Divided by the Wall: Progressive and Conservative Immigration Politics at the U.S.-Mexico Border

Abstract

ing of ‘‘after-school’’ activities, both educational and athletic. Of course, there is something appealing about producing the best and brightest, or, perhaps, best and brawniest. The idea of American youth falling behind other young nationals has been a theme for well over sixty years—a point to which I can attest as a member of the Sputnik generation, where accelerated middle-school science education was the preferred means of fighting the Red Menace. These themes persist. Can America be great again if we cannot spell ‘‘tohuw,’’ even if we don’t know its origin and meaning (Hebrew, chaos)? These feats of memorization might distract us from the education we need. Likewise, does Mathcounts count in an incalculable field of calculators? Such activities surely provide credentials for an unequal society. These claims are grounded in a class and residential analysis that applies beyond the culture of any particular ethnic group. Although this is not Dhingra’s emphasis, the underlying argument also links to battles over the amount of homework that is optimum. High-powered parents, toiling late at their desks, want no less strain—and perhaps no less satisfaction—for their offspring. Some children, as Dhingra’s account demonstrates, take to this life condition with aplomb. As the STEM is bent, so grows the nation. Yet, as becomes clear in the telling, both those who are part of this system and those who are not can be harmed, leading to the stressors of inequality and of over-scheduling. Further, hyper education and the concerted cultivation with which it is associated pose a challenge to teachers, forcing them to compete with parental involvement. Concerted cultivation surely has value in creating a literate citizenry, but it also threatens equality. The third element of this rich analysis is based in a diasporic recognition of ethnic culture. Indian Americans are a model minority, but like Jews of a century past, such a designation contains contradictions. Dhingra paints a detailed picture of life in Indian homes where, in a sense, spelling bees are the entry point to engineering. These engagements produce the discipline of mindedness. To what extent this characterizes Indian culture, I cannot assess; but based on Dhingra’s extended quotations, it fits in the context of South Asian immigrants, although as he emphatically emphasizes some of this is a function of stereotypical beliefs of those outside the ethnic community. His access to a range of candid informants is impressive, although one might have wished for a greater discussion of class differences, caste backgrounds, religions, or regional cultures. Still, Dhingra powerfully portrays a successful and upwardly mobile ethnic group that cares deeply about the success of their children, and—in their rhetoric at least— will only encourage and not demand. Whether they are making the correct choices in emphasizing forms of hyper education with such passion is the question that motivates this theme. One wonders, along with the author, whether such remarkable feats of memorization as success at spelling bees entails will contribute to career goals or whether the champions will look back with regret on their ‘‘misspelled youth.’’ Will they wonder if parental attempts at concerted cultivation sacrificed sociality? Hyper Education is a work that is filled with insight and rich with data. At its heart is that crucial sociological emphasis on counterintuitive arguments and unintended consequences. Children learning more and better and competing happily. What’s not to like? And yet, the very commitment to knowledge that might seem worthy of esteem and embrace can equally—or more than equally—strain its participants and hobble those who cannot engage. Hyper education may be as much a curse as a cure.