If you're open to it, I could refer you to some books regarding Asian American social issues. Ability has never been the problem. "Motive as a people" is definitely an issue. Lack of political/social activism is totally apparent in the pan-AA community. The attributes you mention (salary, education, etc) is a direct byproduct of a general immigrant mentality brought over from Asia (particularly China, Taiwan and South Korea). I'm glad you mentioned the MMI- while this may seem like a "good" stereotype... it's actually not. Whether you agreed with Affirmative Action or not, the MMI negated a specific minority afforded others- I'm not defending Affirmative Action, just putting into context what MMI actually elicits.
While it's true certain groups excel in education, others (notably SE Asians) have a far different experience (economically). Silly as it sounds, the MMI backlash featured a movement within the UC-system during Affirmative Action's heyday that promoted SE Asians being "excluded" from "Asian American" (just to gain certain advantages unafforded AAs). While the AA (specifically non-SE Asians) may land in a higher tax bracket, the entire group faces a
harder glass ceiling than any social group.
Political apathy permeates the community because of the MMI mentality: Immigrants enter the States, work hard, never "buck" the system, teach their kids the same way. This mentality stems from the Eastern philosophy that group importance always takes precedence over individualism (a Western emphasis). In China, the proverbial "nail that sticks out gets hammered." In America, the same nail often gets rewarded. Is it any wonder why AA social activism pretty much starts and ends within university?
Of course, immigrant parents have huge influence on their children's futures. Many parents believe careers in entertainment, media or politics aren't lucrative/feasible for sustaining successful careers. I believe these fields are the front lines for social change- as generations pass, the representation will naturally increase.
I've spoken with several African American buddies on this point: If a writer published the following line (with no intention of offending anyone), would they be angry: "The Alabama defense played niggardly against LSU." Every single one of them said they would. Technically, "niggardly" is an appropriate description of how the Crimson Tide D played in the 'ship. But it's difficult for me to fathom how a writer or editor (of all people) can't foresee the possible double entendre. Point being, who's to say what constitutes a level of ridiculousness?