Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 11, Number 2, 1 August 1994 — Hawaiians speak out on Directive No. 15 [ARTICLE]

Hawaiians speak out on Directive No. 15

by Patrick Johnston The federal Office of Management and Budget held five hearings in July on proposed changes to Directive No. 15. Two of these were in Honolulu. Most people testifying at the July 18 hearing at Kamehameha SchooIs were individual Hawaiians or members of Hawaiian organizations. All supported changing the native Hawaiian classification from Asian/Pacific Islander to one that more accurately reflected the history and nature of tlie Hawaiian people. Sen. Akaka's aide. Esther Kiaaina, speaking on behalf of the Senator, reiterated his position that native Hawaiians should be included with the "American Indian or Alaskan Native" category. The senator also made clear that he did not support labeling this a "Native American" category. Having the three groups listed individually in the classification description, he felt, would allow for separate statistics to be readily available and "would ensure that the accountability of statistics for eaeh group be preserved." Sen. Akaka also did not support a separate "Native Hawaiian" category. His testimony stated this "would not resolve the misperception" that native Hawaiians are an immigrant group and not one of the nation's native people. With this labeling, he argued, federal agencies "will not recognize Hawaiians as native peoples and will not know what to do with the data." OHA trustee Kīna'u Kamaii'i, speaking on behalf of the board. gave testimony in favor of Akaka's proposals. The changes. she said, "would begin to restore recognition and dignity to living native Hawaiians." "All other Americans" she said, "with the sole exception of African-Americans who were forcibly brought as slaves, freely chose to leave their home Iands and to become American citizens. We did not. We did not eome to America, it eame to us. Our home lands are now part of the United States." Myron Arakawa, the college counselor for Kamehameha Secondary School, explained that the present classification limits native Hawaiian access to university programs, access needed in light of the underrepresentation of native Hawaiians at the college level. He said universities trying to diversify their student population will not actively recruit native Hawaiians

because they are labeled as part of the Asian group whieh is generally "overrepresented" at Amenean eolleges. Arakawa mentioned that Dartmouth University in New Hampshire had looked beyond the directive and had successfuUy incorporated native Hawaiians into recmitment and support programs designed for Native Americans. Changing the directive, he believed, would encourage more universities to do the same. Other groups supporting Akaka's proposal included Bishop Estate/Kamehameha Schools, Alu Like, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs and the Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce. Kamehameha Schools and Alu Like stressed both the importance of thc principle behind changing the classiftcation and how the change - whieh would strengthen the native Hawaiian status as an indigenous group - would help to ensure continued federal support for their programs. At an earlier hearing in Boston, groups that rely heavily on specific native Hawaiian data spoke in favor of a "Native Hawaiian" category. A number of Hawaiians gave testimony at the July 7 hearing including Laura Yim, a researcher at the Harvard Institute for Reproductive and Child Health. Yim said that the present classification for native Hawaiians is not only misleading from a historical and poliīieal perspective but that it is also "problematic for data collection," particularly in the heahh field. She noted that health surveys done at the state level show a "clear difference between the native Hawaiian population's health and the health of other Asian or Pacific Islanders," native Hawaiians coming out significantly worse. She also felt that ihe health needs of Mainland Hawaiians, outside the scope of state surveys, ean never be adequately understood, if their present classification is not changed. Yim however, did not support reclassifying Hawaiians "Native Americans" but instead felt a separate label for native Hawaiians would bring about more accurate reporting.

Federal racial and ethnic categories The basic racial and ethnic categories for federal statistics and program administrative reporting are as follo»s: a: American lndian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identifieation through tribal affiliations or community recognition. b: Asian or Pacific lslander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent. of the Paciftc ls!ands. This area includes, for example, China, lndia, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands. and Samoa. e: Black: A person having origins in any of the racial groups of Africa. d: Hispanic: A person of Mexican, Pueno Rican, Cuban, Centrai or South Ameiiean, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. e: White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middie East. Proposed changes - adding a "multi-racial" category to the list of racial designations so that respondents would not be forced to deny part of their hcritage by having to choose a single categoiy; - adding an "other" category for individuals of multi-racial backgrounds and those who want the option of specifically stating a unique identification; - providing an open-ended question lo solicit infonnation on race and ethnicity, or combining concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry. - including native Hawaiians as a separate category or as part of a "Native American" calegory (whieh would also include Ameiiean lndians, Aleuts. and Eskimos), rather than as part of the "Asian or Pacific Islander" category; - changing the name of the "hlaek" category to African American; - including Hispanic as a racial designation, rather than as a separate ethnic categoiy; and -adding a "Middie Easterner" category to the list of ethnie designations. General criticisms of the changes • Some charge that any idemification of race or ethnicity is sub]ective and should not be used as a "statistical standard." This is especially a problēm for individuals - like many found in Hawai'i - of mixed race or ethnic heritage. • The geographic orientation pf the definitions for racial and ethnic categories has also been brought into question. Here opponents question the accuracy of categorizing individuals merely on the basis of their geographic roots. • There is also eoneem among some federal offtcials that the new listings would destroy the continuity needed to track important statistics of the different racial groups. • Civii rights leaders worry thal a multi-racial category will make it difficult to enforce civil rights and equal opportunity Iaws. • Many question the need for the classifications allogether, arguing that they only perpetuate the emphasis on race in the United States and contribute to the fragmenmtion of its society.