A Community Defining Itself
by Jude Paul Dizon and Victoria Kim
This piece is a part of our Spark series What are AANAPISIs?
In 2008, federal support for Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs) expanded through the inclusion of AANAPISIs within the reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. The legislative move sustained the initial funding allocated in the previous year under the 2007 College Cost Reduction and Access (CCRA) Act. Beyond federal dollars, the reauthorization recognized Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) as a racial minority by including AANAPISIs in Title III of the Higher Education Act (HEA), the foundational federal program supporting all Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). In what follows, we trace the history of collective advocacy to increase the visibility of AAPIs in higher education through legislative and political efforts.
Calls for federal support of institutions serving AAPI college students were documented as early as the 1980s. Congressmen Robert Matsui and Norman Mineta initially pointed out the exclusion of AAPIs from the 1985 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. AAPIs were not considered a designated minority and therefore not counted in the funding allocation for postsecondary institutions with high enrollments of students of color. It was not until the late 1990s when Washington, DC-based AAPI organizations, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus renewed attention towards AAPIs in higher education. Part of this effort resulted in the White House Initiative on AAPIs (WHIAAPI) and the President’s Advisory Commission on AAPIs, both established via executive order under President Bill Clinton. In 2001, WHIAAPI staff and commissioners put forth an early proposal for AANAPISIs.
Following this recommendation, subsequent legislation was developed by AAPI legislators and allies. In 2002, Representative Robert Underwood (D-Guam) introduced H.R. 4825 to amend the Higher Education Act to include AAPIs in Title III. Representative David Wu (D-OR) later became the primary advocate for AANAPISIs through H.R. 333 and then H.R. 2616, the latter introduced in May 2005. On the Senate side, Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) sponsored a companion bill, S. 2160.
A key tactic in the overall strategy of getting AANAPISIs on the policy agenda was the explicit push to re-frame how the public viewed AAPIs. Sociologist Dana Takagi argues that the polarization of racial politics and the Black/White binary excludes AAPIs from higher education discourse and policy. AANAPISI advocates addressed the omission of AAPIs through highlighting the disparities within the AAPI community. The text of H.R. 2616, for example, asserted that:
The distinct cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, and historical experiences that affect educational attainment of different AAPI sub-populations are often overlooked because programs and policies are based on aggregated data and the assumption that AAPI’s are a monolithic group. The “model minority myth” assumption adversely affects AAPI youth, who are perceived as being academically successful and not in need of outreach, academic support systems, or other support services.
The bill called out the problematic model minority stereotype, which reduces AAPIs to a homogenous group that experiences academic success. AAPIs are a diverse group with subpopulations that face obstacles in educational attainment and socioeconomic mobility. Congressman Wu garnered further evidence for the argument put forth in H.R. 2616 through a report commissioned from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO found AAPI subgroups experience a range of barriers throughout the educational pipeline, which negatively impacts access and persistence in higher education. Barriers include inadequate resources for academic preparation in high school, knowledge of the college application process, ability to pay for college, and employment obligations. Such obstacles are hidden in light of aggregate reporting which depicts Asian Americans as a group with the highest levels of income and educational attainment. Although distinct, Pacific Islanders have historically been lumped with Asian Americans due to government data classification schemes thereby masking the inequalities faced by these communities.
Several structural factors contribute to class stratification among AAPIs. The 1965 Immigration Act led to the influx of immigrants from Asia due to the elimination of quotas. This wave of immigration was composed largely of educated professionals. Later migration included those suddenly displaced due to U.S. actions, such as the war in Southeast Asia. Refugees from countries such as Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam arrived with very little resources, often after having spent several years in refugee camps. Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders experience high rates of poverty and low educational attainment, which have been linked to their histories of colonization by Western nations, including the United States. In addition to historical factors, AAPIs face obstacles in their work lives, such as discrimination in job-seeking and promotion, as well as labor exploitation. In education, AAPI students attending under-resourced schools may have limited support to facilitate English language acquisition, obtain culturally relevant curriculum, and receive counseling to pursue higher education. Although these realities were already known among AAPI scholars, educators, and communities, it was important to shift the perspectives of decision-makers at the federal level to obtain support for AANAPISIs.
Various actors were key in changing the narrative about AAPIs. Vocal supporters within the government played important roles in the formal legislative process. Esther Kia’aina was the chief of staff and legislative director to Representative Underwood, who was the first primary sponsor of this legislative effort. In recounting the strategy behind AANAPISI advocacy, Kia’aina stated, “You don’t create something new that others don’t have because what you want to sell is that this is no different than anything else and it is simply an extension of a privilege that is given to other minority groups.” As an insider to the legislative process, Kia’aina understood a successful strategy would be one that broadens the reach of a benefit the government already provides (i.e. MSI-status and funding) to a community that has been excluded (AAPIs). Equally significant were the policy advocates based in national and local AAPI organizations. These connections between AAPIs who worked in the policy organizations, Congress, and executive branch departments were key to advancing AANAPISIs. For instance, Lisa Hasegawa had served in the executive branch as a WHIAAPI staff member. In 2001, Hasegawa became an executive director for National Center for Asian Pacific American Community Development (NCAPADC) and mobilized community-based organizations to advocate for the AANAPISI designation.
The intended beneficiaries of the legislation also played a role. In Fall 2003, the National Asian American Student Conference (NAASCon), mainly made up of Asian American college students, launched a national campus organizing campaign to lobby for the AANAPISI legislation. Student organizers were sensitive to the minoritized status of Asian American college students and the need for services on several campuses. Once aware of the bill and inspired by the presence of AAPI advocates in the capital, NAASCon leaders were motivated to obtain the same federal support given to existing MSIs on behalf of AAPI college students. The campaign reached 43 campuses, which involved efforts such as encouraging students to write members of Congress, petitioning administrators to support the legislation, and educating other students about the legislation. The organizing effort for AANAPISIs brought together legislators, political appointees and civil service staff, and community advocates. The synergy and dedicated work of this coalition eventually came to fruition when, in 2007, AANAPISIs were created and funded for two years through the CCRA. The CCRA represented the single largest federal investment in higher education since the G.I. Bill through measures such as reforming the national student loan system and expanding Pell grant funding . The timing and significance of the CCRA provided a key policy window for AANAPISIs. The following year, 2008, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act also proved to be opportune timing. Congress had already delayed reauthorization for five years. The visibility and short-term funding allocated to AANAPISIs through the CCRA helped facilitate their inclusion in Title III of the reauthorized Higher Education Act.
Future Research
In this post, we traced the history of collective action that resulted in the successful passage of AANAPISI legislation. In the 12 years since the CCRA, over 170 institutions have been designated as AANAPISIs and 32 institutions have received federal AANAPISI grants to support higher education access and completion among low-income AAPIs. To the extent that AANAPISIs are fulfilling the intended purpose sought by its proponents, we have limited research to aid in our understanding of the policy’s origins. Thus, we offer the following research questions:
- What are the similarities and differences in the policy strategies that have been used to expand Title III of the HEA?
- What was the intended theory of action proponents envisioned with their initial proposal for AAPI-serving institutions and organizations and how did that theory of action change over time?
- What insight does a critical race theory perspective offer to understanding the policy process that resulted in AANAPISIs? And what was the nature of opposition, if any, to AANAPISIs?
- To what extent have the legislative efforts of AANAPISIs refuted the model minority stereotype?
Expanding our knowledge on the origins of the AANAPISI legislation can help to inform postsecondary education policy and practice. As a race-based policy, the AANAPISI history helps widen our understanding of AAPI students’ racialized status in higher education. Until the AANAPISI program, AAPIs were not considered to be a racially minoritized population at the federal level. As a whole MSIs represent one federal intervention for racial equity, however, MSI funding has been unevenly distributed as the AANAPISI case demonstrates. Lessons learned from the additions made to Title III over time can inform future racial equity policies and programs that are holistic and support multiple minoritized communities. Future policy efforts can better anticipate opposition and work early on to generate support to facilitate the approval of policies that are inclusive of AAPIs. Relatedly, an understanding of the theory of change underlying AANAPISIs can inform future collaboration between government agencies, colleges/universities, and community-based organizations in on-going and future work to increase college access and completion, particularly for AAPIs who are first-generation college-bound and from under-resourced communities. A recent example was the 2013 convening between WHIAAPI, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to develop strategies for disaggregated data collection. Bringing together multiple stakeholders invested in AAPI student success can enrich future programmatic, policy, and practice developments.
Lastly, a critical race theory analysis of the AANAPISI policy process can help identify the ways in which bias and structural racism shape the support, or lack of, provided to AAPI college students. For educators and administrators who work with AAPI college students, the history of AANAPISIs can deepen their understanding of the educational, cultural, social, and economic disparities among AAPI subgroups. Institutions can improve how they recruit and retain underrepresented and under-served AAPI students who are not yet on their campuses. With an understanding of the purpose of AANAPISIs, institutions can ensure their policies and practices not only meet the immediate needs of their AAPI students but also contribute to advancing greater equity for AAPI communities more broadly.
Jude Paul Dizon is a research assistant at the Pullias Center for Higher Education and a provost’s fellow in the Urban Education Policy PhD program at USC Rossier School of Education. He has also taught courses in Asian American studies and facilitated intergroup dialogues. Dizon has collaborated extensively with nonprofit organizations and the White Initiative on Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders to advance educational equity.
Victoria Kim is a research associate at the Institute for Immigration, Globalization, and Education and a PhD candidate in Social Sciences and Comparative Education at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests include examining educational practices and programs from early childhood to postsecondary education that supports bilingual, immigrant, minority, and English language learning students with a focus on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
