Mixed Race Studies

Race: I’m Just Who I am

Time Magazine
1997-05-05

Jack E. White, Washington

Tamala M. Edwards, Washington

Elaine Lafferty, Los Angeles

Sylvester Monoroe, Los Angeles

Victoria Rainert, New York

His nickname notwithstanding, professional golfer Frank (“Fuzzy”) Zoeller saw Tiger Woods quite clearly. He gazed upon the new king of professional golf, through whose veins runs the blood of four continents, and beheld neither a one-man melting pot nor even a golfing prodigy but a fried-chicken-and-collard- greens-eating Sambo. Zoeller saw Woods, in short, as just another stereotype, condemned by his blackness to the perpetual status of “little boy.”

Zoeller soon paid a price for saying openly what many others were thinking secretly. K Mart, the discount chain with a big African-American clientele, unceremoniously dumped him as the sponsor of a line of golf clothing and equipment, and he abjectly withdrew from the Greater Greensboro Open tournament. “People who know me know I’m a jokester. I just didn’t deliver the line well,” Zoeller tearfully explained. But his real crime was not, as he and his defenders seem to think, merely a distasteful breach of racial etiquette or an inept attempt at humor. The real crime was falling behind the times. The old black-white stereotypes are out of date, and Zoeller is just the latest casualty of America’s failure to come to grips with the perplexing and rapidly evolving significance of racial identity in what is fast becoming the most polyglot society in history.

If current demographic trends persist, midway through the 21st century whites will no longer make up a majority of the U.S. population. Blacks will have been overtaken as the largest minority group by Hispanics. Asians and Pacific Islanders will more than double their number of 9.3 million in 1995 to 19.6 million by 2020. An explosion of interracial, interethnic and interreligious marriages will swell the ranks of children whose mere existence makes a mockery of age-old racial categories and attitudes. Since 1970, the number of multiracial children has quadrupled to more than 2 million, according to the Bureau of the Census. The color line once drawn between blacks and whites—or more precisely between whites and nonwhites—is breaking into a polygon of dueling ethnicities, each fighting for its place in the sun.

For many citizens the “browning of America” means a disorienting plunge into an uncharted sea of identity. Zoeller is far from alone in being confused about the complex tangle of genotypes and phenotypes and cultures that now undercut centuries-old verities about race and race relations in the U.S. Like many others, he hasn’t got a clue about what to call the growing ranks of people like Woods who inconveniently refuse to be pigeonholed into one of the neat, oversimplified racial classifications used by government agencies–and, let’s face it, most people. Are they people of color? Mixed race? Biracial? Whatever they like?…

Read the entire article here.

Multiracial Patterns in the United States By State

Public Research Report No. 2001-02
Race Contours 2000 Study: A University of Southern California and University of Michigan Collaborative Project
Released: 2001-04-13

Noel Hacegaba, Adjunct Instructor of Public Administration
University of La Verne, La Verne, California

Dowell Myer, Professor of Public Policy
University of Southern California

• The size of the multiracial population in the United States (2.4%) is roughly equal to the population of Massachusetts.
• The highest prevalence of multiracial residents in a particular race group is generally found in states that have smaller concentrations of that group.
• California departs from the rest of the country in both population size and multiracial prevalence.

INTRODUCTION

In 2000, the Census Bureau allowed multi-racial respondents to identify themselves as such, enabling them to select more than one racial category. This has amplified the opportunities for further research on race.

The number of multiracial persons in the United States amounts to 2.4% of the total population, roughly equal to the population of Massachusetts. Within the different race groups, this prevalence varies considerably. Exhibit 1 is a table showing what percentage of the U.S. population in each racial group is monoracial or multiracial. For this analysis, we define racial groups as all those who selected that race alone or in combination with other races.

The percent of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders that identify themselves as multiracial, for example, is 54.4%. The same number is 39.9% for American Indians and Alaska Natives and 13.9% for Asians. Blacks and whites show a lower multiracial prevalence with 4.8% and 2.5%, respectively.

Among whites, 97.5% identify themselves only as white. Similarly, 95.2% of blacks identify themselves as strictly monoracial. As expected, the number of monoracial respondents is relatively lower across all other race groups with the exception of the Other category, which is largely comprised of Latinos…

Read the entire report here.

In the Eye of the Beholder: Observed Race and Observer Characteristics

PSC Research Report
Population Studies Center at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michgan
Report No. 02-522
August 2002
36 pages

David R. Harris, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Deputy Provost and Vice Provost for Social Sciences
Cornell University

Over the past decade there has been intense debate about racial categories, but surprisingly little discussion of racial categorization. Specifically, there has been little attention devoted to if, and how, characteristics of observers affect observed race. This is troubling because racial classification data are the foundation upon which scholarly studies of race, and policy initiatives to fight discrimination. In this paper I present findings from a web-based survey that was designed to address gaps in our understanding of racial categorization. As part of the Study of Observed Race, 1,672 college freshmen were presented with photographs of individuals, and asked to identify each person’s race. Results indicate that observers’ race, sex, and familiarity with racial groups each influence how they classify by race, and that there are important interactions between observers’ characteristics. I close by discussing the implications of my findings for the 2000 census.

On April 1, 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau did something that was both revolutionary and controversial. Rather than ask individuals to identify with a single racial group, the 2000 Census allowed people to identify with as many as six racial groups. Even casual observers of American racial classification realized that this was revolutionary, as it directly challenged the precedent that individuals identify with one, and only one, racial group. What was less obvious was just how controversial this change in racial classification procedures would be. When the race counts were released in early 2001, few were sure how to interpret these new data. Many wondered what it meant that people had identified with multiple racial groups? For others, there were very real concerns about how to use the data. Should those who identified with more than one racial group be reassigned to a single-race group? If so, how?

In order to make sense of the new census race data, it is imperative that one first understand that these data implicitly assume that the race people select for themselves, or that is selected for them by someone in their household, is the same race that would have been selected by any other observer in any other context. Previous work has challenged this assumption by arguing that self-identified race can vary by context (Harris and Sim 2002), and that self-identified and observer-identified race need not agree (Hahn, Mulinare, and Teutsch 1992; Harris and Sim 2000). In this paper I pursue a further challenge to the assumption of fixed racial classifications by examining if, and how, observed race varies by observer characteristics. If it is true that an individual’s race can be adequately described through self-reports, then observed race should not vary by observer. If observed race does vary by observer, and especially if it does so systematically, then there may be further reasons to question the census race counts.

This work is important for at least three reasons. First, it provides basic information about processes of racial classification. Second, the new census race question is part of a major change in how the federal government measures race. By 2003, all federal race data will be collected using the “one or more races” approach (Office of Management and Budget 1997). Furthermore, because organizations outside the federal government are also likely to adopt this new racial classification scheme, work that affects our understanding of the new census race data will have a broad impact. Third, because a central impetus for collecting race data is to enforce civil rights laws (Office of Management and Budget 1997), and much discrimination is based on observed race (e.g., racial profiling), it is imperative that we understand if, and how, race varies by observer. Failing to do so will limit our ability to effectively enforce civil rights laws…

Read the entire report here.

Making Sense of New Census Classifications for Race

UCLA School of Public Health Magazine
June 2007
page 31

STARTING WITH THE 2000 CENSUS, the federal government revised how it collects data on race and ethnicity—respondents were allowed to identify themselves as a member of more than one category (which 7 million opted to do), whereas in prior censuses they were forced to choose one. The revision was made in recognition of the nation’s growing number of interracial couples, who in turn are producing children whose diverse lineage defies a single classification. But the change also creates potential nightmares for researchers and policymakers who rely on the data from these and other surveys to understand racial and ethnic disparities in health: When you consider all of the possible combinations, including “other,” there are now 63 multiple-race categories along with the six single-race categories.

Tommi Gaines, a UCLA School of Public Health doctoral student in biostatistics [Currently biostatistician at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine], is tackling the challenges arising from the new collection method. “There have been goals that have been set around understanding why differences exist between races and how we can develop policies to try to eliminate or reduce these differences,” Gaines notes. “If there are disparities found between multiracial populations and a single-race category, how do we accurately reflect what’s going on with the multiracial populations, which capture a broad range of people? It becomes harder to tease out the potential problems that are causing these health differences.”…

…“As long as there continue to be differences between races in regard to health conditions, we need to continue to collect and find ways to make sense of the data so that we better understand why these disparities exist.”

Read the entire article here.

Classification of Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Public Health

Annual Review of Public Health
Volume 24 (May 2003)
pages 83-110
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.140927

Vickie M. Mays, Professor of Psychology and Professor of Health Services
University of California, Los Angeles

Ninez A. Ponce, Associate Professor of Public Heath
University of California, Los Angeles

Donna L. Washington, M.D.
Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs
Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

Susan D. Cochran, Professor of Epidemiology
University of California, Los Angeles

Emerging methods in the measurement of race and ethnicity have important implications for the field of public health. Traditionally, information on race and/or ethnicity has been integral to our understanding of the health issues affecting the U.S. population. We review some of the complexities created by new classification approaches made possible by the inclusion of multiple-race assessment in the U.S. Census and large health surveys. We discuss the importance of these classification decisions in understanding racial/ethnic health and health care access disparities. The trend toward increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the United States will put further pressure on the public health industry to develop consistent and useful approaches to racial/ethnic classifications.

Read or purchase the article here.

Ties on the fringes of identity

Social Science Research
Volume 33, Issue 4 (December 2004)
Pages 702-723
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2003.10.002

Carolyn A. Liebler, Assistant Professor of Sociology
University of Minnesota

I use data on part-American Indian children in the 1990 Census 5% PUMS to assess my hypotheses that thick racial ties within the family constrain racial identification, and that structural aspects of the community (group size, inequality, and racial heterogeneity) affect racial identification when racial ties are thin within the family. American Indians present an interesting case study because their high levels of intermarriage and complex patterns of assimilation/identity retention for generations provide a varied group of people who could potentially identify their race as American Indian. Several hypotheses are supported by the data, signifying that racial identification among people with mixed-heritage is affected by the social world beyond individual psychology and racial ties within the family.

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Identity and thickness of ties
3. Hypotheses
4. Data and sample selection
5. Dependent variables
6. Focal independent variables
7. Control variables
8. Drawbacks to using census data to study identity
9. Results
10. Discussion
11. Conclusion
Appendix A. Descriptive statistics for entire sample
References

Read or purchase the article here.

Where Black-White Couples Live

Urban Geography
Volume 32, Number 1 (2011-01-01 through 2011-02-14)
pages 1-22
DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.32.1.1

Richard Wright, Professor of Geography
Dartmouth College

Mark Ellis, Professor of Geography
University of Washington

Steven Holloway, Professor of Geography
University of Georgia

This study analyzes where households headed by Black-White, mixed-race couples live in cities. Using 2000 confidential U.S. Census data, we investigate whether Black-White households in 12 large U.S. metropolitan areas are more likely to be found in racially diverse neighborhoods than households headed by White or Black couples. Map analysis shows that concentrations of Black-White headed households are most often found in moderately diverse White neighborhoods. This relationship, however, varies by metropolitan context. Controlling for socioeconomic conditions reveals that Black-White couples are drawn to diversity no matter which racial group forms the neighborhood majority. In contrast, neighborhood racial diversity matters for households headed by Black couples only when they enter spaces containing many Whites or Asians; it matters for households headed by White couples only when they enter neighborhoods with a large number of Blacks or Latinos.

Read or purchase the article here.  Also, see Mixed Metro US.

The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them

Cardozo Law Review
Volume 32, Number 3 (2011)
pages 756-791

Nathaniel Persily, Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science
Columbia Law School

The 2010 Census, like its predecessors, represented a momentous logistical and technological undertaking with far reaching consequences for political representation and allocation of public resources. It also promised to spawn a series of legal controversies over how to count people, what information the government should gather, which individuals truly “count” for purposes of the census, and where they should be counted. This Article explores these present and past controversies surrounding the census. The issues of “sampling” and “statistical adjustment” pervaded much of the legal commentary and case law concerning the census for the past twenty years. The undercount will continue to be a common theme, although given new found ideological opposition to filling out the census form, it is unclear at this stage who is less likely to be counted. The 2010 Census raises new issues of relevance to redistricting claims under the Voting Rights Act, concerning the counting and distribution of data on both the non-citizen and prisoner population. At the same time, recent developments in voting rights law, which place a premium on the size of a minority community, have raised the legal stakes for this census. Despite the technical nature of many census related controversies, one’s position on how, what, whom, and where to count cannot be separated from the larger questions of how easy or difficult it should be for plaintiffs to bring and win civil rights claims, particularly with respect to the redistricting process.

The Framers of the American Constitution viewed the decennial census as providing a certain rhythm to American politics. Every ten years a state’s tax burdens and representation in the House of Representatives would change to reflect its share of the national population as revealed in the “actual enumeration,” the manner of which Congress “shall by law direct.” Much has changed since the first census, but the rhythm still remains. Perhaps unintended and unimagined by the Framers, however, is the rhythmic and ritualistic dance to the courtroom every ten years to argue over the census numbers themselves and the methods used to construct apportionment totals.

Just as its rhythm has remained true to the Framers’ intent, so too the controversies surrounding the census have remained linked to the unique place of the census in the constitutional design. In the Constitution itself, the census is “about” representation, money, and race, so we should not be surprised to learn that courtroom controversies over the census have persisted with respect to these three themes. By tying both representation in the House and taxation to the census, the Constitution provided cross-incentives and an internal political check that might guard against manipulation of the census to overrepresent a state’s population. Today, dickering over the census numbers represents a critical stage in arguments states and localities make for more representation (concerning either apportionment among states of seats in the House of Representatives or within states with respect to redistricting) or for more money (given that funding for many federal and state programs is tied to the census). In addition, just as the first census necessarily had to categorize the population according to race in order to determine which people were “Indians not taxed” or “other persons” subject to the three-fifths rule, so too today the racial categories of the census and the racial implications of census counts become fodder for litigation over representation and funding.

This Article examines the law of the census: specifically, how to count, what to count, whom to count, and where to count them. For the most part this Article draws on my experience and research concerning the use of census data in the redistricting process; however, many of the topics discussed apply to federal funding decisions as well. The Article begins by describing the most recent legal controversies involving census methods, particularly imputation and statistical adjustment. When one thinks of the “law of the census,” these high-profile disputes probably come first to mind. In cases that have arrived at the Supreme Court at the beginning of each of the last three census cycles, undercounted cities and states have argued that census methods were deficient in that the procedures missed some people, double-counted others, or counted people that did not exist.

Second, this Article explores the legal implications of the decisions concerning what to include on the census form, paying particular attention to the topics of race and citizenship. For the second time, the 2010 Census allows respondents to check off more than one race, raising a host of interesting questions concerning the legal implications of alternative methods for categorizing the multiracial population. More significantly for the 2010 Census, the long form, which was previously asked of one sixth of the population, has been replaced by the yearly American Community Survey (ACS), distributed to 2.5% of households. The ACS is the only source for citizenship data from the census, raising questions about the reliability of citizenship estimates for purposes of VRA litigation.

Finally, this Article examines the related issues of who should be included in the census and where they should be counted. The section deals with special populations such as soldiers and other Americans living abroad, college students, the homeless, and prisoners. Prisoners, in particular, present an important case, as some have argued that the wholesale involuntary transfer of convicted criminals away from their communities toward more rural and often whiter areas has allowed for the padding of legislative districts in one part of a state at the expense of districts in other parts of a state. For the first time in 2011, the census will make data available in time for redistricting about the number of prisoners in each census block. Jurisdictions will now be able to subtract out prisoners from the census redistricting data file. Some states have even gone further and have reallocated prisoners to their pre-incarceration address for purposes of redistricting…

…The race question on the 2000 Census was the first to allow respondents to check off more than one race. In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” a directive that changed the way federal agencies, including the Census Bureau, would categorize people according to race. By moving to a format that allowed respondents to check off any and all of the six principal racial groups on the census, the form effectively created one hundred and twenty six possible combinations of racial and ethnic categories. Although many social scientists worried about the policy implications at the time the OMB and the Census made these decisions, the actual political and legal effects of this change have been minimal. Even so, with each census, the share of the population identifying with more than one racial group will undoubtedly increase. At some point, the confusion caused by the data format, let alone the actual politics of multiracial identity, will present real political and legal challenges.

The first problem to recognize is a logistical one: How does one use the data with its 126 combinations in the process of redistricting? The short answer is that it is not easy unless one reaggregates the data into some more usable format. The OMB therefore promulgated a directive to do just that in the context of civil rights enforcement. The OMB issued Bulletin No. 00-02, which provides the following rules of aggregation:

“Federal agencies will use the following rules to allocate multiple race responses for use in civil rights monitoring and enforcement.

• Responses in the five single race categories are not allocated.
• Responses that combine one minority race and white are allocated to the minority race.
• Response that include two or more minority races are allocated as follows:
  • If the enforcement action is in response to a complaint, allocate to the race that the complainant alleges the discrimination was based on.
  • If the enforcement action requires assessing disparate impact or discriminatory patterns, analyze the patterns based on alternative allocations to each of the minority groups.”

The OMB approach maximizes the numbers for racial minority groups by recategorizing some multiracial respondents as some category other than white. Critics of the OMB guidelines have therefore described them as a modern version of the “One Drop Rule”—the Jim Crow-era law where one drop of black blood made someone black. Defenders, however, would point out that the reaggregation rules merely create a presumption for purposes of civil rights enforcement. That presumption places the data in the light most favorable for the civil rights plaintiff (usually non-white). The reaggregation rules, while smacking of the same racial essentialism that often follows from any categorization scheme, simply try to provide rules of thumb that prevent such plaintiffs from being disadvantaged by the new census format…

Read the entire article here.

Review of Spencer, Jon Michael, The New Colored People: The Mixed-Race Movement in America

H-Net Reviews
January 1998

Richard L. Hughes

The Census, Race, and…

Amid a racial climate which includes a presidential advisory board on race and a discussion of slavery within the popular media, there lies an increasingly prominent dialogue on race in American culture. As the United States nears its next federal census in the year 2000, many Americans have expressed dissatisfaction with the accuracy of the current four categories of white, black, Asian and Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan Native. Some observers have supported the addition of a “multiracial” category where others, such as historian Orlando Patterson, have criticized the continued existence of racial categories on the census as a “scientifically meaningless” and “politically dangerous” “Race Trap.”[1]

One of the reasons why this debate resonates with so many Americans is that the discussion of race and public policy includes both the persistent belief that race is a fixed biological factor and the emerging notion of many scholars and policymakers that race is a fluid historical and sociopolitical construct. Acknowledging both perspectives, Jon Michael Spencer’s The New Colored People: The Mixed-Race Movement in America is the latest scholarly contribution to this ongoing debate concerning the census and the possible use of the category “multiracial.” Borrowing both the title and analytical framework from Joel Williamson’s New People: Miscegenation and Mulattoes in the United States (1980), which focused on the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Spencer offers a cautionary tale about a “multiracial” category in the contemporary United States.[2] He contends that without a “frank assessment of race” and the end of racism, such a category would be “politically naive” and even “suicidal” to black Americans (pp. 148,155).

While Spencer shares Williamson’s astute perspective that the status of “mulattoes” or, to use Spencer’s term, “multiracial” Americans, is an instructive index for race relations, his argument about the dangers of a new government-sanctioned racial category centers on a “cross-cultural analysis” of multiracial Americans and the coloured people of South Africa (p. 11). Building on the comparative work of historian George Fredrickson, the writings of coloured intellectuals such as Richard Van der Ross and Allan Boesak, and interviews with other “coloured nationalists,” Spencer concludes that the creation of a coloured “middle status” under apartheid served to divide and oppress nonwhites by creating a buffer zone between white elites and the black masses (pp. xiii, 91).[3] The result was the continued oppression of South African blacks and a marginal status for coloured South Africans. Cognizant of the centrality of issues of personal identity in the current American debate, Spencer adds that the middle status robbed coloureds of the identity, esteem, and culture only possible through a unified black consciousness movement in more recent South Africa. Spencer’s valuable contribution lies in his comparative analysis in which the tragedy of South African apartheid underscores the possible dangers in careless additions to America’s racial landscape…

Read the entire review here.

Mixed race, mixed emotions

The Arizona Republic
2005-05-13

Janie Magruder

Multiracial children face challenges of identity, community

Aaron Foster was 3 years old the first time the question came.

“What are you?” asked the barber, out of earshot of his mother.

“I’m a boy,” Aaron replied, bewildered.

“No, what are you? Black? Chinese?”

“I do gymnastics.”

That exchange, in 1997, made Christina Cooper-Foster, the preschooler’s Taiwanian-born mom, realize that issues of race haven’t changed much. Cooper-Foster was raised by White adoptive parents in rural Florida in the 1970s, and the same hurtful queries and curious stares she got were now plaguing her son, who is mixed race…

…They also are more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, sleep problems and various illnesses, according to researchers at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Their 2003 study of 90,000 U.S. adolescents found students who called themselves biracial were more likely to have sex at younger ages, access to guns and poorer experiences at school.

“It did not matter what races the students identified with,” said J. Richard Udry, a professor of maternal and child health and lead researcher. “The risks were higher for all of them if they did not identify with a single race.”

Udry concluded that multiracial children live with stress that their single-race peers do not…

…Who are they?

They’re people like Nathalie Conte, a past president of SIMBA—Students Identifying Multiracial and Biracial at Arizona State University—who helped host a mixed-race event last month on campus. Tempe was among 15 cities on the Generation MIX tour, aimed at focusing attention on the challenges of multiracial people. It ended Tuesday in Seattle.

Conte, a 22-year-old ASU senior, has a Black mother and a Caucasian father.

“The biggest issue is we have to choose our race on application forms, and it’s kind of frustrating when you have to pick ‘other,’ because you don’t think of yourself as ‘other,’ ” she said…

Read the entire article here.