“How insensitive and truly ignorant”: Wall Street Journal Too Many Asians article controversy explained 

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently came under fire over an op-ed titled “Are There Too Many Asians.” The article was written by columnist William “Bill” McGurn and published on Monday, January 26, 2023.

As the piece surfaced online, columnist MGurn, who previously served as the chief speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, was dubbed racist and called out for the racially offensive title of the story.

Many Asian-American activists also pointed out that the headline of the article was “insensitive and truly ignorant,” especially in the wake of the back-to-back Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay mass shooting that left a total of 18 Asians dead:

While the headline of the op-ed is controversial, the content of the story deals with population control in China. The article did not claim that there are “too many Asians” in the world but shared contradicting views about China’s recent population control agenda.

---

A closer look into the Wall Street Journal “Too Many Asians” article

The Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Are There Too Many Asians” shed light on the situation of population control in China. The story began with a reference to Doubleday and their book titled “Too Many Asians,” with the writer saying the book that would “never fly today.”

The writer also shared author John Robbins’ opinion from 1959. At the time, the latter alleged that the West would have to ensure “that fewer Asians were born in the years ahead” in order for “humanity is to have a future.”

In the article, McGurn called Robbins “one voice in a chorus of think tanks, government aid organizations, international development specialists, environmentalists, zero-growthers, doom mongers and do-gooders who all saw population control as the cure for poverty.”

The story also addressed the recent drop in China’s population and how it fell by 850,000 last year, becoming the first recorded drop since the Mao-induced famines of the early 1960s. McGurn argued that the ideas behind population control as a “Western import,” similar to the philosophy of Marxism.

The writer also claimed that China’s declining population in recent years has prompted concerns over a “demographic time bomb.”

However, the op-ed faced major criticism due to the alleged anti-Asian sentiment in the title, with many activists deeming it as “inappropriate” in the wake of the Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay mass shootings.

On January 21, 72-year-old Huu Can Tran killed eleven Asians and injured nine others in a mass shooting at the Star Ballroom Dance Studio in Monterey Park, California. The shooting took place after the Lunar New Year Festival and is being considered the deadliest mass shooting in the history of LA.

A few days later, another mass shooting took place in the coastal city of Half Moon Bay where suspect Chunli Zhao killed nearly seven individuals. The majority of the victims were identified as Chinese-Americans.

As the nation continued to mourn the loss of the individuals, the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed title “Are There Too Many Asians,” for a story about population control in China sparked controversy and was deemed racially offensive on social media.

---

Twitter reacts to Wall Street Journal’s controversial op-ed title

Netizens called out Wall Street Journal over "Too Many Asians" article title (Image via Dr Storm/Twitter)

On January 26, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed about population control in China with a title that read, “Are There Too Many Asians?”

The article was written on the backdrop of Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay mass shootings as well as the increasing anti-Asian violence sentiment in the U.S.

As the story surfaced online, several social media users took to Twitter to call out the headline. While some criticized the writer for his choice of words, others condemned the Wall Street Journal for approving the title:

As reactions continued to pour in online, the Wall Street Journal changed the title of the op-ed to “China and the Population Bomb That Wasn’t.” The publication is yet to address the controversy.