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

What it means to be a 'Negro' in 2010

The United States Census Bureau announced earlier this month that it would not remove "Negro" as a race qualification in the 2010 census. Amidst public outcry, the Bay Area News Group reports, the bureau said it would consider removing the term from subsequent surveys.

Why keep the term? The census bureau says many older African Americans identify as "Negro," and removing the term would risk incorrectly counting this group.

Why lose the term? The word "Negro" conjures a time in American history when African Americans were considered subordinate. From Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws to the civil rights movement, "Negro" connoted "otherness" at its best and inferiority or inhumanity at its worst. Of course, all racial categories are socially constructed, with no biological basis, but this particular label evokes inequality and oppression.

Many groups within the United States that previously used the term have abandoned it, citing it, in the words of CNN analyst Roland Martin, as "best left where it is" and in the history it stirs up. Among these, reports Slate.com, Negro History Week was changed to Black History Month in 1976. The United Negro College Fund now refers to itself as U.N.C.F, and the Supreme Court has not used the word "Negro" without quotations or citations to outside sources for 25 years.

Time.com reports over 56,000 Americans specifically write-in "Negro" on the U.S. Census. Even so, the census is meant to reflect the changing demographics of the country. In many other ways, the census bureau aims to track these changes. The 2010 U.S. Census will implement 15 changes dealing with race and Hispanic origin. For each of these changes, 30,000 people will be given a slightly different questionnaire. These changes include allowing more than one classification under Hispanic origin and allowing people who identify as "white" or "black" to clarify their ethnic identity more specifically.

Judging by these alterations and the 13 others like them, it seems the census bureau is attuned to the changes taking place in America. The bureau recognizes we do not fall into set boxes. Furthermore, the terminology used to describe different groups, although seemingly innocuous to some, must be examined through a historical lens. Whether subconsciously or not, we internalize these labels and perpetuate the stereotypes and societal roles they propagate. Just because some people are not bothered by a term, or even if some Americans use the term to self-identify, does not mean the use of the word "Negro" in an official government survey carries no weight in the broader scheme.

Think of it this way: How does "Negro" compare to other, perhaps more offensive labels? All these terms evoke history, be it European immigration to the United States, anti-Semitic sentiment or slavery. All of these words are still in use today, some of them by the groups to whom they refer. Does that make them any less hurtful to others? No. The word "Negro" is no different, and the census bureau should see it as such.

Photo Credit: TheGrio.com

Black, and female to boot

Last week, Newsweek reporter Raina Kelley wrote on the media coverage of Harry Reid's comments about President Obama. (Reid was quoted in a new book, saying he supported Obama because he was "light-skinned" and lacked a "Negro dialect).

Kelley praised the media for their recognition of three main points:

1. Harry Reid's gaffe is very different from Trent Lott's years ago. Whereas Lott attributed today's (well, 2002's) problems to racial integration and the end of segregation, Reid supported a black man for president.

2. Reid should not be forced to resign. This would only anger voters who support Reid and distract from the real issue: race relations in America.

3. Reid chose his words poorly, but there is some truth to his statements. Researchers, Kelley said, have found that people are more receptive to perceived threats when they see darker faces. Reid's stereotypes about black people are misguided, but there exists psychological backing as to why he holds these ideas.

So what do we make of this? If a black woman is pleased with coverage of the Reid race comments, that says something about progress in America. But beyond what Kelley argues, there is another element:

Why was this column written by a black woman?

There are a plethora of possible answers, from "she chose this topic and pitched it to her editors," to "she and Ellis Cose are the token race reporters here at Newsweek." I hope the latter is not the case.

Whenever I see Rev. Jesse Jackson lament racial profiling in urban areas, I wonder how much power his comments would have been were they echoed by a white person. In the same vein, I wonder if writing a column as a black woman--a column about race--dilutes the pool of receptive readers? Does it fail to fully integrate Newsweek's newsroom by giving "race" to the minority reporters? I would say so.

For the American Society of News Editors' most recent data on minorities in the newsroom, click here.