I came across this news story this morning and thought you might
want to to check it out, especially in light of the civil law suits
rising over the implementation of race-based education goals not only in
Florida, but throughout the United States. I'm actually trying to hash
out my thoughts in this blog post with respect to what this type of research
could mean for society and the field of education regarding policy
and ideology that use the classification of individuals by race and
culture as the rationale for its relevance as it contributes to the
acceptance of the separation and marginalization of cultural groups. It
feels like a publication in which the authors demonstrated ultimate
success in society based on race is an affirmation for the establishment
and implementation of race-based policy and goals in the field of
education because we are showing policymakers that race is the social
factor directly linked to student performance and success, and that
pedagogy, practice, quality of resources, etc. have absolutely no affect
on student performance and success.In this article Tiger Mom, Amy Chua and her husband and co-author, Jed Rubenfeld,seem to echo the philosophy of Dinesh D'souza who also touts that certain groups outperform others in certain aspects of life. According to this short article about their book, "The Triple Package", they list the following "groups as the most likely to succeed in America: Jewish, Indian, Chinese, Iranian, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons" because they claim that certain cultural groups have what it takes to succeed and others do not. The "triple package" refers to the superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control of some cultural groups as opposed to others. These authors suggested that the cultural groups who succeed are disciplined, determined, and feel a need to prove themselves in society.
In their interview this morning, Chua and Rubenfeld said that this type of research was meant to challenge ideas like the model minority myth often associated with Asians. It's always difficult for me to understand how attributing success to certain character traits and then linking those traits to culture (or race, or gender or socioeconomic status) help de-mythologize any stereotype or stigma, especially when you start telling people they succeed or do not succeed because of something like race or culture that is initially inherit to the social construction of their identity. In a recent discussion with my students about race-based educational goals, we talked about how this type of ideology and policy leaves all children behind in its attempt to help them reach certain goals or make learning gains. Instead of thinking how to help all students succeed or at least ensure equitability of opportunity why to we keep choosing to pick and choose traits that demonstrate why someone may or may not be better than someone else? What's more how is highlighting difference in such an elitist way going to help anyone succeed at all? Is policy and ideology like this not just a reappropriation of Separate but Equal and the 3/5ths Rule in which we dehumanize and marginalize groups instead of trying to help them make sustainable changes in the construction f their expectations and abilities to ensure success among all groups regardless of race, culture, SES, gender...?
I think it's interesting to consider how this type of ideology and policy keeps finding its way into the limelight especially when you see us crown a South Asian Miss America (an event which bred its own controversy) or even something as mundane as last night's Coke commercial that attempted to showcase diversity through its rendition of America the Beautiful in several languages. You have to ask yourself are we truly singing with one voice and celebrating culture and difference or becoming more assimilationist and ultimately separatist in our ideology and policy?
