In Willow Lung’s Trespassers? Asian Americans and the Battle for Suburbia, we explored ideas of the model minority and the school system in and around Silicon Valley in California. A model minority is defined as an ethnic group where individuals achieve socioeconomic success at a higher rate than the average population. The reading discussed school systems in terms of demographics and white flight in areas such as Fremont. White people moved out of neighborhoods at high rates because of an influx of Asian people into the community, until it reaches a point where the neighboorhood is almost entirely homogeneously Asian.

In our presentation, we discussed how Asian-American are being “whitened” using the idea of a model minority. We used three excerpts from the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and The Ithacan, to discuss how Asian Americans have been increasingly grouped in with the white population for purposes of “racial preferences.” Lung spoke profoundly of white flight in areas of Silicon Valley, but claimed there was a shift as Asian-Americans became model minorities. Whites were comfortable living with Asians so long as they followed the unspoken expectations set for them. We discussed how this diminishes the experiences of Asain-American people who are a societal disadvantage. We also argued that because white people are determining racial hierarchies, the black and brown people that are lower on the hierarchy and already have stereotypes mapped onto them, have these amplified. Furthermore, these are the people considered “bad minorities,” which has negative impacts on emotional health.

We also viewed school system demographics versus the most important aspects and expectations of a particular school. While white parents look for a liberal arts education for their kids, Asian parents look for strong STEM-focused schools. We discussed our personal experience with demographics versus the topics our high school stressed as the most important. We did this to connect with what Lung explained about the majority of high achieving high schools in the Silicon Valley area were predominately Asian. She attributed this to the culture of the school system in Asian countries. One major question that we asked during our presentation was why we thought that this pattern of schools becoming high achieving after reaching a specific racial majority is not true for black and Hispanic communities? 

We also looked at the racial breakdown of Bowdoin. At Bowdoin, we often hear that our student body is 39% of people of color, but we never see how many of the underrepresented groups made up that 39%. We discussed whether or not we felt that Bowdoin was doing enough to support certain groups that make up the breakdown. We also questioned the choice to include “Non-Resident Aliens” as a section of “students of color,” and if there was a way to make this descriptor clearer. Lastly, we discussed whether or not we felt that Bowdoin’s demographics would change within the next couple of years. 

I was left thinking about how this set up of this school system affects students. This treatment can hurt the emotional health of students of color. There is a reason why black and brown students are the smallest percentage of demographics in the majority of the private schools that we looked at in Trespassers. How would these demographics shift if these students had the same level of support?  Whose responsibility is it to diversify? I was also left thinking about how this relates to the school-to-prison pipeline, where marginalized youth are more likely to become incarcerated due to the poor school systems available to them. It also refers to a topic of the tokenistic fallacy of racism where white people believe that the presence of people of color in influential positions means the eradication of race-based obstacles. The perpetuation of stereotypes surrounding a student of a particular demographic can cause that student to feel an excess of negative pressure. The likelihood of their success then decreases in comparison to their counterparts.

White fragility is a term coined by Robin DiAngelo in her book, White Fragility, and refers to the displays of defensiveness and general lack of comfort shown by white people in regards to discussions of race and racism. The reading discussed a survey of white people, of which 55% felt they had been discriminated against in recent times. It furthermore addressed white privilege and how it is often difficult for white people to admit that they have an inherent and systemic privilege. Lastly, we addressed the idea of white coddling and “white woman tears.” DiAngelo claims that crying is a popular defense mechanism for many white females because it takes attention off of offending actions, and places focus upon consoling.

In our presentation, a major focus question was: who has the right? By this we mean, when it comes to speaking up about racial injustice, especially if the group being discriminated against is not the one that the author identifies with, does the author have a right to speak up about it. We talked about power dynamics, mentioning that it depends on the situation. It was mentioned that in some instances, DiAngelo should not step up because it creates a culture that implies that people of color can not speak up for themselves and need a white person to speak for them. Another argument was that in some instances, it would be appropriate, such as dialogue between two white people, where DiAngelo can and should speak up to combat discriminatory language and actions. 

We also viewed white fragility in the lense of whites being “afraid to be racist.” We observed this through a recent event where a white man in Charlottesville, VA sued a newspaper for writing about his family’s slave-owning past in response to him fighting the removal of a confederate statue. DiAngelo argued that white people feel that the word “racist” is an attack to their moral character. Therefore, whenever the word is used, an automatic defensive stance is taken. We discussed how defensiveness is often a key indicator of white fragility.

We connected DiAngelo’s argument on white woman’s tears to a recent pop culture example. Kendall Jenner’s relatively recent Pepsi ad was particularly controversial because it depicted a police standoff between white cops and a crowd filled with people from underrepresented groups, that was resolved by Jenner handing a Pepsi to a nearby white cop. The video received negative backlash because people felt it trivialized the issue of police brutality and felt Jenner should have known better. Jenner responded by filming a video of her crying in response to the backlash. This event connects to the reading because as DiAngelo argues, crying is often a defense mechanism for white women to distract from the racial insensitivity they have committed. Jenner’s video response placed herself in a victim position, which we found just gives her an excuse to not directly and fully admit that she did anything wrong. This response also feeds into Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s colorblindness. If Jenner does not apologize for the ad, then she doesn’t need to acknowledge that she is privileged. We agreed that this was a terrible response to the advertisement, and a better response would be to recognize that she has a systemic and inherent privilege and to attempt to place a check on that privilege and empathize.

I was left thinking deeply about how this book would change or be perceived if DiAngelo was a woman of color. We talked a bit about this during the discussion, but given how deeply DiAngelo delves into what can be considered “white culture,” could this be done by a woman of color? Would it be as well-received? Does DiAngelo being white, result in a message that better resonates with white people? Lastly, who is this book written for? I was also left thinking about the implications of white solidarity and the sociology of dominance in the workforce since many of the offices DiAngelo was speaking at were predominately white spaces. How can people of color effectively navigate these spaces?