The Model Minority Myth

Are psychologists coercing ideological conformity?

Psychology

THE MODEL MINORITY MYTH

Are psychologists coercing ideological conformity?

Eddie Waldrep

There have been a lot of criticisms of the DEI industry, much of it well earned. However, there has been an aspect of it that has been quite disturbing when it comes to the field of mental health and academic psychology. That has been a willingness or justification on the part of psychologists of using emotional manipulation to promote radical political ideology. Recent research has shown that this may be associated with what is referred to as “left-wing authoritarianism”. These studies have shown that this phenomenon is associated with elements of narcissism, virtue-signaling, and feeding one’s own ego more than altruism or social justice.

For example, where I work in the Veterans Administration in Eastern Colorado, the DEI workgroup, headed by clinical psychologists, sent out a monthly email in June of last year, around the time of the Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action, with materials for reading and other DEI-related topics. One article focused on Asian Americans and the “internalization of the model minority myth.” In the Model Minority Myth, “Asian Americans [are] seen as more academically and economically successful in society compared to other racial minorities due to their supposedly stronger values of hard work and determination” (p. 569). The article discusses several topics including Affirmative Action, colorblindness, and the just world hypothesis.

The article relies on many assumptions that are not laid out but are presented as if true. For example, it is assumed that there is an overriding “system” that results in inequitable outcomes for people, black people in particular. This ultimately stems from the Marxist concept of structural determinism and essentially dismisses the role of human agency to influence outcomes. Therefore, according to the ideology, black students do not achieve sufficient academic outcomes and need Affirmative Action, even if it means discriminating against Asian students, because of the “structural determinants” that result in lower black performance.

According to the article, written by psychologists, Asian Americans ought to accept this plight. If they believe that, in America, they can work hard and have better outcomes, just because they do work hard and have better outcomes, then this is labeled an “anti-black attitude.” In other words, Asian Americans should accept being discriminated against. If they do not accept the ideological justification for it, then they will be called racists. This is clearly propaganda. In effect, these psychologists recommend using emotional manipulation to coerce ideological conformity. This ought to be considered a potential violation of professional ethics. Unfortunately, the American Psychological Association (APA) appears to allow, if not promote, this ideology.

According to APA Ethics Code, Principle C: Integrity, psychologists should not engage in misrepresentation of fact. Therefore, it would make sense to examine the evidence and allow that to guide clinical practice and communication with the public. There is rarely any simple, univariate explanation for human behavior, so it is no surprise that there may be multiple factors, both internal and external to the individual, involved in any phenomenon. In terms of academic outcomes by race, it turns out that the individual factor of time spent doing homework breaks down with Asian, white, Hispanic, and black students in descending order. This same pattern is observed in SAT scores, with Asian students receiving the highest scores. So, time spent doing homework is correlated with SAT scores. Not much of a surprise and not really rocket science. Individual behavior, in this case, undermines the “structural determinism” argument. Hence, the appeal to propaganda to coerce acceptance of an counterfactual ideology. Shameful behavior for psychologists who ought to know better.

I do not seek to dismiss the history of oppression that black Americans have faced and the potential for it to have long-term effects. The point here is that misattributing the differential outcomes to an ethereal bogeyman like structural determinism can interfere with appropriately diagnosing the root causes of the disparities and interfere with organizing effective policies to address them. In the current example, the data suggests that to improve academic outcomes, increasing time spent studying would be an appropriate focus. Thus, a proper diagnosis would facilitate examining what barriers and behaviors may be interfering with that outcome. Chasing ghosts is of no benefit to these students.

It is incumbent upon us as psychologists to ensure that we take our time to be thoughtful and diligent in our examination and understanding of human behavior. We must also be very careful in communicating with the public. Note that errors in ideologically-driven communication may not even necessarily be intentional. The field of psychology has a large proportion of professionals identifying as liberal. This may result in an ideological silo where one may not be aware of the potential bias in research or interpretation of results. That said, there are cases of intentional implementation of an ideological bias or “bad psychology”. There has been growing recognition that this pernicious ideology has influenced the rise in antisemitism, and as a result, calls to end DEI programs have grown.

In sum, there has been a troubling move in the field of psychology to impose radical political ideology under the guise of psychological science. No groups, Asian or any other, should be used as political pawns. To be sure, psychologists should not be using propaganda tactics to coerce ideological conformity. If psychologists engage in coercive tactics or fail to intervene when they are employed, such as calling people racist, homophobic, transphobic, or Islamophobic merely for dissenting from the ideology, then it will surely undermine the credibility our profession. We must be careful that in our zeal to advocate for a healthier society, we do not become ideological activists rather than professional psychologists.

---

Dr. Edward Waldrep (pictured here with his wife and daughter) is a Veteran of the War in Iraq and a Purple Heart recipient. After returning from deployment, he dedicated his life to learning about human responses to psychological trauma and continuing to serve others. He is currently a clinical psychologist for the Department of Veteran Affairs specializing in PTSD. (The views expressed here are those of Dr. Waldrep, not of the Department of Veterans Affairs.) Dr. Waldrep is a strong advocate for viewpoint diversity and for the recognition and celebration of our universal humanity to bring people together.