第37回日本奥斯卡得奖名单 蒼井優“独眼”抢镜# Movie - 无限影话
o*e
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 CivilSociety 讨论区 】
发信人: playadelrey (A smile is a curve gets things straight), 信区: CivilSociety
标 题: 美国大学校长里面，亚裔才占1.5%，西裔3.8%，非5.9%
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Dec 19 03:08:40 2013, 美东)
90%都是白人。。。。。
FROM： http://www.racismreview.com/blog/
In an article entitled “Why So Few Asians are College President,” Dr.
Santa J. Ono, President of the University of Cincinnati, indicates that he
finds himself among a very small group of Asian American leaders in higher
education: only 1.5 percent of college and university presidents are Asian
American and 3.4 percent are administrators in higher education. By contrast
, Hispanics comprise 3.8 percent of presidents and African Americans hold 5.
9 percent of these roles. This pattern also holds true for the corporate
sector, such as the low representation of Asian Americans as corporate
officers and members of corporate boards.
Why are Asian Americans so underrepresented in leadership roles? Ono
suggests two major factors at play: cultural differences deriving from home
environments that value preferences for indirect communication, emotional
restraint, and an egalitarian view of power as well as contradictory
perceptions about Asian Americans such as being conspicuous but self-
effacing, hyperambitious but timid. Frank Wu, Chancellor of the University
of California Hastings College of the Law, similarly points out that the
model minority myth transforms positive qualities into negative attributes:
intelligence is seen as lack of personality, family-oriented as clannish,
and hard-working as unfairly competitive.
Ono, however, points to significant new research by Jennifer Berdahl and Ji-
A Min at the University of Toronto that sheds light on the particular
barriers Asian Americans face in leadership roles. Berdahl and Min
distinguish between descriptive stereotypes or generalized beliefs about
what members of different racial groups are like and prescriptive
stereotypes which, when violated, are likely to provoke social disapproval
and backlash. Since East Asians in North America are often descriptively
stereotyped as relatively competent, cold, and nondominant, Berdahl and Min
identify “nondominant” as a prescriptive stereotype that, when violated,
causes negative consequences in the workplace. As a result, when East Asians
remain in subordinate, nonleadership roles, and do not try to assert their
own viewpoints or ideas or take charge, the competitive threat to valued
resources they pose is neutralized. Through a series of four studies, the
research findings reveal that not only did East Asians report more racial
harassment at work than other employees, but, more importantly, those
individuals that violated racial stereotypes were more likely to be the
targets of such harassment. Berdahl and Min report that the negative
responses to dominant East Asians did not depend on gender and appeared to
be unique to this racial minority group.
This promising line of research on prescriptive stereotypes helps explain
the hurdles faced by Asian Americans in their efforts to attain leadership
positions and how these stereotypes can influence their ability to break
through the so-called “bamboo ceiling” or what Sylvia Ann Hewlett calls “
the marzipan layer” just below the upper rungs of power.
The notion of prescriptive stereotypes can also apply to the challenges
faced by other racial minorities and women when they violate expected
stereotypical behaviors and experience backlash. As Santa Ono notes,
unconscious bias may be more difficult to address in academe where
intellectual fairness and rigor are already presumed to be present. In this
regard, he aptly suggests that academe focus some of its energy, acuity, and
empathy toward tearing down existing social and psychological barriers to
success, “particularly those all the more imposing for being invisible.”
Perhaps greater understanding of the influence of prescriptive stereotypes
will provide the opportunity for reexamination of the impact of subtle,
unconscious bias on organizational processes and allow us to develop truly
inclusive definitions of leadership capabilities.
发信人: playadelrey (A smile is a curve gets things straight), 信区: CivilSociety
标 题: 美国大学校长里面，亚裔才占1.5%，西裔3.8%，非5.9%
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Dec 19 03:08:40 2013, 美东)
90%都是白人。。。。。
FROM： http://www.racismreview.com/blog/
In an article entitled “Why So Few Asians are College President,” Dr.
Santa J. Ono, President of the University of Cincinnati, indicates that he
finds himself among a very small group of Asian American leaders in higher
education: only 1.5 percent of college and university presidents are Asian
American and 3.4 percent are administrators in higher education. By contrast
, Hispanics comprise 3.8 percent of presidents and African Americans hold 5.
9 percent of these roles. This pattern also holds true for the corporate
sector, such as the low representation of Asian Americans as corporate
officers and members of corporate boards.
Why are Asian Americans so underrepresented in leadership roles? Ono
suggests two major factors at play: cultural differences deriving from home
environments that value preferences for indirect communication, emotional
restraint, and an egalitarian view of power as well as contradictory
perceptions about Asian Americans such as being conspicuous but self-
effacing, hyperambitious but timid. Frank Wu, Chancellor of the University
of California Hastings College of the Law, similarly points out that the
model minority myth transforms positive qualities into negative attributes:
intelligence is seen as lack of personality, family-oriented as clannish,
and hard-working as unfairly competitive.
Ono, however, points to significant new research by Jennifer Berdahl and Ji-
A Min at the University of Toronto that sheds light on the particular
barriers Asian Americans face in leadership roles. Berdahl and Min
distinguish between descriptive stereotypes or generalized beliefs about
what members of different racial groups are like and prescriptive
stereotypes which, when violated, are likely to provoke social disapproval
and backlash. Since East Asians in North America are often descriptively
stereotyped as relatively competent, cold, and nondominant, Berdahl and Min
identify “nondominant” as a prescriptive stereotype that, when violated,
causes negative consequences in the workplace. As a result, when East Asians
remain in subordinate, nonleadership roles, and do not try to assert their
own viewpoints or ideas or take charge, the competitive threat to valued
resources they pose is neutralized. Through a series of four studies, the
research findings reveal that not only did East Asians report more racial
harassment at work than other employees, but, more importantly, those
individuals that violated racial stereotypes were more likely to be the
targets of such harassment. Berdahl and Min report that the negative
responses to dominant East Asians did not depend on gender and appeared to
be unique to this racial minority group.
This promising line of research on prescriptive stereotypes helps explain
the hurdles faced by Asian Americans in their efforts to attain leadership
positions and how these stereotypes can influence their ability to break
through the so-called “bamboo ceiling” or what Sylvia Ann Hewlett calls “
the marzipan layer” just below the upper rungs of power.
The notion of prescriptive stereotypes can also apply to the challenges
faced by other racial minorities and women when they violate expected
stereotypical behaviors and experience backlash. As Santa Ono notes,
unconscious bias may be more difficult to address in academe where
intellectual fairness and rigor are already presumed to be present. In this
regard, he aptly suggests that academe focus some of its energy, acuity, and
empathy toward tearing down existing social and psychological barriers to
success, “particularly those all the more imposing for being invisible.”
Perhaps greater understanding of the influence of prescriptive stereotypes
will provide the opportunity for reexamination of the impact of subtle,
unconscious bias on organizational processes and allow us to develop truly
inclusive definitions of leadership capabilities.
