Does the census perpetuate racism?

Perhaps because I was 11 in the last census and I was not paying much attention to media coverage back then, but I notice a lot more anti-census sentiment this time around. Some people argue the census is a violation of privacy, while others decry its financial cost and limited good effect. And then there are those who take issue with the race and ethnicity categories. We've already seen outcry about the word "Negro" on the 2010 Census, but others take issue with the inclusion of race at all.

As founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit group set up to safeguard constitutional freedoms, John Whitehead argues that the current census perpetuates racism by "requiring citizens to take a colored view of themselves."

Whitehead uses the "Negro" debate mentioned previously to highlight his point that asking citizens to mark their race is outright racism (He chooses to ignore, however, the racist history of that word compared to the other more neutral classifications like white and Asian). He cites an email from "an all-American citizen" named Marc who is similarly outraged by the census. Marc writes:

"There's no reason to use race to distinguish people...The time has come to lose racial identity to end racism and start seeing ourselves as fellow humans and not to assume that you can determine anything from the color of someone’s skin other than the color of their skin. I don’t want to give the government information so that they can make decisions based on race."

Whitehead applauds Marc's assertions and goes on to say that including race on the census will only make race more salient in the public consciousness, preventing us from viewing each other as people rather than colors.

I wholeheartedly agree with both Marc and Whitehead that seeing ourselves as fellow humans is an honorable goal. Ideally, color wouldn't matter. But ideally, no one would live below the poverty line either, and we would all have health care. Reality isn't ideal, and that couldn't be truer when it comes to race.

Part of the reason for including race on the census has to do with drawing district boundaries based on population change and makeup. Whether this is good or bad is another issue altogether, and one I do not delve into in this post. But race and ethnicity are also used on the census to determine resource allocation. Whether we like it or not, there are differences in income, employment rates and even household demographics across racial groups. Different groups need different services, and what better way for government to assess these needs than a nationwide, uniform census?

The 2010 Census asks our age. Do we argue that this perpetuates ageism? The form asks for household size as well. Do we think this will lead to infanticide? No, because older people and bigger households have different needs than other groups, and the government should be aware of that.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, removing race from the census would ignore the legacy of racism that precedes us. Unlike Whitehead, I do not think electing a black president "is a sign that America is becoming more colorblind." Rather, I argue that racism is alive and well (it is perhaps more subtle, but still with us), and that if we are ever to eradicate racial disparity, we cannot ignore it today. It is ignorant to overlook race, and in doing so, we are only perpetuating the white privilege that lets whites in both government and larger society turn a blind eye to inequality.

Mr. Whitehead, I commend your optimism that a race-neutral world is achievable. But until then, I'm just fine checking, "White, non-Hispanic" on my forms this year.

Photo Credit: Bossip.com/U.S. Chamber of Commerce