Misrepresentations of Asian Americans:
De-Asianization and the Model Minority Myth

Mark Beeman
Northern Arizona University
Geeta Chowdhry
Northern Arizona University
James Severin
Northern Arizona University

INTRODUCTION

    This paper examines the way in which Asian Americans are represented in university level introductory sociological textbooks. Introductory sociology textbooks nearly all have a chapter on race and ethnic relations, and most have a separate section on Asian Americans. For undergraduate students, the introductory sociology course may be one of the few courses, or even the only course, where they engage in an academic discussion about issues related to Asian Americans. Two important areas are of special concern here. First, we wish to know if students reading these texts are presented with a clear understanding of what the term "Asian American" actually means. In particular, we are interested to know if the texts can provide accurate definitions which move beyond popular racialized images of Asian Americans. Second, we examine the extent to which presentations of Asian Americans accurately address the widespread myth of Asian Americans as a model minority.

THE MYTH OF THE MODEL MINORITY

     In the United States, the notion of Asian Americans as a model minority has been around for decades. According to Palumbo-Liu (1999) the first major popular media source making the argument was a 1966 New York Times Magazine article claiming Japanese Americans had become as economically successful as Whites. Followed the same year by a U.S. News and World Report which highlighted the success of Chinese Americans, the Asian American model for success was held up by conservatives as an example of what minority groups could achieve through hard work, rather than following the protest strategy of African Americans which focused on combating persistent racial discrimination in the United States. But highlighting the Asian American "success story" to counter the notion of entrenched racial discrimination was not to become highly popularized until the 1980s. Some ten articles focusing on Asian American success appeared in the popular press between 1982 and 1986 (Osajima 1988). During the same period, President Reagan, who opposed affirmative action and decried "reverse discrimination," praised the progress of Asian American and Pacific Americans maintaining that "the median income of Asian and Pacific-American families are much higher than the total American average"(Takaki 1998:475). Extolling the virtues of Asian American values as consistent with the American dream, Reagan praised their commitment to religion, hard work and parental responsibility concluding that America needed "your values, your hard work" and "our political system"(Takaki 1998:475).
     Takaki (1998) points out that the Reagan version of the model minority was misleading for several reasons. First, in 1980 59 percent of Asian Americans lived in three high standard of living states--California, New York and Hawaii. Less than 20 percent of the general population lived in these three states. Hence, comparing these areas with lower standard of living states was misleading. Takaki does a more appropriate comparison of Asian Americans and Whites within the state of California. Second, focusing on family incomes is also misleading. For example, on average White families in 1980 in California had fewer paid workers than Asian American families. Thus, a more appropriate comparison would be individual incomes in similar regions. Takaki presents data to show that in San Francisco, of all Asian American groups only Japanese American men had wages similar to White men. To receive similar wages, Japanese American men had nearly one more year of education and worked forty hours more each year than their White counterparts. For the other Asian Americans under investigation (Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese) Takaki (1998) finds their median incomes were significantly lower than Whites, and were either comparable or below the median incomes of African Americans and Latinos in San Francisco.
     More recent data tend to support Takaki's earlier findings. The focus on the "success" of Asian Americans continues to overshadow the reality that many Asian American groups remain poor. In 1990 some Asian American groups were still experiencing poverty rates over 60 percent (Canniff 2001). By 2000, the median family income statistics still placed Asian Americans higher than the national average, again obscuring the great disparity among ethnic groups lumped together as "Asian American" and ignoring persistent poverty. So while the White (non-Hispanic) population had a poverty rate of 7.4%, of all Asian/Asian American ethnic groups only Filipinos had a poverty rate as low (U.S. Census Bureau 2006; Ramirez 2004). Those of Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Thai, Pakistani, and Laotian descent had poverty rates roughly twice as high as Whites. Remarkably, nearly 30 percent of those of Cambodian descent and nearly 40 percent of those of Hmong descent in the United States are impoverished (Reeves and Bennett 2004). For these last two groups, their poverty rates are substantially higher than African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos (McKinnon and Bennett 2005; Ramirez, 2004; Ogunwole 2006).
     Regarding home ownership, the symbol of the "American dream," Asian Americans do not keep pace with Whites. Approximately 74 percent of non-Hispanic whites owned their homes (CPS/HVS 2000). About 53 percent of Asian Americans owned their homes, with people of Indian, Korean, Cambodian, Hmong, Pakistani, and Thai descent all having less than a 50 percent ownership rate (Reeves and Bennett 2004). Comparatively, about 56 percent of Native Americans, 47 percent of African Americans, and 46 percent of Latinos were home owners (CPS/HVS 2000). Here Asian American home owning rates are much more in line with other people of color than with Whites.
     In education, the "model minority" perspective is recognized by Asian American students themselves as a stereotype. Still, while some students actively oppose conforming to the model standard, many are convinced that the majority of their teachers believe the myth, and many students endure the stress of trying to live up to it (Lee 1996; Conchas and Perez 2003). The widespread believe in the myth, encouraged by academic success of some Asian Americans, helps obscure the reality of high drop-out rates among Asian American students (Budge 2004). Again, the focus on "Asian American success" in education neglects the reality that the Asian American designation represents a diverse collection of ethnic groups, with some doing extremely well in education, while others are doing poorly. Those of Indian and Pakistani descent, for example, have the highest percentages of college graduates, with over 50 percent of each group having graduated from college (Reeves and Bennett 2004). Some of the Southeast Asian ethnic groups in the U. S. (Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian) tell a different story, with low college graduation rates and from 38 to 60 percent of their adult populations having less than a high school degree (Reeves and Bennett 2004).
     Education, also, has not prevented Asian Americans from encountering glass ceilings in the occupational structure. Asian Americans are significantly underrepresented as corporate executives, as corporate directors, and in management, and they are paid considerable less than their White counterparts, even when they enter the same fields with the same educational background (Woo 2000). Interestingly, even in higher education, Asian Americans, despite generally having stronger research records than their colleagues, are more concentrated in lower ranks and are promoted more slowly. Asian Americans make up less than 1 percent of chief executives of four year colleges and universities with none of the top positions being held by an Asian American woman (Woo 2000).
     Asian Americans, like African Americans and Latinos, are disproportionately victimized by hate crimes. Historically, hatred against Asian Americans has been related to the perception that Asians are a threat to western interests, and that Asian Americans are perceived as "foreigners" in the United States (Takaki 1998). The perception of Asian Americans as "foreign" or having foreign allegiances and the threat of the "yellow peril" has been a fairly consistent theme in the U. S. media (Min 2003; Wu 1982). Interestingly, the themes of perpetual foreignness and threat have been reinforced through model minority stereotyping (Bhatt 2003; Wu 2003). While some severe anti-Asian and anti-Asian American discrimination in the United States has been acknowledged, such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and restrictive immigration policies of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the seriousness of contemporary hate crimes against Asian Americans is often neglected. Hate crimes against Whites, for example, are less that 0.5 per 100,000 of the White U.S. population (Grieco 2001; UCR 2004). Latinos incur a hate crime rate of 1.83 per 100,000 (UCR 2004; U.S. Census Bureaus 2000). Asian Americans, have a significantly higher rate of hate crimes committed against them than Latinos at 2.37 per 100,000, with African Americans victimized the most at 10.03 per 100,000 (UCR 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
     Asian Americans in reality find themselves subject to similar types of discrimination faced by other people of color, but the myth of the model minority persists. According to Frank Wu (2003), Asian Americans have been placed in the position of a middleman minority serving the role as a "buffer" in the stratification system. He states, "The myth has not succumbed to individualism or facts because it serves a purpose in reinforcing racial hierarchies"(Wu 2003:58). Hence, held in opposition to other groups, particularly African Americans who waged a mass resistance movement for civil rights, Asian Americans are held up as a model to show "the power of the free market and the absence of racial discrimination"(Wu 2003:44). Wu concludes that the model minority myth must be rejected because it is an oversimplification, it denies racial discrimination exists against Asian Americans and even portrays them as a "racial threat," and it is "an inflammatory taunt to African Americans" (Wu 2003:49).

ANALYSIS

     This study examines how Asian Americans and the model minority myth are presented in contemporary university level introductory sociology texts. Our sample was drawn in the Spring of 2005 by a three step process. First, since major publishers send us introductory textbooks for consideration each year, we contacted each publisher and requested all current introductory sociology texts that they published. Next, we did an on-line subject and title search for "sociology" and "introduction sociology" on Amazon.com. Any additional publishers of any current books found in that process were contacted and were asked to provide any textbooks they currently published in this category. Third, we cross-checked our sample with a previously drawn sample to see if we may have left out any publishers who had provided us with earlier editions of texts (Beeman, Chowdhry, and Todd 2000). This process yielded a sample of thirty-three current edition textbooks for use in introductory sociology courses at the university level with publication dates from 2003 to 2006, with the exception of one text in which the latest edition was 2001 (see appendix).
DEFINING ASIAN AMERICANS AND THE PROBLEM OF DE-ASIANIZATION
Most textbooks are organized in remarkably similar ways. Not only are most textbooks organized with the same chapter topics, but the chapters tend to be presented in nearly the same order in most cases. In none of the texts was there a separate chapter focusing on Asian Americans or Asian American groups, but all texts except one were organized with a chapter on race and ethnicity or some similar title. Hence thirty-two out of the thirty-three texts in the sample (97%) had a separate chapter covering race and ethnic stratification. A second important feature is that contained within the race and ethnic chapters, most of the texts included a section that focused on Asian Americans. Table 1 shows that twenty-six of the texts in the sample had sections focusing on either Asian Americans or at least one Asian American group. In addition, two of the texts had sections which included Asian Americans, but did not focus on them exclusively. One of these texts combined Asian Americans, Muslim Americans, and White Ethnics. The other focused on Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadians. Five of the texts had no section which focused on Asian Americans.
     From the above discussion we can summarize that in the majority of texts there exists a section to present information on Asian Americans in a sociological context. Given the assumption that the texts serve as an introduction to student readers about Asian Americans in the context of the U.S. stratification system, what information is essential as part of that introduction? Here it seems that at the very least the term Asian American would need to be defined. Table 2 shows that a clear, written definition of the concept "Asian American" is given in only seven texts, or 21% of the textbooks in the sample. Seventy-nine percent of the texts give no clear definition of Asian Americans. Instead, most of the texts discuss Asian Americans but do not define who they are. The most typical presentation includes a listing of various Asian American groups. Here the lists vary widely, as do the definitions.
      Defining who is represented by the label Asian American is a necessary task given the evolution of the term in the United States, particularly since the term does not include all citizens with Asian heritage, as large sections of Asia have been de-Asianized by racial and ethno-geographic constructions of Asia. For example, in both academic and governmental constructions of the category Asian American, people of West Asian descent are excluded and placed into the ethno-geographic construction called the Middle East. When clear definitions are not given, our students are likely to be confused over this category.
     As stated earlier, only seven textbooks give definitions of Asian American. Two of those definitions are identical, as they come from two texts both written by the same authors (Anderson and Taylor 2004; Anderson and Taylor 2005). It reads:

Like Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans are from many different countries and diverse cultural backgrounds; they cannot be classified as the single cultural rubric Asians. Asian Americans include migrants from China, Japan, the Philippines, Korea, and Vietnam, as well as more recent immigrants from Cambodia and Laos (Anderson and Taylor 2004:330).

     As the reader will recognized, this definition only includes people from East Asia or Southeast Asia. Hence, this definition extends beyond governmental categorization to de-Asianize even those originating from South Asian countries. Left are only those groups historically racialized by the popular media with derogatory designations of “oriental” or “yellow.” One might suggest that introductory textbook authors must cover such diverse areas of sociological interests that they commonly are writing about areas in which they have little or no specialized expertise, and therefore might overlook such an obvious omission. However, in this case both authors have specifically noted their expertise in the area of race and ethnic relations.
     Brinkerhoff, White, Ortega and Weitz (2005) begin their description of what constitutes Asian Americans similar to Anderson and Taylor's description, by only including East Asian and Southeast Asian groups. But they contradict this definition in their next sentence of the text. They write:

The Asian population of the United States (Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese) more than doubled between 1980 and the present, yet it still constitutes only 4 percent of the total population. The Asian population can be broken into three segments: descendants of nineteenth-century immigrants (Chinese and Japanese), the post-World War II immigrants (Filipinos, Asian Indians, and Koreans), and the recent refugees from Southeast Asia (Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese) (Brinkerhoff et al 2005:221).

     Without explanation, the authors have gone from excluding South Asia in the first sentence, and including one South Asian group in the second (along with a new Southeast Asian category). Assuming their figures come from the 2000 Census, the 4 percent figure they give in the first sentence consisting of “Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese” is inaccurate, since that percentage actually includes over 2 million Asians or Asian Americans of South Asian origin (Bennett 2002). Also, while the three segments describe major immigration trends, this categorization is an oversimplification of a more diverse immigration history of Asians to the United States. For example, it completely neglects the early 20th century migration of Indians to the United States which was substantial enough to be accompanied by anti-Indian fear mongering in the popular press (Takaki 1998).
     Bryjack and Soroka's definition reads "The umbrella term Asian American refers to a number of individual ethnic minority groups, including Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and various Indochinese peoples (Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Thais, Hmong)" (2001:130). Grimm, Krull and Smith write ""Asian American" is often used when referring to Americans who themselves or their ancestors were born in the Philippines (Filiponos) [sic], South Korea, Taiwan, China, and Japan"(2003:146). Following a pattern noted above, South Asians seem to be excluded from these authors understanding of what Asian American means.
     Kendall (2005) references the U.S. Census for her definition of Asian American, but then fails to actually conform to that definition. She writes "The U.S. Census Bureau uses the term Asian Americans to designate the many diverse groups with roots in Asia" (Kendall 2005: 344). She goes on to list nine categories and to discuss five of them. Again, the five discussed all are East or Southeast Asian groups. In addition, the statement that the term Asian American refers to "the many diverse groups with roots in Asia" is inaccurate as it fails to recognize the census definition does not include all of Asia, but only parts of it.
     Another problem with texts in general, is the unevenness in the coverage of topics. Here, Ferrante (2003) has no section on Asian Americans in her chapter on Race and Ethnicity, nor does she attempt to define the term Asian American. Instead, she quotes the census racial classifications, including that of Asian as "any person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent" (Ferrante 2003:278), but she is providing these only to inform the reader they are inadequate. Outside one sentence listing who some groups "expected to identify themselves as Asian" (Ferrante 2003:280), a discussion of what constitutes Asian American is absent. Indeed, while Ferrante offers some thoughtful criticisms about the census racial classification system, in the end the reader is shortchanged as Ferrante fails even to offer a sociological definition of the term “race.”
     Most of the textbooks provide no definition of the term Asian American, but many provide some discussion or description of Asian Americans. Here again, none of these descriptions make clear why the term Asian American does not include all parts of Asia, and the authors' own lack of a clear definition creates inaccuracies in their presentations. Take for example the description by Macionis. "Although Asian Americans share some racial traits, enormous cultural diversity characterizes this category of people with ancestors from dozens of nations" (2005:370). He then lists Asian Americans by population size: Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese ancestry. This racialized description has to be a baffling exercise for the students reading the Macionis text. Macionis explains that three constructed racial types--Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid--are seen by sociologists as "misleading" and even "harmful." Ironically, despite recognizing these criticisms, Macionis identifies "a trend toward mixture," of these very types, explaining that "Many "black" people, therefore, have a significant Caucasoid ancestry, just as "white" people have some Negroid genes" (Macionis 2005: 355). Equating "Asians" with "Mongoloid" and defining "Caucasoid" as "Indo-European,” he places both Scandinavians and Indians in the "Caucasoid" category. For the reader, the obvious unanswered question is if Macionis’s concept of Asian American is based on shared "racial traits" how did people of Indian and Japanese origins get in the same racial category? This problem is that Macionis at one point attempts to criticize racial types, and at other points he seems to reify them. In essence, this inconsistent and contradictory discussion will likely create considerable confusion for the reader.
     In summary, three major disappointments are evident in reviewing how Asian Americans get defined in current sociology texts. The first is that so few texts even attempt what might be considered a definition of the concept Asian American. In essence, seven of the thirty-three books in the sample have a description inclusive to the degree that it can be interpreted as a definition. The second disappointment is that approximately 2 million Asian Americans of South Asian descent are excluded from most of the sociology texts where definitions have been attempted. This exclusion tends to reinforce the historical portrayal of Asian Americans in the popular media as the East or sometimes Southeast Asian character, a portrayal grounded in the racialized yellow peril theme. The third disappointment is that none of the texts attempt to explain how Americans can be descendants of various regions of Asia, yet not be considered Asian American.
ASIAN AMERICANS: HOW MUCH INCLUSION?
Who gets coverage in sociology textbooks parallels the definitional problems mentioned above. Table 3 summarizes the word count coverage given in the race and ethnic sections of the texts to Asian Americans in general, and to specific Asian American groups in the sample under review. With the exception of one text which had no coverage of Asian Americans, all the texts had at least some coverage, with most having 300 words or more. Most of the coverage for specific Asian American groups is concentrated on Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans. Notice that the majority of texts had 100 words or more of coverage for these two groups. In order, the number of texts which had 100 words or more of coverage for specific groups are Japanese Americans (21), Chinese American (19), Korean American (9), Filipino (5), Vietnamese American (4), and Indian American (1). No other groups made this level of coverage in any text. If we look at coverage of 25 words or more, we still have no other Asian American groups except Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans where the majority of texts provide this level of coverage. Only when we consider coverage at the level of two words or more do we find the majority of texts including two additional groups, Korean Americans and Vietnamese Americans.
     Using either of the measures above, we can rank who gets significant coverage in the texts in descending order: Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, and a distant third, Korean Americans. Vietnamese Americans and Filipinos get considerably weaker coverage and round out the top five. In essence, the main focus is on East Asians and a secondary focus is given to Southeast Asians. While some of the excluded groups are relatively small, population size does not explain the degree of coverage. The three largest Asian American groups are those with origins from China, the Philippines, and India, while the texts have prioritized coverage to the East Asian populations with origins in Japan, Korea, and China. Once again, like the definitions presented above, there is a tendency to equate Asian American as people with East Asian origins. Those of Indian origin along with other South Asian groups are essentially excluded from significant coverage. Twenty-two of the 33 texts (67%) either only refer to Indian Americans in a list of names or do not mention them at all. Only three texts (9%) include this group in a discussion of 25 words or more. Particularly given the significant size of the Indian origin population in the United States, it seems likely that the popular racial construction of what is "Asian" is influential in excluding or marginalizing them from discourses on Asian Americans in the texts under review.
ADDRESSING THE MODEL MINORITY MYTH
As we have discussed, the myth of Asian Americans as a model minority has been popularized in the United States both by politicians and by the media. Thoughtful presentations about the place of Asian Americans in the United States stratification system, then, require that this myth be addressed. In this section of our analysis, we examine the extent to which introductory sociology textbooks have addressed this myth.
     As outlined in Table 4, two conclusions are readily apparent. First, most of the textbooks have no discussion about the "model minority" concept. About 55% of the texts in our sample fail to even mention the concept. Second, for those text which have discussed the model minority (15 texts), most have challenged the myth in some direct way (14 texts). Hence, it is important to point out that of those presenting the concept "model minority" it is generally realized that it is a myth which needs to be addressed. On the contrary, it is also important to note that the texts not explicitly addressing the "model minority" concept have a tendency to present Asian Americans somewhat consistent with the model minority perspective. For example, Everett and Shiffletts' focus on contemporary Asian Americans comes down to this sentence: "While as a group their achievement levels in terms of median family income and educational attainment surpass even those of Euro-Americans, there is tremendous internal diversity"(2003: 286). By not explaining what the "internal diversity" is, and ignoring the other criticisms made of the median family income argument, the reader is left with the same basic message that Reagan gave in 1984--Asian Americans are economically successful. Henslin makes even a more fundamental error by stating "the annual income of Asian Americans has outstripped that of whites" (2005:351). Henslin actually was incorrectly referencing data based on the problematic measure of median family incomes, not individual incomes as the quote suggests. With the exception of stating that there exists an uneven distribution of poverty rates among Asian American groups, Henslin's focus on contemporary Asian Americans is on their "Reasons for Success."
     Those texts explicitly addressing the model minority concept are likely to present arguments which in some way refute the myth. However, as the reader can see from Table 4, only two books in the sample address the political motivation behind the myth. Newman (2004) presents the view that the model minority is used to preserve the racial status quo. Here the complete argument is a one paragraph quote taken from ModelMinority.com. Thio (2005) criticizes the myth not only for undermining calls to remedy discrimination by African Americans and Latinos, but also he is unique among textbook writers in criticizing the use the family income to measure the relative success of Asian Americans. Although both Thio and Newman set a good example of exposing the political rationale for the model minority myth, unfortunately neither provides any historical information about the administration or political party responsible for promoting it.
     Generally, the textbook discussions addressing the myth are brief and sometimes ambiguous. For example, after focusing on Asian Americans as "high achievers" and noting that most "live in middle-class suburbs, Macionis states "At the same time, the "model minority" image of Asian Americans hides the fact that many Asian Americans remain poor"(2005:370). Unfortunately, this sentence is the only one directly addressing the model minority. The problem is that many Whites also remain poor, so why would that fact prevent Asian Americans from being a model for other minorities? Here among charts showing higher than national average median family incomes for all of the Asian American groups listed except one, and lower poverty rates for all the Asian American groups listed than for the entire United States, and among incredible phrases such as "The entrepreneurial spirit is strong among all Asian immigrants" (2005:373), it is unlikely that the one sentence above presents a convincing case against the model minority myth. Here it is beneficial to consider Woo’s observation that the model minority myth continually reinvents itself bolstered by the “presumption of entrepreneurial values among Asian Americans” (2000:35).
     Another example of ambiguity about the model minority concept is the text by Hughes and Koehler (2005) which has the most extensive discussion about model minorities. In their main text discussion they point out that while Asian Americans have the highest median family income of any major ethnic group, they also suffer discrimination at the workplace and are victimized by racially motivated violence. Although this discussion seems to be geared toward a critical assessment of Asian Americans as a success story, in a discussion box entitled "Model Minorities--Does Class or Do Values Spell Success?" Hughes and Koehler state "Jewish, Asian, and Cuban Americans are good models of how some ethnic groups in the United States have achieved success"(2005: 239). The authors point is to demonstrate that material and social advantages of these groups were more significant than their values in determining their success. However, the main focus in this discussion is clearly on "What accounts for the successes of these model minorities?" (Hughes and Koehler 2005: 239). Here the presumption that all these groups are successful model minorities seems to reinforce the myth.
     In summary, several points concerning the textbook coverage of the model minority myth can be made. First, most text failed to address the model minority myth in any direct way. Second, those texts which discussed the model minority concept were also likely to present some kind of direct challenge to it. Third, unfortunately, most of those texts which challenged the myth tended to do so in rather ineffective ways, sometimes in ambiguous ways. Fourth, the most obvious oversight was that with two exceptions, the textbooks failed to discuss the political motivation behind promoting the model minority myth.
ADDRESSING DISCRIMINATION
Building on the theme of the model minority myth, we take a look at the way discrimination against Asian Americans is presented. Of particular concern to us is whether the texts in the sample convey the sense that like other minority groups, Asian Americans are targets of present day discrimination.
 Of the thirty-three books analyzed, twenty-eight (85 percent) mentioned or discussed some form of past discrimination against Asian Americans. Most commonly the discussions on past discrimination focused on Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans. Fifteen books (45 percent of the sample) included some mention or discussion of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and Japanese American internment during World War II was mentioned or discussed in twenty-five books (75% of the sample). Put another way, the majority of texts which covered past discrimination discussed the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese American internment.
     Interestingly, present-day discrimination was mentioned in only sixteen texts, or 48 percent of the books contained in the sample, substantially less than the texts discussing past discrimination. Present-day discrimination against Asian Americans appeared to be generic in context, and specific events were not cited nearly as often as with past discrimination events. Three books (9 percent of the sample) highlighted the educational discrimination Asian Americans face today, most often when applying to prestigious universities in the United States. Twenty-four percent of the books in our sample mentioned or discussed present-day occupational discrimination against Asian Americans. Occupational discrimination against Asian Americans included the concepts of “topping out” or encountering a glass ceiling whereby access is denied to high level corporate and business positions.  Forms of hate crime perpetrated against Asian Americans were discussed in only five of the texts, or 15 percent of the sample. Discussions of African Americans and Hispanic Americans targeting Korean-owned businesses during the 1992 riots in Los Angeles were the most common. Interestingly, only one book in our sample mentioned White violence against Asian Americans. The latest available statistics (UCR 2004) indicate that of hate crimes against Asian Americans where the race of the offender is known, 77% of offenders are White. Ironically, in our sample of texts which mention hate crimes against Asian Americans, 80% focus on hate crimes against Asian Americans in which the perpetrators were people of color. Hence, portrayals of hate crimes in sociology texts tend to give the skewed interpretation that Asian Americans are more likely to victimized by people of color than by Whites.
     In addition, several of the texts which mentioned contemporary discrimination against Asian Americans downplayed its significance. Lindsey and Beach (2003), for example, describe the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese American internment, but as far as contemporary discrimination only mention recent arrivals experience "considerable discrimination," and that that Vietnam refugees "face opposition from time to time (2003:254). Hence, if there is significant contemporary discrimination against Asian Americans, it appears to be confined to new immigrants and we are not told what this discrimination is. Shepard has a significant discussion on past discrimination against Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans, but when it comes to contemporary times he confines his comments to a few lines. He states "Although Asian Americans have been more successful than other American racial minorities, they still feel the effects of prejudice and discrimination" (2005:266). Only in the briefest fashion is the reader informed that Asian Americans still do not earn as much as Whites and that "socioeconomic differences exist." And given his emphasis on Asian Americans coming "from many different national and ethnic backgrounds" (2005: 265), when it comes to a contemporary discussion of Asian American discrimination, not one of these national or ethnic backgrounds is mentioned. In the greater context of this section entitled "Why have Asian Americans been so successful?" (2005:266) these few lines on unspecified socioeconomic differences do not make much of a case for present day discrimination. Another example comes from Sullivan who gives some detail about the 1992 disturbances in which Korean owned businesses were looted and burned. He places this episode in what might be called the "isolated incidents" context by stating "Although there is little widespread discrimination against Asian immigrants, violence does occur"(2004:208). Farley also notes the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, but states "discrimination against Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Asian Americans, and "white ethnics"--though very real at various times in the past and present--has been less systematic and less persistent than discrimination against African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and American Indians"(2003:180). Interestingly, Asian Americans are not even considered a minority group by Farley, rather they are an "intermediate status group.”
     Hence, in reviewing the discussion of discrimination in the textbooks under review, several important points are evident. First, past discrimination against Asian Americans is much more likely to be covered than present day discrimination. This tends to conform to the model minority perspective that discrimination is no longer a major obstacle which can hold minorities back, especially since the two major incidents of discrimination discussed (The Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese American internment) have long since been eliminated. Second, the serious problem of hate crimes is overlooked by 85% of the textbooks under review. When hate crimes are addressed, they generally are presented as a minority on minority problem, which distorts the hate crime problem. Third, when contemporary discrimination against Asian Americans is discussed, some of the texts downplay its significance.

CONCLUSION

In a society where stratification is closely linked with racial and ethnic identification, and where the model minority myth is so entrenched, it seems to us that a discussion about Asian Americans should clearly define who they are and should make a critical examination of the myth itself. In this review, neither of these was done in a satisfactory way in the majority of the textbooks under review. We can reiterate the main points here.
     First, although most texts had sections which focused on Asian Americans in the ethnic stratification system, most texts did not develop a clear definition of what is meant by Asian American. Second, of those texts which attempted a definition, there was a tendency to exclude people of South Asian descent from the Asian American category. This de-Asianization of South Asians appears to be a significant error on the part of the textbook authors. Third, texts without definitions would commonly lists Asian American groups, not making clear why many immigrants from Asia would not be included in the Asian American category. Asian American, like other racial designations, is a social construction. It would serve our students well to have some discussion about how the category Asian American was constructed as to leave out whole regions of Asia, such as West Asia. Hence, this institutionalized de-Asianization process needs some explanation. Fourth, the coverage of particular Asian American groups tends to follow the same pattern that existed in the definitions. That is, the focus is primarily on people of East Asian descent, much less on people of Southeast Asian descent, and widespread exclusion of people of South Asian descent.
     The coverage of the model minority myth, with a couple of exceptions, was quite weak. Most texts did not mention the model minority concept, and sometimes this resulted in the coverage of Asian Americans seeming to comport to the model minority image. About 45 percent of the texts did discuss the model minority concept, and among these nearly all presented some challenge to it. Many included discussion concerning the uneven distribution of resources among Asian Americans in general, and some mentioned occupational discrimination. Only two, however, discussed the important political motivation for promoting the model minority myth; a context we believe is essential to understanding the concept from a sociological perspective.
     Finally, present day discrimination against Asian Americans, an important component to exposing the model minority as a myth, is not covered effectively in most texts. There is a tendency for the texts to emphasize past discrimination against Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans. In many texts, this coverage was quite good. However, the lack of similar coverage given to present day discrimination against Asian Americans leaves the impression that significant discrimination is a thing of the past. Some texts mentioned no present day discrimination against Asian Americans, and others downplayed present day discrimination against Asian Americans in the context that it is not a widespread problem. In particular, the serious problem of hate crimes against Asian Americans was ignored by 85% of the texts in the sample. Of those texts which actually addressed the hate crimes issue, the majority presented it as a minority on minority problem, an image counter to the statistical evidence.
     We feel that introductory sociology texts can make considerable improvements in presenting Asian Americans in the context of race and ethnic relations. By considering the criticisms suggested above, we believe that sociology textbooks can provide valuable information to the student reader by both more accurately defining the concept of Asian American as well as effectively addressing the model minority myth.

TABLES

Table 1: Representation of Race and Asian Americans           
                           Chapter on Race/Ethnicity                       Section on Asian Americans
YES                                 32 (97%)                                                   26  (79%)
NO                                   1 ( 3%)                                                       5  (15%)
OTHER*                           0 ( 0%)                                                       2  (6%)     
TOTAL                          33 (100%)                                                   33 (100%)
*Each of the texts in this category had a section which combined some Asian American
group with one or two other groups.

Table 2: Asian Americans Discussed and Defined
                                         DISCUSSED                                DEFINED
YES                                    32  (97%)                                      7  (21%)
NO                                       1   (3%)                                      26  (79%)     
TOTAL                               33  (100%)                                   33  (100%)

 Table 3: Coverage of Asian American Groups by Word Count

Table 4: Asian Americans and the Model Minority Myth
                    Model Minority                           Myth Challenged in Political Motivation for
                     Discussed                      in Some Direct Way      Myth Discussed
YES             15 (45%)                              14 (42%)                           2 (6%)
NO               18 (55%)                              19 (58%)                           3 (94%)     
TOTAL          33 (100%)                            33 (100%)                        33 (100%)

APPENDIX: TEXTBOOKS IN SAMPLE

Anderson, Margaret L. & Taylor, Howard F. 2004. Sociology: A Diverse Society. 3rd  ed.  Belmont  CA:
     Thompson/Wadsworth.
Anderson, Margaret L. & Taylor, Howard, F. 2005. Sociology: The Essentials. 3rd ed.  Belmont,  CA:
     Thompson/Wadsworth.
Brim, Robert J. & Lie, John. 2005. Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. 2nd ed.  Belmont  CA:
     Thompson/Wadsworth.
Brinkerhoff, White, Ortega & Weitz. 2005. Essentials of Sociology. 6th ed. Belmont CA:
      Thompson/Wadsworth.
Bryjak, George J. & Soroka, Michael P. 2001. Sociology: Changing Societies in a Diverse  World.
      4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
 Curry, Jiobu & Schwirian. 2005. Sociology for the 21st Century. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River:  
     Prentice  Hall Publishing.
 Eitzen, D. Stanley & Zinn, Maxine Baca. 2004. In Conflict and Order: Understanding Society.
     10th  ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
 Donovan, Marjorie E. & Gonzales, Juan L. 2005. Sociology: Fundamentals for the 21st Century.  
     Dubuque, IW: Kendall Hunt.
 Everett, Kevin & Shifflett, Peggy. 2003. Fundamentals of Sociology. Dubuque: IW: Kendall  Hunt.
 Farley, John E. 2003. Sociology. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
 Ferrante, Joan. 2003. Sociology: A Global Perspective. 5th ed. Belmont CA:  Thompson/Wadsworth.
  Giddens, Anthony, Mitchell Duneier, and Richard Appelbaum. 2005. Introduction to Sociology.
     5th  ed. New York: WW Norton Publishing.
 Grimm, James W., Krull, Amy C. & Smith, D. Clayton. 2003. Basics and Applications of  Sociology
       Dubuque, IW: Kendall Hunt.
 Henslin, James M. 2005. Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. 7th ed. Boston: Allyn and  Bacon.
 Henslin, James M. 2006. The Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. 6th ed. Boston:  
     Allyn and Bacon.
 Hughes, Michael & Kroehler, Carolyn J. 2005. Sociology: The Core. 7th ed. New York:  
     McGraw Hill Publishing Co.
 Kendall, Diana. Sociology in our Times. 5th ed. Belmont CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.
 Kendall, Diana. 2005. Sociology in our Times: The Essentials. 5th ed. Belmont CA:  
     Thompson/Wadsworth.
 Kornblum, William. Sociology in a changing world. 7th ed. Belmont CA:  Thompson/Wadsworth.
 Lindsey, Linda L. & Beach, Stephen. 2005. Essentials of Sociology. Upper Saddle River:
     Prentice  Hall Publishing.
 Lindsey, Linda L. & Beach, Stephen. 2004. Sociology. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River:
     Prentice  Hall  Publishing.
 Macionis, John J. 2006. Society: The Basics. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
 Macionis, John J. 2005. Sociology. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
 Newbeck, Kenneth J. & Glasber, Davita Silfen. 2005. Sociology: Diversity, Conflict, and  Change.
     New York: McGraw Hill.
 Newman, David M. 2004. Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. 5th ed.  
     Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge Press.
Schaefer, Richard T. 2005. Sociology. 9th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
 Schaefer, Richard T. 2004. Sociology: A Brief Introduction. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
 Shepard, Jon N. 2005. Sociology. 9th ed. Belmont CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.
 Stark, Rodney. 2004. Sociology. 9th ed. Belmont CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.
 Sullivan, Thomas J. 2004. Sociology: Concepts and Applications in a Diverse World.
     6th ed.  Boston:  Allyn and Bacon.
 Thio, Alex. 2005. Sociology: A Brief Introduction. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
 Thompson, William E. & Hickey, Joseph V. 2005. Society in Focus. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
 Tischler, Henry L. 2004. Introduction to Sociology. 8th ed. Belmont CA:Thompson/Wadsworth.

REFERENCES

Beeman, Mark, Geeta Chowdhry, and Karmen Todd. 2000. "Educating Students about  Affirmative Action:
       An Analysis of University Sociology Texts" Teaching Sociology. 28,  2:98-115.
Bhatt, Archana. 2003. "Asian Indians and the Model Minority Narrative: A Neocolonial
        System." in The Emerging Monoculture, edited by Eric Mark Kramer.Westport, CN: Praeger.
Budge, David. 2004. "Model minority tag hides Asian drop-out problem." Times Education  Supplement, 4582:16
Canniff, Julie. 2001.Cambodian Refugees' Pathways to Success. New York: LFB Scholarly  Publishing.
Conchas, Gilberto and Cristina Perez. 2003. "Surfing the 'model minority' wave of success:  
       How the  school Context shapes distinct experiences among Vietnamese youth" New  Directions for
       Youth  Development, 100: 41-56.
CPS/HVS. 2000. "Housing Vacancies and Homeownership: Annual Statistics Table 20" U.S. Census  Bureau.
       Retrieved May 2 ,2006. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual00/  ann00t20).
Grieco, Elizabeth 2001 "The White Population: 2000" Census 2000 Brief . Retrieved
       May 1, 2006. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-4.pdf).
Lee, Stacey. 1996 Unraveling the "Model Minority" Stereotype. New York: Teachers  College  Press.
McKinnon, Jess and Claudette Bennett. 2005. "We the People: American Indians and Alaska  Natives
        in the United States" Census 2000 Special Reports. Retrieved May 1,2006.
       (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-28.pdf).
Min, Eungjun. 2003. "Demythologizing the "Model Minority"" in The Emerging  Monoculture,  
        edited by Eric Mark Kramer.Westport, CN: Praeger
Ogunwole, Stella. 2006. "We the People: Blacks in the United States." Census 2000 Special  Reports.
         Retrieved April 30, 2006.(http://www.census.gov/prod/ 2006pubs/censr-28.pdf).
Osijama, Keith. 1988. :Asian Americans as the Model Minority: An Analysis of the Popular  Press  Image
        in the 1960s and 1980s." pp. 165-174, in Gary Okihiro, Shirley Hune, Arthur Hansen, and  
        John Liu (eds). Reflections on Shattered Windows: Promises and Prospects for Asian American  Studies.
        Pullman: Washington State University Press.
Palumbo-Liu, David. 1999. Asian/American: Historical Crossings of a Racial Frontier.  Stanford:  Stanford University Press
Ramirez, Roberto. 2004. "We the People: Hispanics in the United States." Census 200 Special Reports.
         Retrieved Apri 30, 2006. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-18.pdf).
Takaki, Ronald. 1998. Strangers From a Different Shore. Boston: Back Bay.
UCR. 2004. Table 5 Offenses: Known Offender's Race by Bias Motivation.
        Retrieved April 20,  2006. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable5.htm)
U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. "Population by Race and Hispanic Origin for the United  States:2000."
         Retrieved May 5, 2006. (http//www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01).
U. S. Census Bureau. 2006. Historical Poverty Tables--Current population Survey: People  Table 3  
        Retrieved April 20, 2006.(http://www.census.govv/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html).
Woo, Deborah. 2000. Glass Ceilings and Asian Americans. Walnut Creek: Altamira.
Wu, Frank. 2003. Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White. New York: Basic
        Books.
Wu, William. 1982. The Yellow Peril. Hamden, CN: Archon Books.