Since the rise of anti-Asian rhetoric during the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent affirmative action Supreme Court case heavily centering on Asian American students, discrimination against Asian Americans has become more public than ever [1]. From anti-hate crime legislation to civil rights training, the government has taken an active approach to combating anti-Asian racism in the past five years [2]. However, one area of discrimination has not received nearly as much public scrutiny as it deserves: employment.

For decades, the ‘model minority’ myth has mistakenly characterized Asian Americans as having ‘made it’ in the American economy. Of course, there appears to be a good reason for this belief—Asian Americans have the highest educational attainment, highest median income, and lowest unemployment rate of any racial group, including white Americans [3]. However, like other minorities, Asian Americans continue to face discrimination, especially in employment. This discrimination has particularly manifested in the underrepresentation of Asian Americans in leadership positions throughout Corporate America.

In 2017, there were only 16 Asian CEOs in the S&P 500 compared to 440 White CEOs. Despite making up 6 percent of the country’s population, Asians only represented 3 percent of S&P 500 CEOs. Even in fields where Asians are over-employed, they are still largely absent from leadership positions. In the legal field, Asians comprise 11 percent of associates, but only 3 percent of partners. In technology, where Asians are the most likely racial group to be hired—comprising over 30 percent of the workforce—Asians are the least likely group to be promoted to senior leadership positions, accounting for fewer than 15 percent of executives [4]. Even in the federal government, Asians make up 5.8 percent of the workforce but only 3.5 percent of executives [5].

Although experts have posed many explanations for this phenomenon, most look to differences in leadership attainment between East Asians and South Asians for answers. Of the 16 S&P 500 CEOs, only three were East Asian, whereas 13 were South Asian. Considering the East Asian population is 1.6 times larger than the South Asian population in the U.S., South Asians are clearly overrepresented in corporate leadership compared to East Asians. Many experts attribute this stark difference to cultural differences between the two Asian subgroups. East Asians, influenced heavily by Confucianism, prioritize humility and conformity. In contrast, South Asian cultures more often encourage assertiveness and argumentation. According to implicit leadership theory, individuals are more likely to attain leadership positions if their characteristics align with the cultural prototype leaders. Confidence and assertiveness are both characteristics of the prototypical U.S. leader [6]. In other words, the barriers facing Asian Americans are primarily cultural.

As a result, discourse on Asian employment discrimination has focused solely on Corporate America and its role in expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs for Asian Americans. This focus has largely absolved the government of its responsibility to address this issue, despite the important role the executive branch specifically plays in the regulation and oversight of employment practices. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the bureaucratic agency responsible for investigating allegations of employment discrimination and suing employers who engage in unfair employment practices. They also play an important role in preventing discrimination through training and research [7]. 

Since its creation in 1965, the EEOC has targeted discrimination against a variety of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender minorities. However, due in large part to the “model minority” myth, Asian Americans have been largely neglected by EEOC efforts. Amidst the call for action, many experts have argued that EEOC efforts should focus on Latino and Black populations specifically, who are even more underrepresented in corporate leadership than Asian Americans. Although true, this argument is founded in the same model minority myth that created the barriers to promotional attainment for Asian Americans to begin with. When Asians are viewed as monolithically successful, the EEOC has less incentive to investigate anti-Asian discrimination.

The reality is the government has severely neglected Asian Americans in its anti-discrimination efforts. Since 2003, the EEOC has only filed 20 lawsuits alleging discrimination against Asian American communities [8]. Although better than nothing, Asian Americans still file proportionally fewer charges of employment discrimination with the EEOC than any other minority group. For example, between Fiscal Year 2017 and 2021, Black and African Americans made up 76.3 percent of EEOC charges under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and 84.3 percent of charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On the other hand, Asian Americans only made up 7.3 and 4.0 percent of charges under the EPA and Title VII respectively [9]. Indeed, the process can be financially and emotionally draining, but experts claim that the real factor holding Asian Americans back is their lack of knowledge about equal protection and labor rights [10]. 

African Americans have a proportionally higher rate of filing allegations with the EEOC, largely because the Civil Rights Movement instilled an understanding that employment discrimination is wrong, illegal, and intolerable. This zero-tolerance culture has translated into an increased willingness to file EEOC complaints [11]. Asian Americans have not developed this same culture. If anything, the East Asian culture of conformity discourages Asian Americans from pursuing EEOC complaints.

Therefore, the first step in addressing the bamboo ceiling and discriminatory employment practices involves targeted outreach and education campaigns. Teaching the Asian American community about labor rights and the mechanisms for enforcing anti-discrimination laws would banish some of the inhibitive stigmas and cultural stereotypes surrounding employment discrimination. A stronger understanding of the benefits of EEOC litigation would increase the willingness of Asian Americans to file complaints with the EEOC and help the federal government better address instances of discriminatory promotional practices.

Federal regulators also need to attempt to increase trust with the Asian American community. In the year following the September 11 terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center in 2001, the EEOC received 488 complaints of discharge and harassment from South Asians and 497 charges based on Muslim religion, a more than 100 percent increase from the previous year. This is largely because the government and media vocally opposed the discrimination that followed the 9/11 attacks, so South Asians trusted that the government would be more sympathetic to their EEOC complaints [12]. The same level of trust needs to be built with other Asian groups, especially East Asians. 

The final change necessary to address inequities in corporate America’s promotion practices is focused research on Asian American struggles specifically. In 1995, Title II of the Civil Rights Act created a Federal Glass Ceiling Commission to combat the barriers women face in achieving senior management and CEO positions. This commission conducted focused research and offered policy recommendations to business and government leaders, including strengthening the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and increasing the disclosure of diversity data [13]. A similar commission should be created aimed at addressing the bamboo ceiling. 

However, an effective commission requires effective EEOC data collection capabilities. Currently, many workforce data analyses combine the Asian category with other racial groups such as Pacific Islanders or Whites [14]. This aggregation of several data points under one label significantly limits Asian Americans’ visibility in labor research. 

Even when categorized separately, the Asian American label is too broad to reflect useful data. The Census Bureau defines “Asian” as “people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent” [15]. This label covers the most diverse racial group in the U.S., comprising dozens of distinct ethnic groups. Grouping all Asians together fails to account for drastic differences in the experiences of these ethnic subgroups. The substantial overrepresentation of South Asians compared to East Asians in corporate leadership highlights the deficiencies of the Asian American label. 

To gain more specific insights into the bamboo ceiling, the government should disaggregate Asian American data when completing labor research. The EEOC should also disaggregate Asian data on the EEO-1 form, which requires private-sector employers to report their workforce demographics [16]. Lumping the inherently differing experiences of the diverse Asian American population leads to the false assumption that all Asians are ‘doing fine.’ Disaggregating Asian American data provides an important means of addressing this research shortcoming. 

The U.S. government has enough resources to address discrimination in all its forms—but their failure to do so is just a matter of allocation. Historically, Asian Americans have been passed up by government agencies in the fight against racial discrimination. Now is the time to change that.