Comprehensive new report on chinese americans

by Guest Contributor Angry Asian Man, originally published at Angry Asian Man

In November, the University of Maryland’s Asian American Studies Program, with support from OCA, released a major new study on Chinese Americans in the United States. Based on extensive U.S. Census data and independent interviews, A Portrait of Chinese Americans offers the most comprehensive and current portrait of the country’s diverse Chinese American population: Major Study of Chinese Americans Debunks ‘Model Minority’ Myth.

According to the study, Chinese Americans, one of the most highly educated groups in the nation, are confronted by a “glass ceiling,” unable to realize full occupational stature and success to match their efforts. The returns on Chinese Americans’ investment in education and “sweat equity” are “generally lower than those in the general and non-Hispanic White population.”

The study also found that the Chinese American community is characterized by extreme diversity. It’s split nearly 50-50 between poorly educated recent immigrants from China and a more settled, acculturated, educated and prosperous group of older immigrants and second generation Americans. These earlier arrivals came mainly from Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Among the study’s other significant findings about Chinese Americans:

Fastest Growing Immigrant Group:

Largest Asian Ethnic Group: Chinese Americans represent the largest ethnic group among Asian Americans (about 25 percent).

Higher Education Clustering: Chinese Americans cluster in a small number of colleges and universities (about 85 percent of Chinese Americans who go to college cluster at only three percent of all higher education institutions).

High Levels of Higher Education: Twice as many Chinese American adults have college degrees than the general population.

Lacking High School Education: Conversely, recently arrived Chinese Americans represent the largest number of U.S. adults without the equivalent of a high school education.

Occupations: Chinese Americans are more heavily represented in professional and managerial occupations than the general population (53 percent vs. 34 percent).

Industries: Chinese Americans cluster in industries associated with health care, food services, manufacturing and professional/scientific fields.

Pay Equity: Chinese American men earn less in salaries than majority Whites for the same level of education.

Geographic Clustering: 60 percent of all Chinese Americans live in a handful of cities, beginning with New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, as well as the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the Boston metro area and the Dallas metro area.

Suburban Migration: In the past 20 years, Chinese Americans have settled increasingly away from traditional ethnic enclaves characterized as Chinatowns. Many of the more affluent Chinese Americans now reside in suburban communities commonly known as “ethnoburbs” or mixed “Asiatowns.”

Citizenship: Three out of four Chinese Americans are U.S. citizens and exhibit very high rates of naturalization. However, this is less true among the recent immigrants who have been slower to seek citizenship.

Multiethnic/Multiracial: One in ten Chinese Americans are multiethnic and/or multiracial.

Divorce: Once they marry, Chinese Americans tend to stay married – with a divorce rate less than half that of the general population (4.4 percent vs. 10 percent).

The full text of A Portrait of Chinese Americans (including a brief executive summary and conclusions) is available as a downloadable PDF here.

By the way, the Asian American Studies Program at the University of Maryland is one of six universities to receive the Asian American Pacific Islander Serving Institution (AANAPISI) grant that was awarded by the U.S. Department of Education for $2.5 million dollars for two years. That’s a pretty huge deal: UM Becomes U.S. ‘Minority-Serving Institution’ for Asian Americans.

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Asian Nationalism - good for Asian Americans or not? - Page 3 - AznLover.com - Asian/AMXF Social Networking Community on 20 Dec 2008 at 3:13 am

[...] americans are largely external. Here is a good blog post about a study done on Chinese Americans: Comprehensive new report on chinese americans at Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop cul… “The returns on Chinese Americans’ investment in education and “sweat equity” are [...]
Passive, Non-confrontatonal, and Without a Strong Presence « Asian American Movement Blog on 29 Jan 2009 at 3:57 pm

[...] The second link is by way of Racialicious and concerns a study conducted by University of Maryland’s Asian American Studies program. The [...]

Comments

Asada wrote:

I will be reading this. I have been longing to understand this group for awhile, and accurate portrayals of Asians ( specifically Chinese) are scarce!!!

thanks, I love books!

Posted 11 Dec 2008 at 3:18 pm ¶
Paz wrote:

Interesting. I saw a headline in New America Media about the glass ceiling for Chinese, but I honestly didn’t understand it. I guess because the Chinese in my area are for the most part educated and well off.

Posted 11 Dec 2008 at 6:37 pm ¶
Restructure! wrote:

Inside Higher Ed had an article about this report as well, which opened with the phrase, “Chinese Americans are not as homogeneous as they are sometimes portrayed”. I loved the first (sarcastic) comment:

Group homogeneity debated

Today our world is shaken at its foundation by the new realization that “Chinese Americans are not as homogeneous as they are sometimes portrayed…..”

What’s next? That black Americans, or Latinos, or white Americans are not as homogenous as they are sometimes portrayed?

One can hope that this banal “discovery” may lead ethnic identity hustlers and various lumpers of peoples to reconsider how deceptive and misleading such labels have been all along.

But I am not optimistic……..

Chuck, at 10:45 am EST on November 13, 2008

It makes you wonder, though. Why is empirical evidence necessary to debunk the idea that Chinese Americans are homogenous? Have there been any serious, academic studies conducted to support the idea that white people are diverse individuals instead of a homogenous monolith? It’s as if empirical studies need to be conducted to show that non-whites are as human as whites.

Posted 11 Dec 2008 at 8:30 pm ¶
Luis wrote:

“Interesting. I saw a headline in New America Media about the glass ceiling for Chinese, but I honestly didn’t understand it. I guess because the Chinese in my area are for the most part educated and well off.”

Maybe if you met the Chinese who weren’t in your area you’d have more to go on than a hunch.

I wonder if the study goes into the third and fourth generation Chinese-Americans (that probably make up most of the multiracial statistic), who are usually ignored in studies in favor of more recent immigrants. The multigenerationality of the community, as well as the diverse origins within China, create the scattered statistics.

As for whether or not its relevant to use empirical evidence to say a group is diverse: yes. Saying a group is diverse doesn’t mean that it is identical to other groups. For example, saying White Americans and Black Americans are diverse groups, which is true, doesn’t imply that they’re diverse in the same ways, which is obvious. Chinese-Americans as a whole face certain challenges in America’s majority white culture, and no matter the circumstances of their origin have to face limiting stereotypes. Yes, the model minority stereotype is limiting. Chinese-Americans, like many Asian-Americans, are expected to be technicians, to be good at math and science, but are passed over for positions of leadership and are not encouraged in other fields. On the other hand, to fully understand the group we have to look honestly and empirically at the socio-economic and cultural lives of individuals.

The so-called “ethnic identity hustlers” didn’t invent the labels their working with, those existed well before the ethnic studies movement developed in the 1960s. In fact, the inter-ethnic movement was formed specifically to combat blanket judgements imposed on non-White groups by mainstream American culture. The fact is, if researchers didn’t use popular markers of identity (race or nationality), people like the commenter I’m referring to would have no way of understanding who was being discussed because, frankly, that’s all he has been given. The fact that he even referred to Latinos as a group is telling. There are a hundred ways to deconstruct Latinos into numerous different groups and even place them within others, it’s really a tenuous connection, and yet to him it is a real and discrete group of people. We’re stuck with the terms given to us and have to do our best to shed light on what goes on within them.

In other words: if you don’t know what you’re talking about, shut your mouth and listen to someone who does.

Posted 11 Dec 2008 at 11:53 pm ¶
Luis wrote:

PS I was referring to the commenter in the block quote presented by Restructure!

Posted 11 Dec 2008 at 11:54 pm ¶
Serenity wrote:

I agree with Restructure, completely. Also, I think it’s interesting that this “major study” just reaffirms what was taught in some of my college classes on Asian American studies, mass media and minorities, etc.: that the model minority stereotype can actually be a disadvantage to Asian Americans… not news to us, but it never hurts that this kind of thing is getting attention, I suppose.

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 12:26 am ¶
Daniel wrote:

I think some of the reasons why such studies or the notion of having them ever existed is partly due to how our society—North American or more specific the US, and it’s generalized (more visibly expressed) views are like. This society, for historical reasons and the reality of what many people think, despite our diversity, can not ignore and shake off the issues regarding demographics. Some take a sort of extreme view by thinking it doesn’t matter or exists but that attitude can make relations between people worsen or not be fruitful at all.

IF you all think about it, who are these studies really meant for? or better yet who is the target audience(s)? Although I think it’s for national census studies. However, even without a particular study group such as Chinese Americans, most healthy minded individuals are able to understand that homogenous is a relative term, and quite subjectional depending on what exact topic you are talking about….regardless of how much formal education or which demographic background one belongs to.

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 2:33 am ¶
Elton wrote:

@ Paz
“I guess because the Chinese in my area are for the most part educated and well off.”

lol, you don’t have any Chinese restaurants in your area? Where on earth do you live?

As someone who comes from a working-class Chinese-American family, I find it frustrating how quickly our struggle has been swept under the rug of history just because a few Chinese have money and education.

Though I definitely want to move upwards socially, the last thing I want is to forget my roots, as so many have.

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 3:21 am ¶
queerhapa wrote:

@ Luis: cosign on the need to disaggregate 3rd & 4th (and beyond) generation Chinese Am’s! The study lumps everyone beyond the 1.5 generation together, but I do think there’s a difference for those of us whose families have been here for several generations, who are the children of English-speaking U.S.-born citizens, who are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of those who had to enter the country illegally because of racist immigration laws (i.e. pre-1965 immigration reform).

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:03 am ¶
Lisa J wrote:

@ Luis “The so-called “ethnic identity hustlers” didn’t invent the labels their working with, those existed well before the ethnic studies movement developed in the 1960s.”
Thank you and co-sign. When I read that term, my hackles went up. It is like when people accuse minorities of using the “race card. ” Who made the race card up and has benefited from it most in this country, the European American power structure. You are also right that until different minority and discriminated against groups, (Asians, Blacks, Chicanos, Latinos, Native Americans and many others-including women) who started studying themselves in the academy, the white majority in America systematically put us all into discrete categories based mostly on sterotypes that were comfortable for them as a group and once we began to define ourselves or stand up for ourselves and call them on it, we are playing the “race card” or being “ethnic hustlers.” As Marvin Gaye used to say, “makes me wanna holler” (second time I’ve said that today

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 12:37 pm ¶
Ike wrote:

The later generations perform worse than the 1st and 2nd generations. They loose the “immigrant vigor” and start picking up American habits (same can be said for most immigrants).

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 12:48 pm ¶
Luis wrote:

@queerhapa

Absolutely, and this issue comes up with a lot of different groups. 1965/1968 is probably the best date to split things, for a number of reasons (immigration reform, civil rights, IR marriage, cultural revolution). Before this date non-white immigrants were subject to discrimination entering the country as well as subject to legal segregation. The 3rd, 4th, etc. generation Chinese-Americans require a separate study. Their experience is substantially different from the current 1st and 2nd gen. Many multiracial Chinese-Am.s in the 4th and 5th gen. don’t even know they’re 1/4 or 1/8 Chinese for a long time. I’ve heard of revelations in people’s teen or adult years.

There is an attitudinal shift in immigrants post-1960s, and I posit that its due to taking civil rights reform for granted. As a Dominican, I know its true among Dominican immigrants, who came mostly in the 70s and 80s, versus Puerto Rican immigrants with a communal memory of the US in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. It would take lots of field work to really substantiate that, so it’s just an idea.

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 1:32 pm ¶
Paz wrote:

I didn’t mean that I doubt the idea that Chinese have a glass ceiling. I just meant that I personally have not seen it in my experience. I’m being honest about my ignorance of the situation.

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 2:43 pm ¶
CJHapaUndercover wrote:

Re. the “glass ceiling”- isn’t it technically the “bamboo ceiling” for Asians? Has anyone read “Breaking the Bamboo Ceiling” by Jane Hyun? Just finished directing a solo performance piece that takes aim at several self-help books for Asians, such as Ms. Hyun’s, along with other gems such as “How to Date A White Woman – A Practical Guide for Asian Men” and “Dating Asians” a guide for anyone looking to meet up with Asians.

Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:21 pm ¶
Reiter wrote:

I wonder if more colleges will look at these reports and use them as an excuse to continue setting limits for the number of Asian students who can get into their schools. A number of (prestigious) universities have bought into the model minority myth and, realizing the rising populations of Asians in local areas (you know, because a sea of yellow faces, slanted eyes, and black hair on campus is scary to white folks), actually raised test score standards aimed specifically to limit quotas for Asian-American student admissions.

And just because there are some Chinese-Americans that are well off, there are least 20 more that live at or below the poverty line and struggling (or whose households have more than one person working, inflating incomes for Asian households in census reports). There is a definite glass (or bamboo if you prefer) ceiling and the model minority myth can be used to bite us in the ass. I wouldn’t have Asian-Americans patting ourselves on our backs just yet.

Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 5:15 am ¶
Lisa J wrote:

@ Paz
I’ve always thought of the glass ceiling as meaning that someone is highly sucessful and well educated and has acheived but despite all of their potential and ability they cannot move to the top even though they deserve it. Most of the time they see their counterparts and peers who they equal and often have surpassed in many areas, such as earning higher grades, completing projects at work more quickly that produce a better result or are more effective, etc but they don’t get to the very top. The term started out for women but it often applies to other minorities.

So maybe the sucessful Asians you know have hit the glass ceiling b/c maybe they don’t get to be chief of medicine at the hospital even though they are the best doctor and administrator, or they are really the most effective VP at their company but they don’t get the CEO job, or they are the best lawyer at their firm and make partner but not senior partner but all of them see their white or white male counterparts who by all other measures are their equal or not as good as they are get the top job or the next high-up position but they don’t get that job or when they have the big job they don’t get the same pay as their white counterparts even though they do the same job and work just as hard or harder than everyone else. When it happens often enough to those types of people in my example and their fellow Asian colleagues, friends, family and loved ones it becomes clear that it isn’t just bad luck. Sometimes anyone, white people and men included, get passed over for something despite being the most qualified but when it always happens to you and people who look like you, it is discrimination, more gentle than other kinds because there is some success and reward for their efforts but not all they deserve. So all of that is to say that your very successful friends may have hit that ceiling but you’ve just not noticed it or been aware of it.

Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 11:53 pm ¶
gal wrote:

Honestly, this is no news to me. I’ve known for a LONG time that Asian-Americans are short-changed. Yes, a portion of Asian-americans are rich and well educated. However, if these educated Asian-Americans were white, they would earn even MORE money. Well educated asian-americans earn more than the general population, however, in comparison to whites with the same degrees, they STILL earn less.

And when I was in high school, this Chinese-American girl told our white teacher that “Asians haven’t been minorities in a long time” when he commented that Asians don’t get affirmative action. And I was kind of annoyed at her because her attitude is exactly what contributes to the perpetuation of the status quo. Even when I was very young, I’ve ALWAYS wondered WHY IT IS that Asian-Americans get advanced degrees in large numbers and yet we never see any Asian-Americans in the very top tier of society? We don’t see Asian-Americans as CEOs, or bosses (unless they own their own business), or politicians, or tenured professors. We DO however see a ton of Asian-Americans working in lower level technical jobs that while high-paying and white collar, is still at the very bottom of the corporation ladder. Since the 1800’s, whites have said that the Asians in this country are hard working but not leadership material. Unfortunately, this stereotype has persisted until today, just without the racist language. You can tell this stereotype exists because Asian-Americans are hired quite easily but they never get promoted beyond a certain level.

And in addition, all of society’s focus on the Asian-Americans that are doing relatively well means they get to ignore all the Asian-Americans who need assistance. Basically, Asian-Americans are not as “privileged” as people would like to believe.

Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 8:52 am ¶
RJG wrote:

This is a semi-tangent-but-semi-related but I’m disappointed that the graphic novel shown at the start of the article wasn’t discussed! I really liked reading American Born Chinese.

Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 2:39 pm ¶
Elton wrote:

@ gal

Hallelujah! Someone gets it. The question is, what are we going to do about the bamboo/glass ceiling?

Though my parents work way too hard for next to nothing in terms of money, power, and respect, they would never say they need “assistance.” Part of our pride as working-class Chinese is that we make an honest living and do whatever it takes to get the job done–no excuses, no shortcuts, no unions, no welfare. When our people came to this country, no one gave us a fair chance, so we said we would pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and work ten times as hard as anyone else. Now, some of us have achieved some measure of success, but we are not there yet as a people. And even if every last one of us becomes equal, we won’t have made a single step if we forget our hard-working roots and the obstacles and injustice we had to fight through.

Working-class immigrants like my parents don’t need help and they don’t have themselves to blame for any ceilings. It’s racism, discrimination, prejudice, and other social injustices that are the problem–we just need to keep on trucking because we are righteous.

Posted 19 Dec 2008 at 6:12 pm ¶