Mixed Race Studies

Issues for Racially Diverse Families

A Research Project for the Capital Region Race Relations Association, Victoria [Canada]
2003
41 pages

Elias Cheboud (1959-2010), Adjunct Professor of Social Work
University of Victoria, Canada

Christine Downing, Project Coordinator
Multiracial Family Project

This report explores the experience of members of racially mixed families in Victoria, BC. Six themes were identified:(1. Identifying Self, 2. Being In Racially Mixed Family In Victoria, 3. The Challenges, 4. Access For Support, 5. Acceptance, 6. Gaps In Service And Resources). Then reference was made to the heuristic method, chosen to verify the process and to understand the meaning of these lived-experiences.

Most participants in this snapshot study have described encountering numerous barriers as part of a racially mixed family or as individuals living in Victoria. This could be due to everyday racism and discrimination that has closed their access to social services and resources. Interestingly, isolation, identity confusion and an impaired sense of belonging were common experiences reported by adults and children. As a result, for participants to seek resources and services, it has been difficult due to their uniqueness and inability to fit to the existing service and resource categories. The significance of this finding means participants are struggling to adapt their identity to fixed notions of identity (ie. “Chinese”, “Black”) in order to access services and/or seek resources.

What was fascinating in this study was that some individuals who chose to marry into different racial/ethnic backgrounds were rejected by their family of origin and as a result they became isolated from their community. Whereas some individual’s experiences regardless of racial/ethnic mix were positive, the family and community relationships remained solid. Based on this study, we conclude that racially mixed families in Victoria are lonely and the isolation experienced by their children is more serious due to the outright rejection of the community they live in.

The findings presented here are comparable to identity patterns explanations (individual, cultural, and social, as well as political issues) found in the literature. Furthermore, the extracted meanings have confirmed sources of identity as being congruent to the adopted theory of this research (explain briefly locational theory). This study is very important to all professionals as well as to human services agencies. Both human service agencies and professionals could refer to these participants’ patterns of experiences of reforming identities which serve as a guideline to help and provide services appropriately. We believe that we have exposed the need to facilitate this awareness and sensitivity to gain further knowledge about racially mixed people in Victoria. This research confirms commonly held assumptions about identity and associated stresses for racially mixed people. This research will serve to identify the various locations held by racially mixed people in the community as well as their unique needs which may ultimately help to bridge the gaps in knowledge about racially mixed families in Victoria.

The following recommendations are suggested to address these concerns:

1. Development of an educational, information and resource center in Victoria.
2. Development of support groups to address concerns brought up in the study
3. Province wide research (both qualitative and quantitative)
4. Extended training for professionals and service providers at all levels in community and government agencies.

Read the entire report 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.

“Unknown” Students on College Campuses: An Exploratory Analysis

The James Irvine Foundation
December 2005
20 pages

Campus Diversity Initiative Evaluation Project Team (Claremont Graduate University and the Association of American Colleges and Universities):

Daryl G. Smith, Co-principal Investigator
José Moreno, Senior Research Analyst
Alma R. Clayton-Pedersen, Co-principal Investigator
Sharon Parker, Co-principal Investigator
Daniel Hiroyuki Teraguchi, Research Associate

with

Suzanne Benally, Campus Liaison
Susan E. Borrego, Campus Liaison
Jocelyn Chong, Research Associate
Mari Luna De La Rosa, Research Associate
Mildred García, Campus Liaison
Jennie Spencer Green, Campus Liaison
Belinda Vea, Research Associate

A research brief from The James Irvine Foundation Campus Diversity Initiative Evaluation Project

In response to the increasing number of students who fall into the “race/ethnicity unknown” category of post-secondary demographic data, this exploratory study devised a method to ascertain the racial/ethnic backgrounds of these students by comparing existing enrollment data to a second, independent data set. The method was tested at three small private institutions in California. Our findings suggest that overall, a sizeable portion of students in the unknown category are white, in addition to multiracial students who may have selected white as one of their categories. These findings—while not necessarily generalizable—alert campus leaders of the need to attend to this growing segment of the student population and to how the United States is diversifying in more complex ways than ever before. The brief concludes with recommendations for future research and for both campus and federal data collection and use.

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Introduction: The Rise in “Unknown” Students on College Campuses
• Methodology: Identifying the “Unknowns”
• Findings: A Sizeable Portion of “Unknown” Students Are White
• Implications: Accuracy Depends on the “Unknowns”
• Recommendations: Improving Data Collection and Use
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Appendix
• Contributors

Read the entire report here.

Race Classification at the University of KwaZulu-Natal: Purposes, Sites and Practices

IOLS‐Research, Dr. Shaun Ruggunan and ccrri
For: Centre for Critical Research on Race and Identity (ccrri)
University of Kwazulu-Natal
2010-11-08
59 pages

Race classification has long been a feature of South African life, in daily life and its cognitive processes, and also in formal state-driven bureaucratic forms. In the post-apartheid period, classification of individuals on the basis of race has continued despite a stated commitment to principles of non-racialism. Primarily, this is justified in its formal manifestation because of the acknowledged need for redress of apartheid generated inequalities both in the labour market and in access to opportunities and resources (such as higher education).

Investigating the purposes and practices of race classification in an institution of higher learning in South Africa—in this case, the University of KwaZulu-Natal as one of the largest employers in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, as well as one of the largest national universities—offers a particularly interesting insight into these issues and provides an example of sites where this occurs. The research project has three key aims. Firstly it seeks broadly to identify the purpose of race classification, secondly the project investigates the processes followed in classifying people according to race, thirdly the study is interested in the effects, if any, of both classifying and being classified (from the perspective of the classifier) and the challenges involved in race classification. The project concludes by suggesting alternatives to race based classification.

…7. Challenges of classification

The challenges of classification on the basis of race at UKZN identified by interviewees mainly relate to ‘misclassifications’ (a term that holds true only if there is a notion of true/accurate classification of race). These cases of misclassification result from a myriad of problems including:

1. Problems with inaccurate data capturing. For example the data capturer could accidentally misclassify someone, or even make a subjective judgement call and change the person’s self classification to match a racial category deemed more appropriate by the data capturer.
2. The difficulties in making judgements of race classification in a society that is increasingly integrated and becoming increasing racially mixed. This problem extends beyond the mixed race category of ‘coloured’ (Erasmus, 2007).
3. The problem presented by the current four categories in use (African, Indian, Coloured and White). The use of these four categories has meant that Chinese South Africans, for example, have seen their identity collapsed under the generic category of Black. Racial classification in this sense assumes an economic currency and imperative (see Erasmus and Park, 2008) when related to Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) for example.
4. The challenges related to race classification where it is perceived to relate to access to jobs, funding or placement at University were noted…

…7.2. The ‘Coloured’ question

Classifying people of ‘mixed race’ heritage is becoming more and more difficult and this challenge was noted by a number of respondents. ‘Coloured’ in South Africa may be understood to refer to people of ‘mixed race’ heritage but it is also sometimes seen as tied to a particular cultural identity, that of ‘Cape Coloured’; or of specific races in the mix. As a result, people of mixed race heritage that do not belong to this cultural formation that is tied to a ‘black-white’ racial heritage may feel uncomfortable adopting this category for classification. Interviewees observed:

The one might be when it comes to this classification of coloured which is a bit of a, you know, what does it mean (Interview Fihlela, 2009).

If they want to keep the mixed box or the bi-racial box they can maybe have subsections under that because I think that is really going to grow in the future. There’s more interracial families […] coming forward (Interview Van Soelen et al, 2009).

Read the entire report here.

Bringing the Mix-d: Experience to Leicester College: A Good Practice Guide to Meeting the Needs of Mixed Heritage Students in Further Education

Multiple Heritage Project
May 2010
26 pages

Leicester College was successful in gaining funding from the LSC [Learning Skills Council] for a specific action research project to work with a group of mixed heritage young people on their issues, and to produce this good practice guidance, other resources and staff training. The College advertised for a consultancy to undertake the work and subsequently commissioned the Multiple Heritage Project  (MHP) based in Manchester, as they had wide ranging national experience and a proven track record in this area. This is their report.

…Mix-d: on the margins of FE

Mix-d: [mixed heritage] students are the focus for this good practice guide because the data shows that they increasingly occupy stereotypical positions in society and institutions, are a growing group and are rarely, if ever, acknowledged in educational research. The small amount of research that exists suggests that mix-d: people are often expected to choose one racial identity at the exclusion of another, or are seen as occupying a ‘confused’ middle space.

At the same time, mix-d: people are often heralded as the embodiments of a culturally diverse and post-racial society. As the numbers of mix-d: students entering FE increases, their absence from current race equality policies and invisibility within the curriculum are causing education practitioners to analyse more closely what is currently being offered to those who identify as mix-d:.

Although race is a social construct, the “politics” of race—and the part racism plays—is a regular and unavoidable feature of life for many and should not be confused with ethnicity which simply means belonging to a human group ie White British people also have an ethnicity.

Limited research in the area of mix-d: students suggests that there is a significant number of younger people in this group who are failing to have their needs met. Indications in this area of work are that socio-economic factors, family structure, stereotyping and lack of appropriate terminology can hinder any positive moves forward.

There seems to be a dearth of policy in this area and low levels of awareness regarding this growing group. Some professionals appear reticent to address issues concerning race and ethnicity and still frequently struggle with appropriate terminology. It is time that targeted and focussed research addressed the presence of this growing population…

Read the entire report here.

Mixedness and The Arts

Runnymede Thinkpiece
Runnymede Trust
July 2010
18 pages
ISBN: 978-1-906732-63-9 (online)
EAN: 9781906732639 (online)
ISBN: 978-1-906732-64-6 (print)
EAN: 9781906732646 (print)

Chamion Caballero, Senior Research Fellow
Families & Social Capital Research Group
London South Bank University

This think piece explores the presentation of mixed-race identity in the sphere of arts and culture in the UK.

The piece examines some of the assumptions that surround mixed identity, and places them in a historical, political and policy context.

Taking contributions from practitioners in the arts, many of whom have engaged this issue directly, the report lays out the three key topics that arise from reflection on the debates:

Dr. Caballero frames her argument under the subheadings of Recognition of Experience; Negotiation of Complexity; and Politics of Ownership.

The debates identified by this think piece (and hopefully the ones sparked by it) are highly important to our understanding of racial dynamics in British society today.

Table of Contents

Contents
Foreword
Introduction
A note on terminology
1. Background: discussions of ‘mixedness’
2. The recognition of experiences
3. The negotiation of complexity
4. The politics of ownership
5. Summary and concluding thoughts
References

Foreword

The increasing visibility of mixedness and mixed people has led to a great deal of reflection on the nature of ethnic identities and their significance for society at large. In the light of census data predicting ‘mixed race’ becoming the largest ethnic minority group within two decades, there has been widespread debate about what this means for race and race relations in the 21st century. However debates on this subject rarely engage critically with the complexity that discussions of identity, let alone mixed ethnic identities truly deserve. The statistic above has often been accepted at face value with little thought devoted to teasing out exactly what such a ‘fact’ assumes about the nature of race, and whether these assumptions are ones that a modern, multi-ethnic nation is comfortable with.

In order to address this lack of nuance, Runnymede and the Arts Council have commissioned this thinkpiece by Dr Chamion Caballero. The piece examines some of the assumptions that surround mixed identity in Britain today, and places them in a historical, political and policy context. Taking contributions from practioners in the Arts, many of whom have engaged this issue directly; it lays out the three key topics that arise from reflection on the debates. Dr. Caballero argues that the first such issue is Recognition of Experience and whether the recognition of mixed experience is welcome or even necessary. Following on from this is the Negotiation of Complexity; many of the artists who commented stressed that representation of mixed identity must involve recognising the complex nuances inherent in that identity if it is not to become shallow, reductive, or irrelevant. The final issue, and perhaps the most loaded is the Politics of Ownership; who gets to define ‘mixedness’ and who gets to represent it, are sensitive issues that must be borne in mind, and many of the participants were wary of easy answers to these questions.

The debates identified by this think piece (and hopefully the ones sparked by it) are highly important to our understanding of racial dynamics in British society today. Questions of mixedness open up further questions not just about our concepts of race but of the nature of identity and its construction. Debates rage about the apparent failure of the multicultural project and its policy successors, about biological determinism and the role of genetics, about immigration and nationality, and about the role of art in a society facing economic strictures not seen in a generation. Deeper reflections upon concepts like race and identity, art and culture which underpin so many of these discussions could therefore scarcely be more timely. We publish this paper to encourage, rather than close down debate. We believe that it is important that we reflect on these issues and consider how best to ensure that policy and practice delivers for all if we are to become a successful multi-ethnic society.

Dr Rob Berkeley
Director, Runnymede

Read the entire report here.

Lone Mothers of Mixed Racial and Ethnic Children: Then and Now

Runnymede Trust
June 2010

Chamion Caballero, Senior Research Fellow
Families & Social Capital Research Group
London South Bank University

Rosalind Edwards, Professor in Social Policy
Families & Social Capital Research Group
London South Bank University

Information from the UK Census indicates that parents of children from mixed racial or ethnic backgrounds constitute one of the highest lone parent groups in the country. Like all other groups of lone parent families, these are overwhelmingly headed by mothers.

In this research report Dr. Chamion Caballero and Prof. Rosalind Edwards, of the London South Bank University, pulls together data from interviews with mothers of mixed-race children whose fathers are absent. Some of the anecdotal evidence is from those who brought up their children decades ago, and this is compared with the experiences of women doing the same today.

The report explores the specific racisms, prejudices and stereotypes that this group of women and children have been faced with – both then and now – and where, if anywhere, they have been able to turn for support.

To read the report, login or register for free here.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America: A Census 2000 Study of Cities and Metropolitan Areas

Fannie Mae Foundation
2002
45 pages

William H. Frey
University of Michigan and the Milken Institute

Dowell Myers
University of Southern California

This report accompanies the release of detailed racial segregation indices for 1,246 individual U.S. cities with populations exceeding 25,000 and for the 318 U.S. metropolitan areas. These data can be accessed from the World Wide Web at www.CensusScope.org. This study extends earlier work on racial segregation from Census 2000 in the following respects:

• It examines segregation patterns for persons who identify themselves as one race alone as distinct from those who identify themselves as two or more races, which is possible for the first time in Census 2000.
• Its focus on large and small cities as well as metropolitan areas provides a comprehensive assessment of segregation variation across local areas and broader metropolitan regions.
• Segregation and exposure measures in this study are based on the block group unit (average population 1,100), which more closely approximates a neighborhood community area than the census tract unit (average population 5,000) used in other studies. This more refined block group–based segregation measure permits the detection of segregation patterns for small racial groups or in small areas that are camouflaged when tract-based segregation measures are used.

The opportunity to look at segregation for single-race and multirace groups with Census 2000 provides an important means of assessing the prospects of future integration in a multirace society where intermarriage and interrace identification are on the rise. Our analysis of singlerace and multirace segregation shows that:

• Persons who identify themselves as “white and black” live, on average, in neighborhoods that more closely approximate the racial composition of the average white person’s neighborhood, rather than that of the average black person’s neighborhood. For the combined metropolitan population of the United States, the average neighborhood of a “white and black” resident is 61 percent white and 19 percent black. The average neighborhood of someone who identifies as black alone is 29 percent white and 54 percent black, and the average neighborhood of someone who identifies as white alone is 81 percent white and 6 percent black.
• Among the cities and metropolitan areas in our study, persons identifying with two or more races showed, on average, less segregation from whites than did minority persons identifying with a single race.

Our analysis of cities with more than 25,000 population shows the wide variation in segregation levels for each race and ethnic group. For most race groups, the highest levels of segregation tend to occur in the nation’s largest cities. For example, the City of New York ranks in the top six of all cities for each minority group’s segregation from whites. It ranks third in segregation for blacks, fifth for Hispanics, first for American Indians, first for Hawaiians, and sixth for those who identify themselves as two or more races. Hence, studies that focus only on segregation in large cities or in cities that have the largest minority populations overstate the level of racial segregation that exits in most cities with a minority presence. Other findings are:

• Among cities with more than 100,000 population, white-black segregation ranges from an index of dissimilarity of 21 (Chandler, AZ) to 87 (Chicago, IL); Asian segregation from whites ranges from 15 (Coral Springs, FL) to 66 (New Orleans, LA); and Hispanic segregation from whites ranges from 17 (Hialeah, FL) to 71 (Oakland, CA).
• The lowest segregation from whites for each race group tends to be associated with cities with less than 100,000 population, located in the suburbs, and, largely, in California, Texas, and other “multiethnic” states in the Sunbelt. Lowest city segregation indices for each race are in: The Colony, TX (white-black index of 8); Morgan Hill, CA (white-Asian segregation index of 9); Copperas Cove, TX (white-Hispanic segregation index of 8); Moore, OK (white–American Indian index of 12); Carson, CA (white-Hawaiian index of 25); and Cerritos, CA (white–multiple race index of 7).

City segregation indices differ from metropolitan segregation indices because the former reflect local patterns that can vary within the same metropolitan unit. Our analyses of dissimilarity of both levels indicate that:

• On average, segregation levels are higher for metropolitan areas than for cities. Among the cities in our study, the average segregation levels for blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are indices of 45, 32, and 35 respectively. Average segregation levels among metropolitan areas for these three groups are indices of 59, 45, and 43, respectively.
• Among smaller racial categories, Hawaiians show the highest average segregation levels, with an index of 53 for cities and 61 for metropolitan areas. Persons identifying themselves as two or more races show the lowest average segregation levels: an index of 27 for cities and 33 for metropolitan areas. American Indian segregation levels lie inbetween, with an average index of 39 for cities and 43 for metropolitan areas.
• Different cities within the same metropolitan area can have quite different segregation measures. For example, although the Detroit primary metropolitan statistical area ranks second among all areas on white-black metropolitan segregation (index of 87), the city of Detroit ranks 55th, with an index of 63, among cities of more than 100,000 population. On the other hand, metropolitan Atlanta ranks 53rd in white-black segregation with a metropolitan wide dissimilarity index of 69, whereas the city of Atlanta ranks fourth in segregation, with an index of 83, among cities of more than 100,000 population. This shows that the metropolitan segregation index does not easily translate into segregation levels of large or small cities within the metropolitan area.

Finally, our use of the block group as a proxy for neighborhood in this segregation study provides a more refined measure that reveals segregation across smaller neighborhoods, rather than the larger census tract measures that have been used in some earlier studies. Block group–based segregation tends to be greater in smaller cities and metropolitan areas or where the minority population is small.

• On average, the white-black dissimilarity index is 5.8 points higher when block groups, rather than tracts, are used to measure segregation. The disparity is greatest in smaller metropolitan areas. For example, in metropolitan Reno, NV, white-black segregation measured on the basis of block groups has an index of 44, whereas the counterpart segregation index measured on the basis of census tracts is only 34.
• Indices of neighborhood exposure to other races are also affected by the choice of block group or tract as the neighborhood measure. For example, in metropolitan Jamestown, NY, the average black person lives in a neighborhood that is 69 percent white when the neighborhood is measured on the basis of block groups. However, that percentage rises to 81 percent white if the larger census tract is considered to be the neighborhood..

Read the entire paper here.

Marrying Out: One-in-Seven New U.S. Marriages is Interracial or Interethnic

Pew Research Center
2010-06-04
41 pages

Paul Taylor, Project Director
Pew Research Center

Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Demographer
Pew Research Center

Wendy Wang, Research Associate
Pew Research Center

Jocelyn Kiley, Research Associate
Pew Research Center

Gabriel Velasco, Research Analyst
Pew Research Center

Daniel Dockterman, Research Assistant
Pew Research Center

A record 14.6% of all new marriages in the United States in 2008 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from each other, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

That figure is an estimated six times the intermarriage rate among newlyweds in 1960 and more than double the rate in 1980.

This dramatic increase has been driven in part by the weakening of longstanding cultural taboos against intermarriage and in part by a large, multi-decade wave of immigrants from Latin America and Asia.

In 1961, the year Barack Obama’s parents were married, less than one in 1,000 new marriages in the United States was, like theirs, the pairing of a black person and a white person, according to Pew Research estimates. By 1980, that share had risen to about one in 150 new marriages. By 2008, it had risen to one-in-sixty.

Key findings:

• A record 14.6% of all new marriages in the United States in 2008 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another. This includes marriages between a Hispanic and non-Hispanic (Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a race) as well as marriages between spouses of different races — be they white, black, Asian, American Indian or those who identify as being of multiple races or “some other” race.
• Among all newlyweds in 2008, 9% of whites, 16% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 31% of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was different from their own.
• Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. Some 22% of all black male newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the other way. Some 40% of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2008, compared with just 20% of Asian male newlyweds. Among whites and Hispanics, by contrast, there are no gender differences in intermarriage rates.
• Rates of intermarriages among newlyweds in the U.S. more than doubled between 1980 (6.7%) and 2008 (14.6%). However, different groups experienced different trends. Rates more than doubled among whites and nearly tripled among blacks. But for both Hispanics and Asians, rates were nearly identical in 2008 and 1980.
• These seemingly contradictory trends were both driven by the heavy, ongoing Hispanic and Asian immigration wave of the past four decades. For whites and blacks, these immigrants (and, increasingly, their U.S.-born children who are now of marrying age) have enlarged the pool of potential spouses for out-marriage. But for Hispanics and Asians, the ongoing immigration wave has also enlarged the pool of potential partners for in-group marriage.
• There is a strong regional pattern to intermarriage. Among all new marriages in 2008, 21% in the West were interracial or interethnic, compared with 13% in both the South and Northeast and 11% in the Midwest.
• Most Americans say they approve of racial or ethnic intermarriage — not just in the abstract, but in their own families. More than six-in-ten say it “would be fine” with them if a family member told them they were going to marry someone from any of three major race/ethnic groups other than their own.
• More than a third of adults (35%) say they have a family member who is married to someone of a different race. Blacks say this at higher rates than do whites; younger adults at higher rates than older adults; and Westerners at higher rates than people living in other regions of the country.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Section I. Overview
Section II. Intermarriage by Race and Ethnicity
Section III. Intermarriage Trends
Section IV. Attitudes about Intermarriage

Appendices
Methodology
Additional charts
State and Regional Rates

Read the entire report here.