Steve Sailer posted on a story in the NYT about a report on the putative fallacy of perceiving Asians to be the model minority. Half Sigma actually suffered through the report and finds the expected. I’ve little to add, but want to point out this excerpt from the article:
“Certainly there’s a lot of Asians doing well, at the top of the curve, and that’s a point of pride, but there are just as many struggling at the bottom of the curve, and we wanted to draw attention to that,” said Robert T. Teranishi, the N.Y.U. education professor who wrote the report.
If tautologically true, musn’t the Asian mean be identical to the national mean? That, of course, is not the case. What a blatant lie.
Sounds like the strategy is to bring all non-whites into the affirmative action tent. By including Pacific Islanders (categorically separate from Asian even when only five or six race choices are available) who underperform whites with Asians who outperform them, the report is able to give the appearance of more variability than actually exists.
Humorous that the NYU education professor would make the grammatical choice he does. By using “is”, he’s referring to the group of Asians at the top of the curve as a homogenuous group–“a lot”, quite literally. Heterogeneity would’ve been better insinuated by saying “there are a lot of Asians doing well…” But Teranishi’s area of expertise doesn’t appear to be related to the rules of English language usage. As this NYU bio makes clear, his business is the race racket in academia, from a uniquely “Asian American and Pacific Islander” (AAPI) post.
Also, are Pacific Islanders in the US generally thought to enjoy the same levels of success as East Asians in the US do? They don’t. I am not aware of people tending to assume Hmong and Cambodians in the US enjoy the same levels of success as Chinese and Japanese here do. At least the report does dispel that notion (see page 21), for anyone who actually held it.