons between the success of Asians and the

failures of other minorities are tempered and replaced in the current literature

by a non-racial discourse that focuses primarily on differences between Asian

American families and ‘‘American’’ families. In several articles, the authors

suggest that Asian American families are ‘‘better,’’ which accounts for their

remarkable success. In ‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here,’’ the author quotes a

professor who says that ‘‘Asian families pay more attention to their children,’’ 21

and the U.S. News and World Report article cites the following observation: ‘‘If an American child isn’t doing well in school, his parents think the teacher or

school has failed or the student just doesn’t have it. The Asian parents’ view is

that the student isn’t trying hard enough.’’ 22

In ‘‘Why Asians are Going to the

Head of the Class,’’ the writer states that ‘‘Asian or Asian American parents are

able to instill in their children a much greater motivation to work harder,’’ and

quotes conservative scholar Thomas Sowell’s observation: ‘‘Asian parents are

teaching a lesson that otherwise isn’t being taught in America anymore. When

you see a study that says Asian kids study harder than white and black kids and

are getting better grades, it tells you something.’’ 23

While many of these comparisons are made in non-racial terms, they carry

significant racial meaning in the conservative political action and discourse of the

1980s. Praise for the Asian American family is a consistent part of a broader

conservative perspective that blames many of today’s social problems on the

deterioration of the family. President Reagan’s attacks on abortion and school

busing, and his support for school prayer and tuition tax credits have been made

in the name of restoring strength to the family and community. That many of

these policies constitute direct attacks on programs originally designed to benefit

racial minorities speaks to the subtle manner in which the elevation of family is

actually a code word to disguise underlying racial concern. 24

Second, the discussion on Asian American achievement is shaped by conser-

vative educational reform proposals that have emerged from the recent national-

level debates on public schools. In the fervent debates following reports such as

A Nation at Risk, many suggest that American education could be improved by lengthening the school year and increasing the amount of homework in school.

25

Keith Osajima

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 220

220

References to these conservative reforms infuse the dialogue on Asian Ameri-

cans. Three articles argue that the longer school year in Asian countries, roughly

225 days compared to 180 in the United States, plays an important role in the

educational success of Asian immigrants. 26

One of the articles attributes success

to the work ethic of Asians and their willingness to do homework. It cites a study

that found that American first grade students spent an average of fourteen

minutes a night on homework and hated it, while Japanese first graders spent

thirty-seven minutes and Chinese spent seventy-seven minutes on homework

and loved it. 27

Finally, the discourse on Asian American success, particularly in higher

education, is linked to growing anti-Asian sentiments. ‘‘A Drive to Excel,’’ for

example, explicitly mentions that the growing number of Asian students in

universities are resented by white students, who feel threatened. It reports

stories of white students dropping courses if there were ‘‘too many Oriental

faces.’’ It also tells of jokes that MIT stood for ‘‘Made in Taiwan,’’ and UCLA

was ‘‘University of Caucasians Living Among Asians.’’ 28

The controversy over

admissions ceilings for Asian students is another arena where Asian American

success appears to be the basis for discriminatory action.

The notion that Asian American success constitutes a potential threat is also

expressed in subtle forms. A New York Times Magazine story exemplifies this in describing Asian Americans as ‘‘surging into the nation’s best colleges like a tidal wave’’

29 (emphasis added), and another author, in referring to the increase of Asians

at Harvard, writes: ‘‘The figure is now 10% – five times their share of the popula-

tion.’’ 30

In both instances, Asian success is discussed in almost alarming tones,

reminiscent of the ‘‘hordes’’ of Asians that threatened California in the late 1800s.

The irony that Asian American success has become a basis for discriminatory

backlash is understandable in the context of growing anti-Asian sentiment in the

1980s. The decline of the American economy in the 1970s and the concomitant

competition from Japan has given rise to increased tensions between Asians and

Whites in the 1980s. These tensions have manifested themselves in numerous

instances of violence against Asian Americans as exemplified by the 1982 murder

of Vincent Chin. [Chin was a 27-year-old Chinese American who was killed in

Detroit by two white men who thought he was Japanese. Much attention has

focused on the brutal beating of Chin by these two men, who used a baseball bat

to beat him and made racially charged remarks to Chin on the evening of the

beating. The men were all but acquitted of the crimes; widespread Asian

American protests erupted around the event.] Discrimination and resentment

in universities is another manifestation of those growing hostilities.

Tilting the Scale

Contemporary articles on Asian American success are remarkably pliable con-

structs. They have expanded to incorporate new information and critiques of the

Asian Americans as the Model Minority

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 221

221

model minority thesis. At the same time, they maintain the core elements of the

original model minority thesis, that continues to address political and ideological

concerns. The question remains: what is the overriding message expressed in

these articles? Does the incorporation of new information and critiques balance

the image of Asian American success and create a fair picture of the Asian

experience in the 1980s, or do the articles largely perpetuate a stereotypic view of

Asians as the model minority?

I would argue that the portrayal of Asian Americans continues to be largely

stereotypic. The dominant message conveyed is that Asian Americans are

successful and have overcome discrimination with determination and hard

work. This message is evident in the titles alone that grab the reader’s attention

and impart an initial image of Asian Americans as successful.

Beyond the titles, the image of Asian American success, and the explanatory

emphasis on culture, family, and hard work, is constructed through a number of

discursive mechanisms. First, the texts of articles invariably contain key sen-

tences or passages that assign analytic priority to information that supports the model minority thesis. For example, the review of studies on the educational

achievement of Asian Americans in the New York Times Magazine concludes with the sentence: ‘‘It is here [the family] that almost all the studies converge.’’

31

This simple sentence plays the critical role of identifying and prioritizing the

family as the key to success, even though studies might suggest a range of

explanations. Similarly, the essayist in the New Republic observes: ‘‘Social scientists wonder just how this success was possible. . . . There is no single

answer, but all the various explanations of the Asian-Americans’ success do

tend to fall into one category: self-sufficiency.’’ 32

These two passages provide an

interpretive framework for the reader.

Second, the model minority thesis is upheld by passages that minimize the impact of contradictory information. This is most evident in the discussion

on median Asian American family income. As mentioned earlier, six articles

cite high median family incomes of Asian Americans as an indicator of

success. 33

Five of the articles acknowledge that this measure is problematic

because Asian American families tend to have more income earners than the

norm, or because there are large numbers of Asian Americans in poverty.

The inclusion of this information, however, does not alter the dominant

message that Asian Americans are economically successful. In four of the

five articles, the authors minimize or discount the importance of the cri-

tiques. 34

One article discusses the critiques, then says, ‘‘Yet success stories

abound. Even among recent Indo-Chinese refugees, large numbers have

climbed out of poverty and found jobs.’’ 35

Another article prefaces the

critique of family income with the following line: ‘‘By at least one indicator,

it seems hard to believe that Asian-Americans suffer greatly from discrimin-

ation.’’ 36

These minimizing passages are important for they enable authors to

include potentially contradictory information yet still maintain the overall

model minority thrust.

Keith Osajima

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 222

222

Finally, the articles promote the model minority thesis through the selective

use of scholarly research. Research studies that support the notion that families

are the key to Asian American success appear as authoritative evidence. For

example, three articles cite Harold Stevenson’s study of education in the United

States, Japan, and Taiwan to substantiate their claim that Asian families instill a

proclivity for hard work. 37

On the other hand, research that is critical of the

model minority thesis never appears in the articles. This is particularly true in

the discussion on median family income. There are no references to the exten-

sive body of research that shows that Asians earn less than their educational

levels would normally warrant.

Conclusion

I conclude this discussion with a simple but important image. Todd Gitlin, in

describing how hegemonic ideologies operate, writes, they ‘‘stand still, in a

sense, by moving.’’ 38

This analysis of the treatment of Asian Americans by the

popular press illustrates how this process works. There was significant move-

ment in the discourse on Asian Americans in the 1980s. The articles have been

updated through the incorporation of new information. They have withstood

critiques, not by denying them, but by acknowledging them and then minimiz-

ing their power through a variety of discursive techniques. They have main-

tained relevance in the 1980s by changing to address contemporary political

issues.

Notes

1 William Petersen, ‘‘Success Story, Japanese–American Style,’’ New York Times Magazine,

January 9, 1966, 20–1, 33, 36, 38, 40–1, 43.

2 ‘‘Success Story of One Minority in the U.S.,’’ U.S. News and World Report, December 26,

1966, 73–8.

3 Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in

America (New York: Vintage Books, 1967); and Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward,

Poor People’s Movements (New York: Vintage Books, 1977).

4 ‘‘Success Story,’’ 73.

5 Petersen, ‘‘Success Story,’’ 21.

6 William Ryan, Blaming the Victim, rev. edn (New York: Vintage Books, 1976).

7 Ira Katznelson and M. Kesselman, The Politics of Power, 2nd edn (New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich, 1979).

8 Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the

Contradictions of Economic Life (New York: Basic Books, 1976).

9 The ten articles reviewed in this section, chronologically ordered, are: ‘‘Asian Americans:

A ‘Model Minority’,’’ Newsweek, December 6, 1982, 39, 41–2, 51; ‘‘Confucian Work Ethic,’’

Time, March 28, 1983, 52; ‘‘A Drive to Excel,’’ Newsweek-On Campus, April 1984, 4–8, 12–13;

‘‘A Formula for Success,’’ Newsweek, April 23, 1984, 77–8; Suzana McBee, ‘‘Asian Americans,

Are They Making the Grade?,’’ U.S. News and World Report, April 1984, 41–3, 46–7;

Asian Americans as the Model Minority

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 223

223

‘‘To America with Skills,’’ Time, July 8, 1985, 42–4; David Bell, ‘‘The Triumph of Asian

Americans,’’ New Republic, July 1985, 24–31; Fox Butterfield, ‘‘Why Asians are Going to the

Head of the Class,’’ New York Times Magazine, August 3, 1986, 19–24; Robert Oxnam,

‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here,’’ New York Times Magazine, November 30, 1986, 74–5, 89–90,

92; and Anthony Ramirez, ‘‘America’s Super Minority,’’ Fortune Magazine, November 24,

1986, 148–9, 152, 156, 160.

10 Robert Gardner, Bryant Robey, and Peter C. Smith, ‘‘Asian Americans: Growth, Change,

and Diversity,’’ Population Bulletin 40 (1985): 2–44.

11 See ‘‘Confucian Work Ethic’’; ‘‘A Drive to Excel’’; and ‘‘A Formula for Success.’’

12 See ‘‘A Drive to Excel’’; ‘‘A Formula for Success’’; McBee, ‘‘Are They Making the Grade?’’;

and Oxnam, ‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here.’’

13 See ‘‘Asian Americans, a ‘Model Minority’ ’’; ‘‘A Drive to Excel’’; ‘‘A Formula for Success’’;

McBee, ‘‘Are They Making the Grade?’’; Bell, ‘‘The Triumph of Asian Americans’’; and

Oxnam, ‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here.’’

14 See ‘‘Asian Americans, A ‘Model Minority’ ’’; ‘‘A Formula for Success’’; McBee, ‘‘Are They

Making the Grade?’’; ‘‘To America with Skills’’; Bell, ‘‘The Triumph of Asian Americans’’;

and Oxnam, ‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here.’’

15 Ben Tong, ‘‘The Ghetto of the Mind,’’ Amerasia Journal 1 (1971): 1–31; and Colin Wata-

nabe, ‘‘Self-expression and the Asian American Experience,’’ Personnel and Guidance Journal

51 (1973): 390–6.

16 Amado Cabezas, ‘‘The Asian American Today as an Economic Success Model’’ (Paper

presented at Break the Silence: A Conference on Anti-Asian Violence, Berkeley,

1986); Kwang Chung Kim and W.M. Hurh, ‘‘Korean Americans and the ‘Success’

Image – A Critique,’’ Amerasia Journal 10 (1983): 3–21; and Morrison Wong, ‘‘The

Cost of Being Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino,’’ Pacific Sociological Review 25 (1982):

59–78.

17 See ‘‘Asian Americans, A ‘Model Minority’ ’’; ‘‘A Drive to Excel’’; McBee, ‘‘Are They

Making the Grade’’; Butterfield, ‘‘Going to the Head of the Class’’; and Oxnam, ‘‘Why

Asians Succeed Here.’’

18 See ‘‘Asian Americans, A ‘Model Minority’ ’’; ‘‘A Drive to Excel’’; ‘‘A Formula for Success’’;

and Oxnam, ‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here.’’

19 See ‘‘Confucian Work Ethic’’; McBee, ‘‘Are They Making the Grade’’; Butterfield, ‘‘Going

to the Head of the Class’’; and Oxnam, ‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here.’’

20 Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to

the 1980s (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), 114.

21 Oxnam, ‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here,’’ 89.

22 McBee, ‘‘Are They Making the Grade?,’’ 42.

23 Butterfield, ‘‘Going to the Head of the Class,’’ 20, 21.

24 Omi and Winant, Racial Formation, 84.

25 National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, 1983).

26 See ‘‘Confucian Work Ethic’’; ‘‘A Formula for Success’’; and Butterfield, ‘‘Going to the

Head of the Class,’’ 21.

27 Butterfield, ‘‘Going to the Head of the Class,’’ 21.

28 ‘‘A Drive to Excel,’’ 8.

29 Butterfield, ‘‘Going to the Head of the Class,’’ 21.

30 Bell, ‘‘The Triumph of Asian Americans,’’ 26.

31 Butterfield, ‘‘Going to the Head of the Class,’’ 24.

32 Bell, ‘‘The Triumph of Asian Americans,’’ 26.

33 See ‘‘Asian Americans, A ‘Model Minority’ ’’; ‘‘A Drive to Excel’’; ‘‘A Formula for Success’’;

McBee, ‘‘Are They Making the Grade?’’; ‘‘To America with Skills’’; and Oxnam, ‘‘Why

Asians Succeed Here.’’

Keith Osajima

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 224

224

34 See ‘‘A Formula for Success’’; McBee, ‘‘Are They Making the Grade?’’; ‘‘To America with

Skills’’; and Oxnam, ‘‘Why Asians Succeed Here.’’

35 McBee, ‘‘Are They Making the Grade?,’’ 42.

36 Bell, ‘‘The Triumph of Asian Americans,’’ 28.

37 See ‘‘A Drive to Excel’’; McBee, ‘‘Are They Making the Grade?’’; and Butterfield, ‘‘Going to

the Head of the Class.’’

38 Todd Gitlin, ‘‘Television’s Screens: Hegemony in Transition,’’ in Cultural and Economic

Reproduction in Education, Michael Apple, ed. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), 210.

Asian Americans as the Model Minority

Ono/Companion to Asian American Studies Final Proof 23.9.2004 5:41pm page 225

225