Asian American Studies 2 : Week 2 Presentation Write-Up

Linnea Patterson

Charlene Chan

Do Won Lee

ASA 2 Section 2

9 April 2017

Presentation Write-Up: Week 2 - Marginalization and Miseducation

Kaozong Mouavangsou’s article “Hmong Does Not Mean Free: The Miseducation Of Hmong Americans” and Linda Trinh Võ’s chapter “Transformative Disjunctures in the Academy” both address the issue of the lack of education and awareness surrounding Asian-American studies. Mouavangsou’s piece questions her own community of the Hmong culture, and how long-standing internal traditions surrounding education, as well as the school system’s lack of instruction on the Hmong people, lead to disparities in attitudes toward education, as well as the extent to which education is completed or taken seriously in this community. Võ’s piece also calls for more light to be shed on the issue of ignorance, in this case surrounding Asian-American and Ethnic Studies, in that these departments in Universities often face heavy scrutiny and as a result struggle to remain viable.

“Hmong Does Not Mean Free: The Miseducation Of Hmong Americans” is Mouavangsou’s self-reflection of her own community of the Hmong. Seeking to understand the variation in attitude towards education in the Hmong community and between genders, Mouavangsou conducted research in Hmong families that addressed these issues, as well as questioned the education system that failed her in educating her about her own culture. Mouavangsou’s investigation into Hmong families offered the conclusion that she suspected, that the Hmong community views Hmong women as more successful in school than Hmong men, due to a number of reasons. Namely, the misinformation or lack of information regarding the Hmong people. Mouavangsou revealed several well-circulated scholarly works that illustrate both negative stereotypes and pure inaccuracies, which leads to the erasure and narrow characterization of the Hmong. The school system is also acknowledged by Mouavangsou for the lack of education she received on her people. Hmong people are hardly addressed in most textbooks, which completely ignores the vast complexity of this group of people. This miseducation leads to division in the Hmong community. In her research, Mouavangsou identifies the internal divisions of the Hmong, such as in gender, and in public spaces, such as the classroom. Although the value of a good education in the Hmong community is heavily emphasized, the divisions caused by the educational system causes the Hmong males to abide by certain “socialized behaviors and stereotypes”, most of them believing that “academic success equates to emasculation” (Mouavangsou 16). Mouavangsou’s study and analysis asks the educational system to empower the Hmong people, rather than erase their identity.

“Transformative Disjunctures in the Academy” recognizes both the fight to create and maintain Asian-American studies departments at higher-education establishments, as well as the institutionalized racism that makes it difficult for many to remain in the academy. In her piece, Võ calls for the normalization of Asian-American studies. Because these programs are often regarded as a “new academic discipline of the intellectual inquiry” (Võ 139), Asian-American studies is often disregarded and delegitimized. Võ sets the tone of her argument by explaining the history and formative years of the Asian American Studies in the context of the political climate of the 1960s and early 1970s. She notes that there is a tendency for multicultural studies to feed into the assimilative “melting pot” narrative of the United States by replacing Ethnic Studies classes, and that “these attempts to co-opt and depoliticize the discipline have been effective in undermining it” (Võ 125). In replacing an Asian Ethnic Studies course with a surface-level exploration of cultures, students are deprived of a course that might provide in-depth cultural and historical context that would be otherwise absent in a largely Western-dominated education system. Thus, the omission of the Asian-American narrative in American history, especially in the political scene and in the context of the civil rights movement, leads to further marginalization of Asian-Americans and feeds into the stereotype of Asians as the model minority: docile and nonpolitical. Even though much scholarly research has been done in this field, the academe does not give it the recognition of a valid domain. This stubbornness and severity of higher-education extends to the individuals in these departments. Võ addresses the constant opposition and discrimination scholars face that leads to them leaving this field: “For many people of color, it is not the intellectual demands of the profession that force individuals the exit the academy, but the hostility of the academe, in all of its psychological effects, that wears them down” (Võ 130). Even accomplished scholars in this field are marginalized by the academe. Võ’s piece is a call to action, for the academe to validate a sphere that has been largely ignored and dismissed, along with the people inside it.

Mouavangsou and Võ’s pieces both address the disregarded groups of the Hmong and Asian-American studies, respectively. Mouavangsou deconstructs the system that shaped her understanding of her own people, one that she realized failed her once her own investigation began. Võ, meanwhile, asks the academe to give recognition to a branch of education that although greatly qualified and established, lacks respect and therefore validity, that other departments do not struggle for. Both pieces question the educational systems surrounding them, in their inability to recognize Asian-Americans, which fails to acknowledge that their experiences are worth studying. Võ highlights that the existence of Asian-American programs is owed to student and community protests. It is only with diligent and constant opposition that the rigid academe was able to be changed. But even so, equality is not achieved, as neo-conservatives argue that Ethnic Studies is “too institutionalized” (Võ 140). Mouavangsou also calls for empowering changes to be made to the educational system, namely to include Hmong history in curriculum. Just like in Võ’s case, however, opposition is faced. Governor Jerry Brown’s original vetoing of an ethnic studies development in California public schools (Mouavangsou 43), further illustrates the oftentimes inflexible nature of institutions.

The obdurate nature of the US government and educational systems to not recognize the Asian-American experience is reminiscent to the lack of representation of Asians in the media. The recent movie “Ghost in the Shell” is a prime example. White actress Scarlett Johansson depicts a Japanese woman who fights terrorists with her cyber-enhanced skills. The movie was a box-office flop, alluding to the notion that the American public is tired of whitewashing in the media. Oscar-winning films that represent people of color, like “Moonlight”, and “Get Out” illustrate that people of color can create and star in critically-acclaimed movies. But, Hollywood, just like the American educational system, is almost immovable and difficult to change. Movies like “Ghost in the Shell” that erase the Asian and Asian-American aspect of the narrative only serve to miseducate the public and marginalize the experiences of people of color.

Both of this week’s texts offer solutions to institutions that have marginalized and undermined Asian-Americans. For Mouavangsou, there is a call for a representation of her culture that has been omitted or misinterpreted by the public school system her whole life. Inaccuracies and misinformation about the Hmong have been spread for years, denying the truth and miseducating the public. The Hmong community was primarily an enigma to me throughout my education, just like in Mouavangsou’s experience. Textbooks’ and teachers’ lack of nuanced and informed instruction on the Hmong people lead to division in their community and a lack of knowledge on the subject. Meanwhile, Võ also addresses her community by attempting to legitimize Asian-American studies programs that have been largely dismissed. Võ attempts to dismantle the ivory tower that is the academy, and to encourage validation of these important educational programs. Both authors implore for changes to be made within their systems that offer equality and education to disenfranchised and disregarded groups of people.