Asian Pacific American Caucus

The Asian Pacific American Caucus (APAC) is an American Political Science Association Related Group. Membership of the Caucus is free and open to all interested students, scholars, and practitioners of and on APA politics.  Each year, APAC organizes a panel to showcase cutting edge research on Asian Pacific American Politics at the annual APSA meeting, holds a business meeting, and hosts a reception. 

APAC Discussion Group:

To facilitate exchanges of information and ideas, we maintain an email discussion network. Please visit http://igc.topica.com/lists/apac@igc.topica.com regarding subscription and other matters

---

APAC Leadership:

Co-Chair (2006-08): Dr. Okiyoshi (Oki) Takeda 
Aoyama Gakuin University, JAPAN
otakeda@sipeb.aoyama.ac.jp

Co-Chair (2007-09): Dr. Natalie Masuoka
Duke University
natalie.masuoka@duke.edu

Secretary (2006-08):  Kathy Rim
University of California, Irvine

Treasurer (2006-08):  Kate Fu
University of California, Los Angeles

 

---

APAC and the Status Committee: How They Differ

    We are fortunate to have two groups supporting the interests of Asian Pacific Americans in political science:  the Asian Pacific American Caucus (APAC), and the Committee on the Status of Asian Pacific Americans in the Profession (CSAPA—which I like to pronounce “kuh-zappa!”).  Understandably, there has been some confusion over the relationship between the two groups.  Opinions vary as to the degree to which each group has a similar clientele, and the degree to which each group has a similar mission.

    However, there are some clear formal differences between the two.  Here’s a brief primer.

RELATED GROUPS
    APAC is officially considered to be a “Related Group.”  As such, it has no formal ties to the American Political Science Association, although APSA is willing to let APAC refer to itself as “The Asian Pacific American Caucus of the American Political Science Association.”  As a courtesy, APSA allows Related Groups to use some room space at the annual APSA conference.  The amount of room space—i.e., the number of panels—allocated is based on a complex formula, heavily influenced by attendance, but including other factors as well.

    Being outside of the formal APSA structure has benefits.  For instance, if APAC does not refer to APSA in its title, it can take a formal stand on public issues.  Current APSA policy is that official APSA groups may not take such stands, although individual political scientists are encouraged to do so.  Perhaps more importantly, APAC’s independence allows its members complete control in choosing its leaders and other officers.

APSA COMMITTEES
    The CSAPA is an official APSA committee.  As such, it operates directly within the APSA governance structure.  This also carries significant benefits.  APSA provides a small amount of funding for status committee receptions, the CSAPA is allocated a panel at the annual conference and does not have to worry about losing it due to low attendance, and the status committees are allocated one article per year in PS (although not all status committees use their allocation every year).

    Status committees actions can garner considerable attention at times, since the status committees act in APSA’s name.  For instance, the status committees are working on developing criteria for an award to be given to the American Government textbook which does the best job of covering historically excluded groups.  Publishers of college texts are likely to pay attention to those criteria, since they will come with the APSA imprimatur.

    However, status committees lack the independence of a related group.  All members are appointed by the APSA president, and, while anyone can suggest nominees, the APSA president has the final say.  And, as an APSA entity, status committees would presumably be unable to take official positions on public issues (unless it’s an issue dealing with the freedoms of political scientists).


ORGANIZED SECTIONS
    Although neither APAC nor the CSAPA is an organized section, it may be useful to explain organized sections as well.  Organized sections are parts of the formal APSA structure, with their most important function being to organize the annual conference.  When they act in that capacity, they are formally known as “divisions,” and some of their numbers change slightly:  e.g., the APSA Organized Section on Race, Ethnicity, and Politics is Organized Section #33, but it is Division 32 in the annual conference.  Most panels at the conference are allocated to the organized sections, with the allocation based on the same complex formula that emphasizes attendance but also considers other factors.      Organized sections must maintain a minimum membership of  250 APSA members (related groups are required only to have fifty APSA members), and their funds come from member dues and any other fundraising they undertake—e.g., selling ads in a newsletter.

  Organized sections get considerably more conference panels than do related groups, but they are under the same rules as APSA committees, and have the same restrictions on formal positions on political issues.  The selection of section leaders is less constrained than for status committees, but more constrained than for related groups.  Organized sections have their own bylaws, which specify how the section officers will be chosen.  Organized sections choose one or two persons to serve as their program co-chairs, and these people become part of the official APSA Program Committee that organizes the annual conference.  However, these people must be approved by the APSA president; in practice, the APSA president usually approves the section choice.