Representation Matters? Amy Chua and the Fallacy of the Diverse Elite

Image description: Amy Chua sits between two white men, talking. /end description

Over the past decade, Yale Law School professor Amy Chua has cultivated her reputation as a controversial figure. From her infamous book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother to her op-ed in the Wall Street Journal lauding Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women,” Chua has not been shy about sharing her beliefs and confronting her critics. Most recently, Chua wrote an open letter to YLS addressing her removal as a small group leader. In the letter, she denied accusations that she continued to host private dinner parties for students in the home she shares with her husband, Jed Rubenfeld, who is on academic suspension following a sexual harassment investigation. Additionally, Chua released nearly 60 pages of emails she received from students and alums supporting her and asking the law school to reinstate her role, including a few from students of color describing Chua as a mentor and much-needed representation in a majority white male faculty, especially in the wake of increased anti-Asian hate. However, although Amy Chua is an Asian woman and one of the few women of color on the YLS faculty, what she represents and the values she fosters through her mentorship do not support the Asian female identity, but rather whiteness, patriarchy, and elitism.

Many have questioned the authenticity of these emails in order to discredit Chua, but after reading them all I think they are undoubtedly real, as is the mentorship that Chua has provided to these students. Personally, I find the fact that so many students found Chua to be a great and involved mentor relative to other professors says more about the overall quality of the faculty of YLS than the quality of Chua herself, but regardless of how she compares to others it is clear she has had a positive impact on many students. However, I believe she can be and has been everything the students described (encouraging, a zealous advocate for her students, kind, gracious, empathetic, etc.) while still holding up systems that disenfranchise others. The emails praise Chua as someone willing to advocate for anyone, but by virtue of being a professor in one of the most selective law schools in the country, Chua is mainly helping those who wish to “access the gateways of power and influence,” whether in big firms or prestigious clerkships (p. 52 of emails). This is why those that come into her good graces speak so highly of her while so many others disparage her for the tactics she uses to get herself and those she cares about ahead. There were rumors that she told students Kavanaugh had a "type" of clerk he preferred, but whether or not her advice was this candid it seems that through her mentorship Chua not only opens the door for her mentees to enter a space that is not typically available to them, but teaches them how to navigate once they arrive. In a prestige career such as the law, this type of mentorship is invaluable for those who want to make it to the top, but it is a lesson available to only a few. What Chua is doing isn’t uplifting marginalized communities but rather teaching marginalized individuals how to conform to the white elite, just as she has done.

Discussions around diversity, equity and inclusion, and representation have been missing the point. There is no perfect equation of different identities that will create the ultimate inclusive space and that has never been the point of tactics like affirmative action. Racism is not a problem because it limits an individual’s ability to join the ranks of those in power based on the color of their skin. Racism is a problem because it is used by those in power to create systems of oppression based on skin color. The violence, the gatekeeping, and the glass ceilings are only symptoms of the larger, endemic problem and limiting our treatment to these issues alone will never be radical enough to create the change we need. Diversity initiatives like affirmative action are critical not because they help individuals get ahead or improve the learning environment of white students, but because they attempt to right historical wrongs against whole communities and dismantle systemic racism in higher education. To frame them, as these emails do, as simply numerical goals that “balances perspectives” in elite spaces is antithetical to their entire purpose.

“Representation matters,” as one email rightly stated, but it is not enough (p. 43 of emails). And poor representation is just, if not more, harmful than no representation at all. There are many mentors like Chua who preach conformity and professionalism in order to “make it,” but there is no amount of individual grit and determination that will make marginalized communities any different in the eyes of those who are truly in power. There is no amount of ladder climbing or personal sacrifice or traditional success that will make elite spaces “diverse enough” to overturn oppressive systems. Simply leaving space for marginalized folks in elite spaces is not the path towards equity and Chua does a huge disservice to students of color when she tells them that if they groom themselves enough, if they try hard enough, if they follow the rules, they can be just like powerful white men too. One email noted how Chua “moved heaven and earth” to help the author achieve their career goals and although that might rub people the wrong way, the “prestige culture” of Yale would exist with or without Chua teaching people how to navigate it (p. 58 of emails). While it is true that the culture would exist even without Chua, this kind of mentality is exactly how the small but powerful elite is preserved, just looking a little more colorful than before.