The social position of multiracial groups in the United States: evidence from residential segregation

Posted in Articles, Census/Demographics, New Media, Social Science, United States on 2011-03-29 01:42Z by Steven

The social position of multiracial groups in the United States: evidence from residential segregation

Ethnic and Racial Studies
Volume 34, Issue 4 (April 2011)
pages 707-729
DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2010.527355

Pamela R. Bennett, Assistant Professor of Sociology
Johns Hopkins University

I use multiple perspectives on the racial order in the United States to generate hypotheses about the social position of mixed-race groups. Perspectives that view the racial order as binary, ternary with an undifferentiated middle, or ternary with a stratified middle present different expectations for the social position of multiracial groups. I use a group’s level of residential segregation as an index of social position. In 2000, multiracial persons lived in neighbourhoods that were more white than the neighbourhoods of single-race minorities, though more diverse than the neighbourhoods of whites. Thus, multiracial groups appear to occupy an intermediate social position relative to blacks and whites, a finding that supports contemporary arguments about shifting colour-lines in the United States and the emergence of a triracial system of stratification. Yet, findings also suggest that the social space between blacks and whites is, itself, racially stratified.

Read or purchase the article here.

Tags: , ,

Census Bureau Reports Final 2010 Census Data for the United States

Posted in Articles, Census/Demographics, Louisiana, Media Archive, Mississippi, Texas, United States, Virginia on 2011-03-25 02:15Z by Steven

Census Bureau Reports Final 2010 Census Data for the United States

United States Census Bureau
Census 2010
2011-03-24

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics have been released for communities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. These data have provided the first look at population counts for small areas and race, Hispanic origin, voting age and housing unit data released from the 2010 Census. With the release of data for all the states, national-level counts of these characteristics are now available.

For each state, the Census Bureau will provide summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age for multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts.

According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011.

Highlights by Steven F. Riley

  • The United States population (for apportionment purposes)  is 308,745,538. This represents a 9.71% increase over 2000.
  • The U.S. population including Puerto Rico is 312,471,327.  This represents a 9.55% increase over 2000.
  • The number of repondents (excluding Puerto Rico) checking two or more races (TOMR) is 9,009,073 or 2.92% of the population. This represents a 31.98% increase over 2000.
  • The number of repondents (including Puerto Rico) checking TOMR is 9,026,389 or 2.89% of the population.  This represents a 29.23% increase over 2000.
  • Hawaii has the highest TOMR response rate at 23.57%, followed by Alaska (7.30%), Oklahoma (5.90%) and California (4.87%).
  • California has the highest TOMR population at 1,815,384, followed by Texas (679,001), New York (585,849), and Florida (472,577).
  • Mississppi has the lowest TOMR response rate at 1.15%, followed by West Virginia (1.46%),  Alabama (1.49%) and Maine (1.58%).
  • Vermont has the lowest TOMR population at 10,753, followed by North Dakota (11,853), Wyoming (12,361) and South Dakota (17,283).
  • South Carolina has the highest increase in the TOMR response rate at 100.09%, followed by North Carolina (99.69%), Delaware (83.03%) and Georgia (81.71%).
  • New Jersey has the lowest increase in the TOMR response rate at 12.42%, followed by California (12.92%), New Mexico (16.11%), and Massachusetts (17.81%).
  • Puerto Rico has a 22.83% decrease in the TOMR response rate and New York has a 0.73% decrease in the TOMR response race.  No other states or territories reported decreases.
2010 Census Data for “Two or More Races” for States Above
# State Total Population Two or More Races (TOMR) Percentage Total Pop. % Change from 2000 TOMR % Change from 2000
1. Louisiana 4,533,372 72,883 1.61 1.42 51.01
2. Mississippi 2,967,297 34,107 1.15 4.31 70.36
3. New Jersey 8,791,894 240,303 2.73 4.49 12.42
4. Virginia 8,001,024 233,400 2.92 13.03 63.14
5. Maryland 5,773,552 164,708 2.85 9.01 59.00
6. Arkansas 2,915,918 72,883 2.50 9.07 59.50
7. Iowa 3,046,355 53,333 1.75 4.10 67.83
8. Indiana 6,483,802 127,901 1.97 6.63 69.02
9. Vermont 625,741 10,753 1.71 2.78 46.60
10. Illinois 12,830,632 289,982 2.26 3.31 23.38
11. Oklahoma 3,751,351 221,321 5.90 8.71 41.89
12. South Dakota 814,180 17,283 2.12 7.86 70.18
13. Texas 25,145,561 679,001 2.70 20.59 31.93
14. Washington 6,724,540 312,926 4.65 14.09 46.56
15. Oregon 3,831,074 144,759 3.78 11.97 38.20
16. Colorado 5,029,196 172,456 3.43 16.92 41.14
17. Utah 2,763,885 75,518 2.73 23.77 60.01
18. Nevada 2,700,551 126,075 4.67 35.14 64.96
19. Missouri 5,988,927 124,589 2.08 7.04 51.82
20. Alabama 4,779,736 71,251 1.49 7.48 61.28
21. Hawaii 1,360,301 320,629 23.57 12.28 23.63
22. Nebraska 1,826,341 39,510 2.16 6.72 64.95
23. North Carolina 9,535,483 206,199 2.16 18.46 99.69
24. Delaware 897,934 23,854 2.66 14.59 83.03
25. Kansas 2,853,118 85,933 3.01 6.13 52.10
26. Wyoming 563,626 12,361 2.19 14.14 39.15
27. California 37,253,956 1,815,384 4.87 9.99 12.92
28. Ohio 11,536,504 237,765 2.06 1.59 50.59
29. Connecticut 3,574,097 92,676 2.59 4.95 23.82
30. Pennsylvania 12,702,379 237,835 1.87 3.43 67.23
31. Wisconsin 5,686,986 104,317 1.83 6.03 55.94
32. Arizona 6,392,017 218,300 3.42 24.59 48.98
33. Idaho 1,567,582 38,935 2.48 21.15 52.04
34. New Mexico 2,059,179 77,010 3.74 13.20 16.11
35. Montana 989,415 24,976 2.52 9.67 58.78
36. Tennessee 6,346,105 110,009 1.73 11.54 74.32
37. North Dakota 672,591 11,853 1.76 4.73 60.22
38. Minnesota 5,303,925 125,145 2.36 7.81 51.25
39. Alaska 710,231 51,875 7.30 13.29 51.92
40. Florida 18,801,310 472,577 2.51 17.63 25.58
41. Georgia 9,687,653 207,489 2.14 18.34 81.71
42. Kentucky 4,339,367 75,208 1.73 7.36 77.20
43. New Hampshire 1,316,470 21,382 1.62 6.53 61.81
44. Michigan 9,883,640 230,319 2.33 -0.55 19.70
45. Massachusetts 6,547,629 172,003 2.63 3.13 17.81
46. Rhode Island 1,052,567 34,787 3.30 0.41 23.14
47. South Carolina 4,625,364 79,935 1.73 15.29 100.09
48. West Virginia 1,852,994 27,142 1.46 2.47 71.92
49. New York 19,378,102 585,849 3.02 2.12 -0.73
50. Puerto Rico 3,725,789 122,246 3.28 -2.17 -22.83
51. Maine 1,328,361 20,941 1.58 4.19 65.58
52. District of Columbia 601,723 17,316 2.88 5.19 71.92
Total (with Puerto Rico) 312,471,327 9,026,389 2.89 9.55 29.23
U.S. Population 308,745,538 9,009,073 2.92 9.71 31.98

Tables compiled by Steven F. Riley. Source: United States Census Bureau

2000 Census Data for “Two or More Races” for States Above
# State Total Population Two or More Races (TOMR) Percentage
1. Louisiana 4,469,976 48,265 1.08
2. Mississippi 2,844,658 20,021 0.74
3. New Jersey 8,414,250 213,755 2.54
4. Virginia 7,078,515 143,069 2.02
5. Maryland 5,296,486 103,587 1.96
6. Arkansas 2,673,400 35,744 1.34
7. Iowa 2,926,324 31,778 1.09
8. Indiana 6,080,485 75,672 1.24
9. Vermont 608,827 7,335 1.20
10. Illinois 12,419,293 235,016 1.89
11. Oklahoma 3,450,654 155,985 4.52
12. South Dakota 754,844 10,156 1.35
13. Texas 20,851,820 514,633 2.47
14. Washington 5,894,121 213,519 3.62
15. Oregon 3,421,399 104,745 3.06
16. Colorado 4,301,261 122,187 2.84
17. Utah 2,233,169 47,195 2.11
18. Nevada 1,998,257 76,428 3.82
19. Missouri 5,595,211 82,061 1.47
20. Alabama 4,447,100 44,179 0.99
21. Hawaii 1,211,537 259,343 21.41
22. Nebraska 1,711,263 23,953 1.40
23. North Carolina 8,049,313 103,260 1.28
24. Delaware 783,600 13,033 1.66
25. Kansas 2,688,418 56,496 2.10
26. Wyoming 493,782 8,883 1.80
27. California 33,871,648 1,607,646 4.75
28. Ohio 11,353,140 157,885 1.39
29. Connecticut 3,405,565 74,848 2.20
30. Pennsylvania 12,281,054 142,224 1.16
31. Wisconsin 5,363,675 66,895 1.25
32. Arizona 5,130,632 146,526 2.86
33. Idaho 1,293,953 25,609 1.98
34. New Mexico 1,819,046 66,327 3.65
35. Montana 902,195 15,730 1.74
36. Tennessee 5,689,283 63,109 1.11
37. North Dakota 642,200 7,398 1.15
38. Minnesota 4,919,479 82,742 1.68
39. Alaska 626,932 34,146 5.45
40. Florida 15,982,378 376,315 2.35
41. Georgia 8,186,453 114,188 1.39
42. Kentucky 4,041,769 42,443 1.05
43. New Hampshire 1,235,786 13,214 1.07
44. Michigan 9,938,444 192,416 1.94
45. Massachusetts 6,349,097 146,005 2.30
46. Rhode Island 1,048,319 28,251 2.69
47. South Carolina 4,012,012 39,950 1.00
48. West Virginia 1,808,344 15,788 0.87
49. New York 18,976,457 590,182 3.11
50. Puerto Rico 3,808,610 158,415 4.16
51. Maine 1,274,923 12,647 0.99
52. District of Columbia 572,059 13,446 2.35
Total (with Puerto Rico) 285,230,516 6,984,643 2.45
  United States 281,421,906 6,826,228 2.43

Tables compiled by Steven F. Riley.  Source: United States Census Bureau

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Media Advisory — Census Bureau Director to Discuss Redistricting Data, Center of Population and 2010 Census Briefs

Posted in Census/Demographics, Media Archive, United States on 2011-03-24 12:23Z by Steven

Media Advisory — Census Bureau Director to Discuss Redistricting Data, Center of Population and 2010 Census Briefs

National Press Club, 13th floor
First Amendment Lounge
529 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20045
2011-03-24, 18:00-19:00Z (14:00-15:00 EDT)

Robert M. Groves, Director
U.S. Census Bureau

Nicholas A. Jones, Chief, Racial Statistics Branch, Population Division
U.S. Census Bureau

Marc J. Perry, Chief, Population Distribution Branch, Population Division
U.S. Census Bureau

U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert M. Groves will brief the media on 2010 Census news, releases and products. Groves will discuss quality indicators and the completion of all releases of 2010 Census redistricting data, and he will announce the site of the new national mean center of population. The briefing will include the release of the first two 2010 Census briefs—population distribution, and race and ethnicity—and a question-and-answer session.

Online Press Kit:
Event materials will be posted online shortly after the event begins and can be accessed by clicking on the 2010 Census Operational Press briefing at http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/operational-press-briefing/.

Webcast:
There will be a live webcast of the briefing, accessible at at 2 p.m. EDT on event day.  At: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=77517.

For more information, click here.

Tags: , ,

The Sociological Implications of Demographic Diversity

Posted in Books, Census/Demographics, Chapter, Media Archive, Social Science, United Kingdom, United States on 2011-03-24 01:18Z by Steven

The Sociological Implications of Demographic Diversity

Michael Banton, Emeritus Professor of Sociology
Univeristy of Bristol

from

Atlantic Crossings: International Dialogues on Critical Race Theory
C-SAP Monograph Series
2011
283 pages
ISBN: 1 902191 47 1
Edited by: Kevin Hylton, Shirin Housee, Andrew Pilkington & Paul Warmington
pages 154-175
Read the entire book here.

Any consideration of the relevance to the United Kingdom of Critical Race Theory should take account of the special factors in the USA that stimulated and shaped the character of the movement. It should also acknowledge the distinction between social theory and social practice. Social practice has usually to be considered within the frameworks of national institutions, whereas social theory has to promote comparison within and between societies.

In comparing practice in different countries, it is essential to allow for the way in which decisions taken at one point in time limit the alternatives that are available subsequently. Economists and political scientists analyze this limitation as a sign of path dependence. The influence of path dependence upon developments in five states, the USA, France, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom, will be summarised. With creation of the Council of Europe (COE) and the European Union (EU), all five are adopting common policies.

Path dependence

The course of US history was profoundly influenced by an `unthinking decision‟ whereby, as a clergyman complained in 1680, `these two words, Negro and Slave‟ are `by custom grown Homogeneous and Convertible‟ (Jordan 1968:44, 97). The division of the population into blacks and whites established the framework for chattel slavery. To a later generation (e.g. Gross 2008) it appears as if whites in the USA prior to the civil war of 1861-65 thought of their relations with blacks in the terms now known as `racial‟, but in the early decades of that century whites represented blacks as culturally rather than biologically backward and justified slavery primarily on the grounds that it was authorized by the Bible. It was the abolition of slavery that led them to take up doctrines of inherent black inferiority. This change provided the intellectual framework for post-emancipation segregation, and for the power structure that confronted the Civil Rights movement of the nineteen-sixties. That movement further polarized relations between blacks and whites in order thereby to reduce segregation. Because by the nineteen-eighties it appeared as if the gains of the civil rights era were being cut back, the critical legal studies movement was born in the law schools; it developed into Critical Race Theory, which is a movement rather than a theory, and which held its first conference in 1989.

The continuing influence of the black-white division was evident in the US Census of 2000. Question 5 asked `Is this person Spanish / Hispanic / Latino?‟ and required the person answering to tick an appropriate box. Question 6 asked `What is this person‟s race?‟ and offered a set of boxes, beginning with three categories: `White‟, `Black, African Am., or Negro‟ and `American Indian or Alaska Native‟. Question 6 had its origins in a time when attention focused on the categories black and white. Public discourse perpetuates the dichotomy, as if persons of mixed origin and intermediate colour were anomalies. The inauguration of a President who is of equally black and white origin, and of intermediate colour, may help undermine the tendency for the word race to evoke an obsolete conception of distinct social categories…

Read the entire chapter here.

Tags: , , , , ,

American Identity in the Age of Obama

Posted in Barack Obama, Census/Demographics, Identity Development/Psychology, Live Events, Media Archive, Politics/Public Policy, Social Science, United States on 2011-03-21 21:36Z by Steven

American Identity in the Age of Obama

Northeastern University
Amilcar Cabral Center in the John D. O’Bryant African American Institute
Boston, Massachusetts
Friday, 2011-03-25, 08:30-15:30 EDT (Local Time)

The election of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States has opened a new chapter in the country’s long and often tortured history of inter-racial and inter-ethnic relations. Many relished in the inauguration of the country’s first African American president—an event foreseen by another White House aspirant, Senator Robert Kennedy, four decades earlier. What could have only been categorized as a dream in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education was now a reality. Some dared to contemplate a post-racial America. Still, soon after Obama’s election a small but persistent faction questioned his eligibility to hold office; they insisted that Obama was foreign-born. Following the Civil Rights battles of the 20th century hate speech, at least in public, is no longer as free flowing as it had been. Perhaps xenophobia, in a land of immigrants, is the new rhetorical device to assail what which is non-white and hence un-American. Furthermore, recent debates about immigration and racial profiling in Arizona along with the battle over rewriting of history and civics textbooks in Texas suggest that a post-racial America is a long way off. Indeed, in his 1995 book, Dreams from My Father, Obama observed both how far we have come and how far we yet to traverse.

This conference will provide an opportunity to discuss changing and persistent notions of American identity in the Age of Obama. What roles do race, ethnicity, ancestry, immigration status, locus of birth play in the public and private conversations that defy and reinforce existing conceptions of what it means to be American?

Morning Session 08:30 – 12:00 EDT

Paper 2: “The First Black President?: Cross-racial Perceptions of Barack Obama’s Race”

Matthew Hunt, Associate Professor of Sociology
Northeastern University

David C. Wilson, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Relations
University of Delaware

Barack Obama’s ancestry can aptly be described as racially-mixed given his “black” Kenyan father and “white” American mother. At the same time, Obama self-identifies as African American and is widely regarded as the country’s first black president. These latter facts, of course, stem from the socially constructed nature of racial identities, America’s malevolent racial history and pattern of racial formation (think “one drop rule”), and (related) contemporary patterns of racial classification and experience. Nonetheless, the nature of Obama’s racial status does not go uncontested in the public arena. African Americans have questioned Obama’s racial authenticity (“Is he Black enough?”). And, among many whites, Obama is seen as something other than truly “black” – a fact that made him more palatable to whites as a candidate and likely contributed to his electoral success. These issues all point to the importance of understanding how and why people view Barack Obama as occupying one or another racial status/category in America. This paper explores these issues empirically via an analysis of 2009 polling data from the Pew Research Center’s “Racial Attitudes in America II” project (N = 2,850). Our analyses center on whether Obama is seen as “black” or “mixed race.” Specifically, we explore how a host of factors – including demographics, concerns about Obama’s political focus on Whites and Blacks, perceptions of discrimination, perceptions of the nature of Obama “values, racial stereotypes, and respondents” own racial identities (including a “mixed race” option) – shape how the public views the President in terms of race. In so doing, we hope to shed light on the ways in which persons’ social locations, identities, and views on racial and societal issues contribute to how Obama’s racial status is constructed by the lay public.

Paper 3: “Racial Identification in a Post Obama era: Multiracialism, Immigration and Identity Choice”

Natalie Masuoka, Assistant Professor of Political Science
Tufts University

In 2008, 2.2% of Americans identified with two or more racial categories. Indeed, assertions of non-traditional identities evoking a mixed race (or multiracial) back-ground are more prevalent in society today, particularly among younger generations. The rise of multiracial identification is indicative of new social norms that govern racial identification which offer a more inviting environment for individuals to assert multiracial identities. Yet, as a trend of multiracial self-identification grows, it demands the attention of those that self-identify with the established racial categories, such as white or black, who must then consider and respond to these identities. I anticipate that response to multiracial identities will vary by racial background. As a general pattern, I argue that whites tend to interpret multiracial identities with normative optimism about U.S. race relations while racial minorities generally respond more unfavorably to the assertions of these identities. Because of this, racial minorities will be more critical of multiracial identities and challenge the legitimacy of these identities. Using recent public opinion data, I examine the relationship between views on multiracial identities and other racial and political attitudes and compare how this relationship may differ across whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians.

For more information, click here.

Tags: , , ,

Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Hold Webinar Prior to Release of Center of Population and First Two 2010 Census Briefs

Posted in Audio, Census/Demographics, Live Events, Media Archive, United States on 2011-03-21 19:26Z by Steven

Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Hold Webinar Prior to Release of Center of Population and First Two 2010 Census Briefs

2011-03-22, 18:00Z (14:00 EDT)

Karen Humes, Assistant Division Chief
Special Population Statistics, Population Division

Nicholas A. Jones, Chief, Racial Statistics Branch
Population Division

Roberto R. Ramirez, Chief, Ethnicity and Ancestry Branch
Population Division

The U.S. Census Bureau will hold a media webinar prior to the March 24 release of the final states redistricting data, national mean center of population and release of 2010 Census Briefs on population distribution and race and ethnicity. Reporters will learn the background on race and Hispanic origin concepts and the types of race and ethnic data that will be reported in the upcoming 2010 Census releases.

The webinar will consist of a simultaneous audio conference and online presentation. Reporters will be able to ask questions during the audio conference once the presentation is complete.

Details:
Audio conference — access information
Toll free number: 888-324-7210
Participant passcode: CENSUS
Questions and answers are limited to media

Online presentation — access information

Please login early, as some setup is required:
URL: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join/
Conference number: PW6204276
Audience passcode: CENSUS

Tags: , , , ,

Census serves up racial buffet in Silicon Valley

Posted in Articles, Census/Demographics, Media Archive, Politics/Public Policy, Social Science, United States on 2011-03-21 19:19Z by Steven

Census serves up racial buffet in Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley Mercury News
2011-03-20

Joe Rodriguez

Who are you? What are you?

Sara Phillips, a 20-year-old computer science student from Hawaii at Santa Clara University, just may have the new look of the 21st century. When her 2010 Census form arrived last year, she gazed at the variety of ethnic and racial boxes available to her and selected four: Spanish and Filipino, same as her mother; and Japanese and white from her father’s lineage.

“I always mark as many as I can,” she said.

Choosing from this racial buffet made her one of about 87,300 people living in Santa Clara County who claimed more than one race, according to the latest results released by the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s an increase of about 9,000 from the past decade…

…Advocates, including the Berkeley-based Association of Multi Ethnic Americans, started lobbying for the distinction in the late 1960s, arguing in part that the blending of races eventually would transcend racial divisions. Curiously, some odd bedfellows opposed them.

On one side, cultural conservatives said another racial category would Balkanize America and stifle the dream of a colorblind society. On the other, traditional black, Asian and Native American groups feared the new category would dilute their numbers and political clout.

For better or worse, the mixed-race genie is out of the bottle, said professor Matthew Snipp, a sociologist who heads the Center for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity at Stanford University.

“It’s going to continue to grow, and how fast is anybody’s guess,” he said. At the same time, “It’s still a relatively small part of the population.”

Although he has some Irish blood, Snipp is Native American and marked only that box on his own census form. He said the key issues in the mixed-race question still are alive and meaty.

For example, he said, federal anti-discrimination laws name and protect traditional minority groups, but not multiracial people. The Census Bureau is the only agency that collects such information. When a federal health agency wants to know which racial populations need attention and where, Census Bureau computers assign mixed-race people to one of the traditional racial groups and hands the recoded counts to the agencies.

“The bigger issue is that we still have laws in place to combat discrimination that still exists,” he said…

Read the entire article here.

Tags: , , , , ,

Identifying with Multiple Races: A Social Movement that Succeeded but Failed?

Posted in Census/Demographics, Media Archive, Social Science, United States on 2011-03-21 02:59Z by Steven

Identifying with Multiple Races: A Social Movement that Succeeded but Failed?

PSC Research Report (Report No. 01-491)
The Population Studies Center (PSC) at the University of Michigan
2004
33 pages

Reynolds Farley, Research Professor Emeritus
University of Michigan
Population Studies Center at the Institute for Social Research

Prior to the 1960s, civil rights organizations sought to minimize the collecting of racial information since such data were often employed to deny opportunities to minorities. By 1970, federal agencies and courts frequently used racial information to enforce civil rights laws by ensuring the minorities were appropriately represented in jobs or in schools and that equitable electoral districts were drawn. In the 1970s, advocacy groups struggled over racial definitions. In 1977, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defined official races and mandated the gathering of data about them. A decade later a small but highly effective multiracial movement emerged. They contended that many Americans come from several racial backgrounds and should be permitted to identify with a multiracial category. OMB, in 1997, altered the federal regulations, recognized five major races and gave everyone the option to identify with as many races as the wish.

The Census of 2000 adopted the principle that persons could identify with more than one race. About 2.4 percent–or one in 40–did so. Approximately one-third of these were multiracial because they wrote a Spanish-term for their second race. That is, 1.6 percent of the population or 4.5 million marked two or more of the five major races defined by OMB. White/Other, and White/Indian were the only multiracial groups marked by one million or more.

These innovative multiracial data have not provoked litigation nor bitter controversies as legislatures analyzed census information to reapportion electoral districts. Before to the enumeration, advocacy groups strongly endorsed the use of a multiracial category but they have not highlighted this issue now that data are becoming available from the Census. The multiracial movement succeeded in fundamentally changing the way the government collects racial data but, thus far, there are no great changes in outcomes nor are there prominent pending lawsuit focused on the rights of multiracial.

Read the entire report here.

Tags: ,

Black and White and Married in the Deep South: A Shifting Image

Posted in Articles, Census/Demographics, Mississippi, New Media, Social Science, United States on 2011-03-20 05:20Z by Steven

Black and White and Married in the Deep South: A Shifting Image

The New York Times
2011-03-19

Susan Saulny, National Correspondent

HATTIESBURG, Miss. — For generations here in the deepest South, there had been a great taboo: publicly crossing the color line for love. Less than 45 years ago, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal, and it has been frowned upon for much of the time since.

So when a great job beckoned about an hour’s drive north of the Gulf Coast, Jeffrey Norwood, a black college basketball coach, had reservations. He was in a serious relationship with a woman who was white and Asian.

“You’re thinking about a life in South Mississippi?” his father said in a skeptical voice, recalling days when a black man could face mortal danger just being seen with a woman of another race, regardless of intentions. “Are you sure?”

But on visits to Hattiesburg, the younger Mr. Norwood said he liked what he saw: growing diversity. So he moved, married, and, with his wife, had a baby girl who was counted on the last census as black, white and Asian. Taylor Rae Norwood, 3, is one of thousands of mixed-race children who have made this state home to one of the country’s most rapidly expanding multiracial populations, up 70 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to new data from the Census Bureau.

In the first comprehensive accounting of multiracial Americans since statistics were first collected about them in 2000, reporting from the 2010 census, made public in recent days, shows that the nation’s mixed-race population is growing far more quickly than many demographers had estimated, particularly in the South and parts of the Midwest. That conclusion is based on the bureau’s analysis of 42 states; the data from the remaining eight states will be released this week.

In North Carolina, the mixed-race population doubled. In Georgia, it expanded by more than 80 percent, and by nearly as much in Kentucky and Tennessee. In Indiana, Iowa and South Dakota, the multiracial population increased by about 70 percent.

“Anything over 50 percent is impressive,” said William H. Frey, a sociologist and demographer at the Brookings Institution. “The fact that even states like Mississippi were able to see a large explosion of residents identifying as both black and white tells us something that people would not have predicted 10 or 20 years ago.”… 

Read the entire article here.

Tags: , , ,

Redefining Race and Ethnicity in the US

Posted in Campus Life, Census/Demographics, New Media, Social Science, United States, Videos, Women on 2011-03-18 05:26Z by Steven

Redefining Race and Ethnicity in the US

Voice of America
2011-03-14

Todd Grosshans

The number of young Americans with mixed race and ethnicity is rising real fast in the United States. Many are going to college helping to bridge racial and ethnic divides on campuses nationwide. VOA’s Todd Grosshans takes a closer look on the campus of the University of Maryland just outside Washington DC.

Tags: ,