To the editors:

There is much in Angela C. Makabali’s Dec. 4 Op-ed piece (“The Model What?”) with which I find myself in agreement. The model minority myth does have as one of its effects the marginalization of sub-populations within “Asian America” that do not share a similar characterization. The bulk of “American history” teaching does omit mention of the contributions of many Americans and the (often negative) experiences of others.

As I understand it, the drive to institutionalize Asian-American Studies is at least partially an appropriate technique for “reclaiming our agency as subjects”. But at what point does the movement become an exercise in circling the wagons and dwelling on the poignancy of our own experiences? The academy is experiencing a proliferation of Self Interest Studies, but I remain unconvinced of their value. Our inability to get beyond race is undeniably destructive, and I wonder whether the movement might accomplish greater things were it to refuse to participate in the usual and by now tired fetishizing of difference.

Furthermore, institutionalizing Asian- American Studies would also have the counterproductive effect of sequestering such academic activity in one location—so that everyone else in the academy can ignore it. I would argue, rather, that study of the Asian American experience across and from within such diverse disciplines as government, comparative literature and sociology can be more effective in uncovering new knowledge about the Asian-American experience—with the upshot being an ability to inject academic ways of thinking into these disciplines.

The academy already suffers from a considerable lack of inter-disciplinary cross-talk, but those interested in evangelizing the Asian-American experience might accomplish greater things by participating in this tyranny of specialization on their own terms.

Makabali mentions several factors that discourage undergraduates from doing this, to which my only response can be to quip that many things in life are discouraging. Having to intentionally carve out one’s own study of race theory from within a discipline that tends to dichotomize race—or having to intentionally cobble together one’s own study of the history of Asian-American marginalization and dehumanization from an amalgam of disciplines that tend to overlook their common linkages—would make for a far more robust learning experience. With those goals in mind, I believe having the Committee on Ethnic Studies to coordinate this sort of learning is a wonderful idea.

ALEXANDER C. TSAI ’98

Cleveland, Ohio

Dec. 4, 2003