The model minority myth originated in 1966 in a New York Times article entitled “Success Story, Japanese-American Style.” The article posited that Japanese Americans had achieved success in “sharp contrast to lower class Americans, whether white or negro” [1]. It made the case that “the Japanese … could climb over the highest barriers [America’s] racists were able to fashion.” The purpose was not to laud Japanese Americans or Asian Americans but rather to attempt to decouple the racism and mistreatment directed at other communities of color, particularly Black communities, from the resulting weaker social and economic mobility. That myth – racism can not be blamed for one community's travails if another community was able to overcome those barriers – was the logic suggested. That myth continues today. 
 
I focus on this issue through a unique lens, being both South Asian and Muslim in an America that has had a complicated relationship with brown-skinned Muslim people. Many of the stereotyped characteristics associated with model minorities—higher household incomes, educational attainment, and concentration in lucrative work fields—do apply to South Asian communities like mine. According to 2020 census data, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Sri Lankan Americans all have higher median household incomes and college graduation rates than the national average. [2]. Indians in particular account for “[n]ine percent of doctors in the United States." [2]. 

Some South Asian Muslims have internalized the model minority archetype, as many Asian immigrants have, hoping it can be a means of acceptance into white mainstream society and a way to create stability for their communities and their children [3]. For South Asian Muslims in particular, the pressure to appear “unthreatening” adds another layer of self-policing beyond the expectations of high educational attainment and confinement to specific fields of work [4]. Despite economic success, a “collective precariousness” is documented among South Asian Muslim Americans, “an insecurity akin to that felt by those un(der)employed” [5]. This illuminates the reality that leaning into “model minority” status can not bring about the kinds of stability and inclusion South Asian Muslim Americans seek. 

Our model minority status has not, and will not, protect our communities from abuse when it is politically expedient. The most recent example being the scapegoating of China for the coronavirus pandemic and the uptick in hate crimes against Asian Americans that followed [6]. The Muslim American community, in particular, is no stranger to this reality, given the post-9/11 increase in surveillance and violations of Muslim Americans’ civil liberties [6]. In fact, several of the methods used were the targets of lawsuits, resulting in settlements and admissions of violations of constitutionally protected activities [6, 7, 8]. 

For too long, Asian Americans have believed that if we internalize the model minority myth, we will not only find success in this country, but our communities will be safe from attack. But this is false. Asian American communities are regularly scapegoated, left legislatively unprotected from overreaching civil liberties violations, and, oftentimes, face physical threats of violence because of these factors.

It’s time for Asian American communities to break out of the confines of the model minority myth. It’s time to unite and organize for more representation in this country, to be more vocal in politics, and to support movements for equality and other communities of color who face systemic oppression. As civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer once said, “Nobody's free until everybody's free.”  We do not have to compete with other communities of color for inclusion in this country.  We should join together, with our allies, in the fight for dignity and respect for all underrepresented and marginalized communities.

In today’s world — whether in classrooms or on social media platforms — many people are conflicted and confused by what actually constitutes free speech. That’s why we figured now would be an excellent time to talk about it. We sourced questions over email, our phone line, and social media, and received hundreds of responses from our audience.

After sorting through the questions, we produced a three-part “Ask an Expert” series on our At Liberty podcast channel featuring the ACLU’s Director of Speech, Privacy, and Technology and legal advisor to Edward Snowden, Ben Wizner. Listen below as Ben answers supporter questions about the First Amendment.

Episode 1: What Is Free Speech? 

Here, we get back to the basics with Free Speech 101, addressing hate speech, misinformation, government regulation of corporate speech, cancel culture, and why we defend free speech.

Episode 1: What Is Free Speech?

Episode 2: Is My Tweet Protected Speech?  

What are the rights of social media platforms to control speech online? How are platforms different from a newspaper or a public square? What are my individual rights to post online?

Episode 2: Is My Tweet Protected Speech?

Episode 3: What are My Speech Rights at School?  

Can schools ban books or remove them from their library without warning or review? What are my rights as a student to fight for my right to learn? The Supreme Court addressed student speech online — remind me what happened?

Episode 3: What are My Speech Rights at School?

The ACLU remains committed to defending our fundamental right to free speech. Most recently, the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology team has been working to fight against classroom censorship bills and book bans taking hold in classrooms and libraries nationwide, to defend our right to freedom of expression online, and to support our First Amendment right at the Supreme Court, among other work.

For more from our Ask an Expert series and weekly episodes on today’s most pressing civil rights and civil liberties issues, subscribe to At Liberty wherever you get your podcasts.

In late April, President Biden announced that he would commute the sentences of 75 people, and pardon three others. It was his first act of clemency as president, and a welcome development for those of us in the criminal justice reform world who have been waiting for him to leverage this executive power. The use of that power — which has broad public support — was a good first step. At the ACLU, where we are advocating for the release of 50,000 people from federal and state prisons through our Redemption Campaign, we were heartened to see him take this step. But if the president is to fulfill his commitment to justice and equity, there is a lot more work to be done.

We have reason to hope this administration will continue to take steps in the right direction. Earlier this month, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a former public defender to oversee the office that reviews federal clemency applications. The perspective of Elizabeth Oyer, who represented criminal defendants in Maryland for nearly a decade, is a welcome addition. It’s an encouraging development that a person who has represented people charged with crimes and understands the imbalance of power in federal criminal prosecutions would be the arbiter of relief from that system.

Criminal defense lawyers, and public defenders in particular, understand the power of prosecutors to use their broad discretion to charge people with crimes that drive extreme sentences. This power and how it has been wielded is the reason 98 percent of people charged with a crime opt not to go to trial. The stakes are too high, and the opportunity for relief is minimal outside of the clemency power of the president.

Further, criminal defense lawyers are likely to understand that the elderly and those who were sentenced more harshly than they would be under today’s laws deserve to reap the benefits of changes in sentencing laws. A criminal defense lawyer like Oyer will understand that those charged with violent crimes, especially those who committed the crime before the age of 25, should be given a second chance. The data shows that people age out of crime — including those who commit violent crimes — and that older people who are released are unlikely to reoffend.

Oyer likely also understands that those who do opt to go to trial are severely penalized for exercising that right. After a conviction at trial, defendants face longer sentences than those who plead guilty. Often referred to as the “trial penalty,” the sentence after exercising their constitutional right to trial is exponentially greater.

The Office of Pardon Attorney is one of the only ways for those convicted of a federal crime to obtain relief after appeals have been exhausted. This office determines which cases get reviewed by the deputy attorney general, White House counsel, and ultimately the president. If this gatekeeper brings the perspective and experience that comes with being a public defender, redemption is possible. Oyer has worked in close proximity to the people and families who are most impacted by the criminal legal system, and the actors within that system.

If the new pardon attorney has a willingness to listen to criminal justice advocates, to introduce transparency into the review process, and to dislodge the backlog of applications, there is a chance that clemency is moving in the right direction. Next, we need the deputy attorney general, White House counsel, and President Biden to listen and heed the guidance of someone who understands the criminal legal system from the perspective of those it harms. The appointment of a former public defender is a promising start.