The scorn heaped on Americans of Asian descent by black Americans since the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, declaring what we all knew, that the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment prohibited Affirmative Action using racial preferences. Promise Li wrote, in The Nation:
(W)e must be clear about one thing: Asian American anti–affirmative action activists have not been simply “used” by white activists and duped into this white supremacist policy. They are active, militant co-conspirators with white conservatives.
Why? The Supreme Court case was made by Americans of Asian descent, because they were being discriminated against by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina — the parties to the case, but the discrimination has been much, much wider — being held to admissions standards far higher than black applicants, and even white applicants. This was hardly novel at Hahvahd, where a 15% maximum admissions quota was placed on Jews in the 1920s. Jerome Karabel argued, in a Slate article published well before the Court’s decision was announced, that the two were not the same, but made a practical case that they sure weren’t very different:
The comparison is superficially compelling. A longstanding body of scholarship—by Stephen Steinberg, Marcia Graham Synnott, myself, and others—does in fact establish that Harvard, threatened by an influx of high-achieving Jewish students, did impose quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s, using elusive nonacademic qualities such as “character” and “personality” to limit their numbers. And in recent years, Harvard and other elite institutions have faced a surge in applications from Asian Americans with outstanding academic records, and they, too, have often been plagued by lower scores on personality assessments. Over the past decade, the portrayal of Asian Americans as the “New Jews” has gained traction, appearing everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, from the Atlantic to the Times of London.
Whatever distinctions Mr Karabel took, they were distinctions without a difference!
So now we come The Washington Post:
by Theodore R Johnson, Contributing Columnist | Tuesday, July 11, 2023 | 6:30 AM EDT
Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about Bobby and Annie, two of my high school classmates from 30 years ago. They used these American names instead of their given names. Bobby, whose given name I never knew, is of Japanese descent. Annie, whose given name I always knew, is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. By any names, they are both Americans, born and bred.
It was the early 1990s, and I wondered why so many Asian American students picked new names. We grew up in North Carolina at a time when elementary school teachers wheeled out big TVs on steel media carts so we could watch college basketball in our classrooms. We could pronounce the name of Duke University’s former coach — Mike Krzyzewski — before we could tie our shoes. If we could say all those consonants, then we could say Annie’s given name. Meanwhile, Black Americans were becoming more creative with their names, and, let me tell you, Ka’Taydreeyah wasn’t changing her name to Kate for anyone.
“If we could say all those consonants,” huh? LOL! If you can tell me how you get shih-ZHEF-skee out of Krzyzewski, I’d be glad to read it.
Had Mr Johnson thought about it a bit, he might have realized that ‘Americanizing’ names was hardly something started by Asian-Americans; American Jews have been doing so for over a century because, yes, anti-Semitism has existed; the Harvard Jewish quota certainly proved that.
They’ve been on my mind after the Supreme Court’s ruling last week that effectively ended race- and ethnicity-based affirmative action in college admissions. The suit was filed on behalf of Asian American students who claimed such programs discriminated against them. The term “model minority” does not show up in the court’s opinion — but the myth helps in understanding why affirmative action was destined to pit Asian and Black Americans against one another. It was always going to end this way.
The model minority myth is the idea that Asian Americans, relative to other people of color in the United States, have a stronger commitment to hard work and determination that has resulted in economic and academic success. It says they acculturate better and with more intention. The myth suggests that Bobby and Annie felt compelled to choose familiar American names to ease their acculturation into White American society. But what of the taunting and beating? If this is how the nation treats its model minorities, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Mr Johnson wants us to believe that ‘hate crimes’ against Asian-Americans somehow make their “economic and academic success” irrelevant, but the admissions people at Harvard and UNC aren’t out on the streets, assaulting Asians for no discernable reason other than thuggery; they are educated people, in decently compensated positions, in our hoitiest and toitiest universities.
We have previously
noted the
apparently acceptable racial
discrimination against Asians in
the United States, and how white liberals not think that black and Hispanic students “have what it takes to compete on merit,” but they dismiss the achievements of students of Asian ethnicity as “
white adjacent.” In his own way, Mr Johnson is telling us that Asian-Americans are just that,
de facto white people.
This myth is a recent invention. Asian Americans — admittedly an inaccurate catchall group name — were long subjected to discriminatory policies in the United States. Historian Ellen Wu describes the characterization of Asian Americans and immigrants — specifically from Japan and China — through the 1940s and 1950s as definitively not-White. But as the geopolitical interests of the nation evolved after World War II and the civil rights movement domestically took center stage, she says, a narrative emerged that painted Asian Americans as “the model minority — a racial group distinct from the white majority, but lauded as well assimilated, upwardly mobile, politically nonthreatening, and definitively not-Black.”
Here Mr Johnson essentially complains that Asian-Americans have done exactly what we have said immigrants should do: assimilate into the larger American culture, and work hard to make themselves successful. That, after all, was what was expected of other waves of immigrants, mostly from Europe: Germans, Irish, Slavs, and, Heaven forfend!, those so successful that Harvard had to quota-restrict them Jooooos.
Perceptions of Asian Americans changed just as the concept of colorblindness was redefined in American discourse. When Asian people were “definitively not-White,” the idea of a colorblind society was the antithesis of the hierarchical society structured with White people at the top. As the civil rights movement began racking up policy wins, Asian Americans were redefined as model minorities and “colorblind” came to mean race is no longer a factor; as such, race-conscious remedies are the new racism.
By the late 1960s, many White politicians were using the model-minority concept in two primary ways. The first was as proof that the government had sufficiently addressed racism in our laws and that the playing field was now level. What else could explain how Asian Americans, after decades of overt discrimination and oppression, achieved such success? The second was an explicit counterargument to civil rights leaders who insisted tailored, race-conscious policies were necessary to address the lingering effects of slavery and Jim Crow. It made Black people the polar opposite of the model minority, shifting the onus for racial disparities almost completely onto Black people and their supposed lack of initiative and ingenuity.
And here we come back to Mr Johnson’s opening. “Bobby” and “Annie”, he said, picked very Americanized names, as they were trying, almost certainly encouraged by their parents, to fit in, to assimilate, while “Ka’Taydreeyah” certainly would not. “Black Americans were becoming more creative with their names,” Mr Johnson wrote, but has that not worked out to be a separation of black Americans from the rest of American culture?
Oh, wait, I’m not supposed to say something like that, am I?
Following this thinking through to its logical conclusion, the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling is not surprising. Its portrayal of Asian Americans as model assimilators is not a compliment, nor is it proof that structural racism is an artifact of the past. This portrayal serves only to exploit one minority group, to condemn others and to argue against accounting for a people’s history.
And there you have it: Mr Johnson has just told us that being “model assimilators is not a compliment,” an argument which, with his early emphasis on names, is that it is perfectly legitimate for black Americans
not to assimilate — an odd term, given that blacks have been in America for almost as long as whites — but it ignores an obvious point: what if black culture in America is simply not as socially or economically efficient or productive as white culture? Is it possible, just possible, that separate cultures in our social and economic systems could produce different aggregate results?
The legal arguments for and against affirmative action in higher education will continue. Universities will try new ways of diversifying their populations, and begrudged people will sue. The model-minority myth is sure to be a weapon in these battles.
Mr Johnson has just told us that those who have suffered actual discrimination in the pursuit of Affirmative Action haven’t really suffered anything, but are simply “begrudged,” as though someone cut ahead of them in the check-out line at Kroger, rather than someone not being allowed to shop at that store.
But policy aside, the myth cannot escape the particularly ugly set of assumptions that results when American exceptionalism meets racial hierarchy: If you are Black in America, you can become an exceptional person; if you are Asian in America, you are an exceptional people; and if you are White in America, you are the prototype. We’ve been working ourselves away from that America for some time, but we risk returning to it if we trade one set of racialized myths for another.
Mr Johnson concludes by telling us that we are all different, yet somehow, some way, he cannot conceive, or at least will not recognize, that different actions can and will produce different results, and that if those actions tend to be internally consistent among racial or ethnic groups, those groups will, in the aggregate, see disparate results.
It’s a very simple reality that people do not want to recognize: the social, economic, and political culture which developed under European people has produced stronger and more prosperous social and economic results. The “model minorities” in the United States which had been previously discriminated against, Jews in the early twentieth century, and Asians somewhat later, assimilated and adopted much of that Western civilization culture, and they have prospered in the United States, and there is no particular reason of which I can think why black Americans could not do the same.
In the originally cited article, author Nate File cites some left-leaning academics and proposals for what amounts to 
