How to record race

American Demographics, May, 1996 by Suzann Evinger

SUMMARY

Is there a better way to measure race and ethnicity? Government classifications are widely criticized, but research shows no easy way to reflect the complex ways Americans identify themselves. Multiracial people, Native Americans, and Hispanics have the most trouble with the current system. The government will decide whether race questions will be different on the 2000 census.

Americans are used to having choices. As consumers, we have come to expect thousands of items on supermarket shelves, dozens of TV channels, and a multiplicity of ways to invest our money. We sometimes take for granted the freedom we have to pursue our own paths, but we are quick to complain if we sense that anyone is trying to pigeonhole us for their own purposes. In such an environment, a federal agency is struggling to decide whether or how to revise the government's classification standard for racial and ethnic data.

In 1993, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiated an extensive review of the categories the federal government uses to collect and present data on our race and ethnicity. It has been nearly 20 years since the OMB issued the current racial and ethnic categories in 1977, and many feel that the categories have become less useful in the face of the nation's increasing diversity. Although nongovernment researchers don't have to use official government categories, things are a lot easier when everyone is speaking the same language.

Of course, that's part of the problem. We don't all speak the same language or share the same cultural backgrounds. The question of racial and ethnic classification is rooted in people's deepest sense of who they are.

For some, the question is one of inclusion. The Association of Multiethnic Americans and Project RACE (Reclassify All Children Equally) want the government to establish a multiracial category. Various ethnic groups, such as Cape Verdeans, European Americans, Creoles, and Arab Americans, are proposing a myriad of new categories. Seemingly united groups do not necessarily agree, either. Some native Hawaiians want to be moved from the Asian and Pacific Islander category to the one that currently includes American Indians and Alaska Natives, while other Hawaiians want their own category.

There's also the question of identifiers. Some have suggested changing the current terminology for blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians to African American, Latino/Latina, and Native American, respectively. Some terms try to get away from the issue of color, but others face it head on. Some believe that mixed-race people, formerly known in American history as "mulattoes," should now be called "tan Americans."

Finally, there's the question of relevance. Some feel that the federal government no longer collect any data on race and ethnicity because they believe this practice perpetuates an overemphasis on differences among population groups and fragments our society. Others insist that as long as racial differences mean anything to anyone, they are a reality that the government should monitor. For the past three years, the OMB has been listening to the public's opinions and suggestions. Over the next year or so, it will examine the evidence, mull over the issue, and make a decision about how to classify data on race and ethnicity as we approach the 21st century.

EXTENSIVE RESEARCH

The OMB is conducting its comprehensive review of the racial/ethnic categories in collaboration with the Interagency Committee for the Review of Racial and Ethnic Standards, whose members represent more than 30 government agencies. In the process, it has also sought public input through a variety of means.

In 1993, Congressman Thomas C. Sawyer held a series of four congressional hearings that focused on how t6 categorize race in the 2000 census. In its testimony OMB announced that it would review the current standard. In February 1994, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on National Statistics organized a workshop as a first step in OMB's review process to sort out what issues needed to be tackled. That June, an OMB Federal Register notice elicited almost 800 letters, as well as testimony from 94 witnesses at four public hearings held in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu. 800 Interagency Committee's Research Working Group reviewed the criticisms and suggestions received during the public comment period and developed a special supplement to the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 1995 Current Population Survey (CPS). The results from this survey make it plain that the OMB's job will not be a simple one.

The research process itself is complex but necessary for evaluating the impact of any changes on the usefulness of the resulting data. Households participating in the CPS are interviewed for four months. They get an eight-month break and are then surveyed for another four months. This shows the BLS to examine longitudinal employment trends, the primary purpose of the CPS. In the first month, respondents are interviewed face-to-face and asked the standard questions about race and ethnicity: they answer a question about Hispanic origin and another about race that includes the four major racial categories, as well as an "other" option. The May supplement questions on race and ethnicity were asked in a separate interview following the standard labor force questions that the survey collects each month, usually by phone. This way, people's initial responses in the personal interviews could be matched against their responses to the test questions.