Racist ads pulled

Heineken pulls ‘Sometimes lighter is better’ ad after racism claims

Heineken said Monday it has pulled an ad with the tagline “Sometimes lighter is better” after critics slammed it as racist.

The ad features a bartender sliding a bottle of Heineken Light to a woman. The bottle travels past several black people before arriving at the paler skinned woman.

The clip came under fire on social media. Hip-hop star Chance The Rapper called it “terribly racist” on Twitter on Sunday evening and other users agreed with him.

“What idiots do they have approving this ad? Fire that person,” tweeted Helen Ehrenhofer, who identifies herself as a former communications manager.

Heineken (HEINY) responded late Monday by pulling the ad from TV and the internet.

“While we feel the ad is referencing our Heineken Light beer, and that light beer is better than other high-calorie options — we missed the mark, are taking the feedback to heart and will use this to influence future campaigns,” said Heineken USA spokesman Bjorn Trowery.

Last year, Pepsi pulled a controversial ad staring Kendall Jenner that was accused of appropriating the Black Lives Matter movement and using social justice to sell soda.

In October, Dove apologized for a Facebook post promoting its body wash that used a 3-second GIF of a black woman removing a dark brown t-shirt to reveal a white woman. It was introduced with the line “Ready for a Dove Shower?”

And in January, H&M set off a huge outcry by using a black child to model a sweatshirt with a “coolest monkey in the jungle” slogan. The retailer apologized and removed the item from its website.

Heineken had previously navigated sensitive issues more successfully.

In the aftermath of the Pepsi ad controversy last year, the beer brand was praised for an ad entitled “Worlds Apart” that addressed gay rights, climate change and feminism.

“For decades, Heineken has developed a positive track record for creating marketing that shows there’s more that unites us than divides us,” Trowery said Monday.

Census will ask for Citizenship

Note: Project RACE is NOT in favor of a citizenship question on the U.S. Census!

Despite Concerns, Census Will Ask Respondents if They Are U.S. Citizens

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross made the decision to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census forms, citing the need to measure the portion of the population eligible to vote. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The 2020 census will ask respondents whether they are United States citizens, the Commerce Department announced Monday night, agreeing to a Trump administration request with highly charged political and social implications that many officials feared would result in a substantial undercount.

In a statement released Monday, the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had “determined that reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census questionnaire is necessary to provide complete and accurate census block level data,” allowing the department to accurately measure the portion of the population eligible to vote.

But his decision immediately invited a legal challenge: Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, plans to sue the Trump administration over the decision, a spokeswoman for Mr. Becerra said late Monday.

Critics of the change and experts in the Census Bureau itself have said that, amid a fiery immigration debate, the inclusion of a citizenship question could prompt immigrants who are in the country illegally not to respond. That would result in a severe undercount of the population — and, in turn, faulty data for government agencies and outside groups that rely on the census. The effects would also bleed into the redistricting of the House and state legislatures in the next decade.

Photo

A census form from 2010, which did not ask about citizenship status. Credit Paul J. Richards/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The Justice Department had requested the change in December, arguing that asking participants about their citizenship status in the decennial census would help enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which aims to prevent voting rights violations.

“The Justice Department is committed to free and fair elections for all Americans, and has sought reinstatement of the citizenship question on the census to fulfill that commitment,” a Justice Department spokesman, Devin M. O’Malley, told The New York Times in February.

In a memorandum explaining his decision, Mr. Ross wrote that he had considered opponents’ arguments about the potential to discourage responses.

“I find that the need for accurate citizenship data and the limited burden that the reinstatement of the citizenship question would impose outweigh fears about a potentially lower response rate,” he wrote.

The decennial census generally included a citizenship inquiry for more than 100 years through 1950, according to the Commerce Department. And other, smaller population surveys, such as the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey, continue to ask respondents about it.

“The census numbers provide the backbone for planning how our communities can grow and thrive in the coming decade,” said Mr. Becerra. “What the Trump administration is requesting is not just alarming, it is an unconstitutional attempt to discourage an accurate census count.”

Others argued that an undercount in regions with high immigrant populations would lead not only to unreliable data but also to unfair redistricting, to the benefit of Republicans.

“Adding this question will result in a bad census — deeply flawed population data that will skew public and private sector decisions to ensure equal representation, allocate government resources and anticipate economic growth opportunities — for the next 10 years,” Vanita Gupta, the chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a deputy attorney general in the Obama administration, said in a statement Monday night. “The stakes are too high to allow this. We urge Congress to overturn this error in judgment.”

The announcement of the citizenship question comes at a troublesome time for the Census Bureau: Its top two positions have interim occupants, and it has been forced to skip two of its three trial runs for the 2020 census because of funding shortfalls. If response rates for the census are low, critics worry that the bureau may be unable to adjust the data or deploy enough census takers to low-response communities.

The bureau is required to submit a final list of the 2020 census questions to Congress by the end of March.

Census and Citizenship Question

California sues over Census citizenship question

(CNN) — Progressives, states and civil rights advocates are preparing a flurry of legal challenges to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the next census, saying the move will penalize immigrants and threaten civil rights.

The late Monday move from the Commerce Department, which it said came in response a request by the Justice Department, would restore a question about citizenship that has not appeared on the census since the 1950s. The administration said the data was necessary to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The state of California immediately challenged the plan in federal court.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Secretary of State Alex Padilla trashed the move as anti-immigrant.

“The citizenship question is the latest attempt by President Trump to stoke the fires of anti-immigrant hostility,” Padilla said in a statement. “Now, in one fell swoop, the US Commerce Department has ignored its own protocols and years of preparation in a concerted effort to suppress a fair and accurate census count from our diverse communities. The administration’s claim that it is simply seeking to protect voting rights is not only laughable, but contemptible.”

Former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder also blasted the move and said his organization, which focuses on voting enfranchisement and redistricting, would also pursue litigation against what he called an “irresponsible decision.”

Holder said contrary to the rationale presented by the Justice Department, he and other modern-era attorneys general were “perfectly” able to handle those legal matters without such a question on the Census.

“The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy,” Holder said in a statement. “Make no mistake — this decision is motivated purely by politics. In deciding to add this question without even testing its effects, the administration is departing from decades of census policy and ignoring the warnings of census experts.”

Critics of the move say that including such a question on a government survey will scare non-citizens and vulnerable immigrant communities into under-reporting. By undercounting these populations, they argue, there will be a major impact that follows on voting and federal funds.

Because the once-a-decade census is used to determine congressional and political districts and to dole out federal resources, an undercount in heavily immigrant areas could substantially impact certain states and major cities and potentially their representation at the federal level.

The question has not been on the full census since the 1950s, but does appear on the yearly American Community Survey administered by the Census Bureau to give a fuller picture of life in America and the population.

The Commerce Department said the decision came after a “thorough review” of the request from the Justice Department. The priority, Commerce said, was “obtaining complete and accurate data.”

“Having citizenship data at the census block level will permit more effective enforcement of the VRA, and Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts,” the statement said.

Becerra and his state have been central to virtually every legal challenge of the Trump administration on issues ranging from immigration, to the environment, to health care. The Justice Department has also sued California over its so-called sanctuary policies to protect immigrants.

More challenges could soon follow.

Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, a nonprofit that works on issues of justice and civil rights, said the question had no place in the Census.

“Our Constitution requires a complete and accurate count of everyone living in the country, no matter her or his citizenship status. The administration’s decision to add a citizenship question is at best a dramatic misstep, and at worst a politically-motivated move that will undermine a fair and accurate census,” Weiser said. “This question is a dangerous move that could lead to a serious skewing of the final census results, which would have a deleterious effect on our system of representative democracy. We urge the administration to reconsider.”

Credit: CNN

Genetics and Race

Credit Angie Wang

In 1942, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” an influential book that argued that race is a social concept with no genetic basis. A classic example often cited is the inconsistent definition of “black.” In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?

Beginning in 1972, genetic findings began to be incorporated into this argument. That year, the geneticist Richard Lewontin published an important study of variation in protein types in blood. He grouped the human populations he analyzed into seven “races” — West Eurasians, Africans, East Asians, South Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians and Australians — and found that around 85 percent of variation in the protein types could be accounted for by variation within populations and “races,” and only 15 percent by variation across them. To the extent that there was variation among humans, he concluded, most of it was because of “differences between individuals.”

In this way, a consensus was established that among human populations there are no differences large enough to support the concept of “biological race.” Instead, it was argued, race is a “social construct,” a way of categorizing people that changes over time and across countries.

It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view.

But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.

The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.

I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.

I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and being caught unprepared when they are found.

To get a sense of what modern genetic research into average biological differences across populations looks like, consider an example from my own work. Beginning around 2003, I began exploring whether the population mixture that has occurred in the last few hundred years in the Americas could be leveraged to find risk factors for prostate cancer, a disease that occurs 1.7 times more often in self-identified African-Americans than in self-identified European-Americans. This disparity had not been possible to explain based on dietary and environmental differences, suggesting that genetic factors might play a role.

Self-identified African-Americans turn out to derive, on average, about 80 percent of their genetic ancestry from enslaved Africans brought to America between the 16th and 19th centuries. My colleagues and I searched, in 1,597 African-American men with prostate cancer, for locations in the genome where the fraction of genes contributed by West African ancestors was larger than it was elsewhere in the genome. In 2006, we found exactly what we were looking for: a location in the genome with about 2.8 percent more African ancestry than the average.

When we looked in more detail, we found that this region contained at least seven independent risk factors for prostate cancer, all more common in West Africans. Our findings could fully account for the higher rate of prostate cancer in African-Americans than in European-Americans. We could conclude this because African-Americans who happen to have entirely European ancestry in this small section of their genomes had about the same risk for prostate cancer as random Europeans.

Did this research rely on terms like “African-American” and “European-American” that are socially constructed, and did it label segments of the genome as being probably “West African” or “European” in origin? Yes. Did this research identify real risk factors for disease that differ in frequency across those populations, leading to discoveries with the potential to improve health and save lives? Yes.

While most people will agree that finding a genetic explanation for an elevated rate of disease is important, they often draw the line there. Finding genetic influences on a propensity for disease is one thing, they argue, but looking for such influences on behavior and cognition is another.

But whether we like it or not, that line has already been crossed. A recent study led by the economist Daniel Benjamin compiled information on the number of years of education from more than 400,000 people, almost all of whom were of European ancestry. After controlling for differences in socioeconomic background, he and his colleagues identified 74 genetic variations that are over-represented in genes known to be important in neurological development, each of which is incontrovertibly more common in Europeans with more years of education than in Europeans with fewer years of education.

It is not yet clear how these genetic variations operate. A follow-up study of Icelanders led by the geneticist Augustine Kong showed that these genetic variations also nudge people who carry them to delay having children. So these variations may be explaining longer times at school by affecting a behavior that has nothing to do with intelligence.

This study has been joined by others finding genetic predictors of behavior. One of these, led by the geneticist Danielle Posthuma, studied more than 70,000 people and found genetic variations in more than 20 genes that were predictive of performance on intelligence tests.

Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.

You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.

To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating. Nicholas Wade, a longtime science journalist for The New York Times, rightly notes in his 2014 book, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History,” that modern research is challenging our thinking about the nature of human population differences. But he goes on to make the unfounded and irresponsible claim that this research is suggesting that genetic factors explain traditional stereotypes.

One of Mr. Wade’s key sources, for example, is the anthropologist Henry Harpending, who has asserted that people of sub-Saharan African ancestry have no propensity to work when they don’t have to because, he claims, they did not go through the type of natural selection for hard work in the last thousands of years that some Eurasians did. There is simply no scientific evidence to support this statement. Indeed, as 139 geneticists (including myself) pointed out in a letter to The New York Times about Mr. Wade’s book, there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes he promotes.

Another high-profile example is James Watson, the scientist who in 1953 co-discovered the structure of DNA, and who was forced to retire as head of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories in 2007 after he stated in an interview — without any scientific evidence — that research has suggested that genetic factors contribute to lower intelligence in Africans than in Europeans.

At a meeting a few years later, Dr. Watson said to me and my fellow geneticist Beth Shapiro something to the effect of “When are you guys going to figure out why it is that you Jews are so much smarter than everyone else?” He asserted that Jews were high achievers because of genetic advantages conferred by thousands of years of natural selection to be scholars, and that East Asian students tended to be conformist because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society. (Contacted recently, Dr. Watson denied having made these statements, maintaining that they do not represent his views; Dr. Shapiro said that her recollection matched mine.)

What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.

This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing differences among populations, we risk losing the trust of the public and we actively contribute to the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent. We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly.

If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong. For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead, “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.

So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences.

For me, a natural response to the challenge is to learn from the example of the biological differences that exist between males and females. The differences between the sexes are far more profound than those that exist among human populations, reflecting more than 100 million years of evolution and adaptation. Males and females differ by huge tracts of genetic material — a Y chromosome that males have and that females don’t, and a second X chromosome that females have and males don’t.

Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound. In addition to anatomical differences, men and women exhibit average differences in size and physical strength. (There are also average differences in temperament and behavior, though there are important unresolved questions about the extent to which these differences are influenced by social expectations and upbringing.)

How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.

It is clear from the inequities that persist between women and men in our society that fulfilling these aspirations in practice is a challenge. Yet conceptually it is straightforward. And if this is the case with men and women, then it is surely the case with whatever differences we may find among human populations, the great majority of which will be far less profound.

An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life. Compared with the enormous differences that exist among individuals, differences among populations are on average many times smaller, so it should be only a modest challenge to accommodate a reality in which the average genetic contributions to human traits differ.

It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings. Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid.

~M0R3iRA

Kirim foto memeknya dong neng

TOUCHED
~M0R3iRA

 

Multiracial Twins

The National Geographic Twins and the Falsehood of Our Post-Racial Future

On Monday, National Geographic opened its April issue with a sombre letter from the editor, Susan Goldberg, presented with the even more sombre headline “For Decades, Our Coverage was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.” “The Race Issue,” which marks the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., inaugurates the magazine’s yearlong “Diversity in America” series. In the letter, Goldberg—who is the first woman and the first Jewish person in the top post since the magazine’s founding, in 1888—informs her readers that John Edwin Mason, a historian of photography and of the African continent, having studied the magazine’s archive, found that, through failures of omission, overwrought inclusions, a melodramatic tone, and other editorial choices, National Geographic had mismanaged its reportage on nonwhite cultures. As Goldberg summarized, “until the 1970s National Geographic all but ignored people of color who lived in the United States . . . . Meanwhile it pictured ‘natives’ elsewhere as exotics, famously and frequently unclothed, happy hunters, noble savages—every type of cliché.”

The magazine’s admission is rare, and vindicates readers who, like me, have always had a visceral reaction to National Geographic’s covers and ethos. A recent project at the Times was similarly refreshing—offering obituaries for the indefatigable journalist Ida B. Wells, the writer Sylvia Plath, and thirteen other women who hadn’t been memorialized in the paper at the time of their deaths. The Times, which calls its project “Overlooked,” uses oddly passive language in presenting its past missteps: its archives offer “a stark lesson in how society valued various achievements and achievers,” the copy reads. Mason uses more pointed language: “National Geographic comes into existence at the height of colonialism . . . . and National Geographic was reflecting that view of the world.”

Do institutions serve primarily as reflections, or might they also be authorities from which Western views of the world originate? As Tobi Haslett writes in “Unseen: Unpublished Black History from the New York Times Photo Archives,” his review of a similar project produced by the Times, “The newspaper graciously provides us with the very images it had so imperiously overlooked, as the whole endeavor calmly reasserts the grip of the media on the public imagination.”

On Monday, National Geographic announced its new era of racial lucidity with a cover photograph of the English eleven-year-olds Marcia and Millie Biggs, apparently symbols of our post-racial future. Their matching dresses and long, flowing hair emphasize what can be determined from their faces: that these girls are sisters—fraternal twins. “They both have my nose,” their father, Michael Biggs, says in the story. “Marcia had light brown hair and fair skin like her English-born mother,” the article states; “Millie had black hair and brown skin like her father, who’s of Jamaican descent.” A statistical geneticist clarifies that it is not a rarity for one child to resemble one parent and vice versa; the issue’s abstract says that “race is a human invention,” and that skin color has misguidedly been used as a “proxy” for race. And yet the magazine cover undermines all of these correctives. “Black and White,” it reads, under the portrait of the twins. “These twin sisters make us rethink everything we know about race.” The online promotion is even more contradictory: “These Twins, One Black and One White, Will Make You Rethink Race.” The framing inspires the kind of coarse racial quantifying from which the issue is ostensibly trying to escape. Linking to the article on social media, several people observed that both sisters “look” black.

The sisters first went viral in 2007, in the Daily Mail, where they were also described as belonging to separate races, and were called “million to one” biological anomalies. In the National Geographic coverage, we learn that what sounded like a statistic in the Daily Mail is, in fact, just something that the girls’ adoring mother, Amanda Wanklin, likes to say. It is telling that both of the girls’ parents think of their daughters this way, as do their peers in Birmingham. A more interesting, and more accurate, angle for an article might have made the human perception of race the point of their story, examining the long shadow of pseudoscientific classification, the legacy of passing, and the oppressiveness of phenotype. The paradox of race—a social myth with real repercussions—can never be overexplained. Instead, the National Geographic article, a perfect demonstration of good intentions gone awry, has the girls talking about how they are stared at but have thankfully never endured racist abuse. As Mason is quoted in the accompanying editorial, “It’s possible to say that a magazine can open people’s eyes at the same time it closes them.”

Certain people will always be collected and displayed—in magazines, in museums, in imaginations. Sometimes, these people aren’t even real. In 1993, Time published “The New Face of America,” a computer-generated woman with light-brown skin created from “a mix of several races.” For its hundred-and-twenty-fifth-anniversary issue, in 2013, National Geographic profiled multiracial people to illustrate the “changing face of America.” In recent years, the multiracial person, who breaks the rules of the caste system, has become the subject of liberal, cross-racial desire, vaunted as diviners of social progress, or of apocalypse. Barack Obama is the most famous member of the newly consolidated Loving Generation, as it is termed in a new docu-series from Topic; one only has to look at the excitement around Meghan Markle, or the dozens of accounts on Instagram and Facebook devoted to fawning over mixed-race “swirl babies,” to see the fixation develop. But, for centuries, a significant portion of colonized populations have qualified as multiracial, even if their genes do not manifest in the look of light skin, hazel or blue eyes, and hair that grows in perfect ringlets. It follows that multiraciality ought not to be the vessel for social hope. Our awe at the notion of a raceless future only betrays the truths of our present.

  • Doreen St. Félix is a staff writer at The New Yorker.

U.S. to become “Minority White”

Note: Project RACE thanks the author and Brookings for using the term “multiracial.”

The U.S. will become “minority white” in 2045, Census projects

Youthful minorities are the engine of future growth

William H. Frey

New census population projections confirm the importance of racial minorities as the primary demographic engine of the nation’s future growth, countering an aging, slow-growing and soon to be declining white population. The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations (see Figure 1).

The shift is the result of two trends. First, between 2018 and 2060, gains will continue in the combined racial minority populations, growing by 74 percent. Second, during this time frame, the aging white population will see a modest immediate gain through 2023, and then experience a long-term decline through 2060, a consequence of more deaths than births (see Figure 2).

2018.03.14_metro_figure 1_Bill Frey

2018.03.14_metro_figure 2_Bill Frey

Among the minority populations, the greatest growth is projected for multiracial populations, Asians and Hispanics with 2018–2060 growth rates of 175, 93, and 85 percent, respectively. The projected growth rate for blacks is 34 percent.* The demographic source of growth varies across groups. For example, immigration contributes to one-third of Hispanic growth over this time span, with the rest attributable to natural increase (the excess of births over deaths). Among Asians, immigration contributes to three quarters of the projected growth.

These new projections differ from those that the census previously released in 2014. Those projected a minority white tipping point in the year 2044 due to larger projected immigration and somewhat greater growth for several minority groups. The national growth was also somewhat larger in the 2014 projections. The U.S. was predicted to reach a population of 400 million in the year 2051 compared with 2058 in the new projections.

 “Minority white” tipping points differ by age

Because minorities as a group are younger than whites, the minority white tipping point comes earlier for younger age groups. As shown in Figure 3, the new census projections indicate that, for youth under 18–the post-millennial population–minorities will outnumber whites in 2020. For those age 18-29–members of the younger labor force and voting age populations–the tipping point will occur in 2027.

2018.03.14_metro_figure 3_Bill Frey

The new census projections indicate that, for youth under 18–the post-millennial population–minorities will outnumber whites in 2020

These tipping point years occur later for older age groups, meaning that seniors, age 60 and above, will continue to be majority white after the year 2060. The latter can be attributable in the near term to the staying power of the largely white baby boom. In fact, over the 2018–2060 time span, the only white age group that does not lose population is the 65 and older age group, an age group that, overall, grows far more rapidly than any other.

Youthful diversity as a counterweight to aging whites

Clearly it is the growth of the nation’s youthful minority population–attributable to a combination of past and present immigration and births among younger minority groups–that is keeping the nation from aging even faster than would otherwise be the case.

Figure 4 makes clear how important minority populations will become for the nation’s youth even through 2060. At that point in time, the census projects whites will comprise only 36 percent of the under age 18 population, with Hispanics accounting for 32 percent. This contrasts sharply with the minority contribution to the nation’s seniors, which will still be over half white.

2018.03.14_metro_figure 4_Bill Frey

Because racial minorities are projected to account for all of the nation’s youthful population growth over the next 42 years, they will sharply decelerate national aging. Already in 2018, there will be more white seniors than children and more white deaths than births according to census projections. Yet, neither will be the case for the combined minority population for the projected 2018–2060 time frame.

Minorities will be the source of all of the growth in the nation’s youth and working age population, most of the growth in its voters, and much of the growth in its consumers and tax base as far into the future as we can see. Hence, the more rapidly growing, largely white senior population will be increasingly dependent on their contributions to the economy and to government programs such as Medicare and Social Security. This suggests the necessity for continued investments in the nation’s diverse youth and young adults as the population continues to age.

(In 2060) the census projects whites will comprise only 36 percent of the under age 18 population, with Hispanics accounting for 32 percent

* Growth rates for multiracials, Asians and blacks pertain to non-Hispanic members of those groups.

It’s Famous Friday!

Storm Reid

Storm is a 14 year old American Actress. She was born to a black mother and a white father. She is the lead, Meg Murry, in the fantasy film “A Wrinkle in Time.” Reid began acting when she was just three years old.  She hopes her new $100 million Disney movie will inspire all people. Storm first read the 1962 science-fiction classic during the sixth grade for a book report and felt a strong connection with Meg. “I relate to Meg so much, and other teenagers and kids relate to her, because we are all trying to figure things out. We all might have things in our lives that are stopping us, but Meg shows all of us that we can overcome our challenges and we can live out our dreams.”  Reid understands the importance of being biracial and landing the lead role of Meg. “I am a girl of color, and Meg wasn’t written that way originally, so for me to be able to portray that and represent girls who look like me and let them know they can do anything and empower them is special.” Reid’s co-stars are Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling. Storm shared that Oprah’s advice to her is now her new life motto. “She told me, ‘Don’t waste energy on things you can’t change in your life, when you could be using that energy on something else positive in your life.’ I took that, and it’s the best advice I’ve ever been given.” Storm stated this was the first time she has worked with so many women on set. She said she felt as if the United Nations were represented. Storm stated she never thought Meg could look like her. “I imagined her as what she was described as- as a young Caucasian girl with freckles and wild, crazy hair. So I really didn’t see myself, or a girl that looked like me, as Meg. But once I did get the script, it kind of all clicked and made sense. So I’m glad that we do have a version of Meg who is Caucasian with freckles and big, wild hair, but also people will be able to see themselves in the new Meg that we have.” As “A Wrinkle in Time” hits theaters around the world Reid has already seen girls dressed up in Meg Murry costumes which she said warms her heart.

Makensie Shay McDaniel

Project RACE Teens Co-President.

Photo Via: imdb.com

2018 Census Test

2018 Census Test Arrives This Week in Providence Mailboxes

Residents asked to respond online, by mail or phone

MARCH 14, 2018 — Providence County, R.I., households will receive a letter from the U.S. Census Bureau beginning this week asking them to respond to the 2018 End-to-End Census Test questionnaire  ̶  just 10 questions that will take about 10 minutes to complete online, by mail or over the phone.

The 2018 Census Test is a critical part of preparations for the nation’s upcoming 2020 Census and includes approximately 265,000 housing units in Providence County. This is an opportunity for residents in the area to participate in the Census Bureau’s final stages of planning for a complete and accurate 2020 Census. The 2018 Census Test will help the Census Bureau validate its readiness for 2020 Census operations, procedures, systems and field infrastructure for the once-a-decade census.

Beginning in May, census takers will visit households that have not responded to the questionnaire online, by mail or over the phone.

Your census responses are safe, secure and protected by law. Your answers can only be used to produce statistics.

Multiracial Patients and Bone Marrow Donors

Minorities have lower chances of finding bone marrow donors

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – FOX 12 InvestigatorsBone marrow matches can save lives, but that cure for blood cancers depends on people being willing to donate their bone marrow.

The chances of finding a donor vary greatly depending on race and ethnicity. For example, someone who is white has a 97 percent chance of finding a bone marrow match.

However, someone who is African-American sees the chances go down to just 66 percent. A person who is mixed race or ethnicity can see their chances go down to zero.

Mixed minorities are one of the fastest growing demographics in the U.S., but not enough minorities are donating to bone marrow registries and in terms of these kinds of transplants, race and ethnicity matter.

Lenore and Todd Thawley’s son Hunter died of leukemia before his fourth birthday.

Mom and dad represent our diverse country. Lenore is African-American, Indian, German and English. Todd is Korean and Caucasian.

They knew finding an exact bone marrow match for their son would likely be impossible.

They hoped with their doctors they could find something close enough, but Todd told FOX 12 they searched everywhere, across the U.S. and Europe, but came up with zero.

Lenore remembers the frustration.

“At that point, you’re like where are we? What can we do? What are our options? This or this?” she said.

Eventually, a borderline match for Hunter was found. He lived another nine months.

Todd and Lenore believe if more minorities were registered as bone marrow donors, their son might be alive today.

No matter what your race or ethnicity, anyone who considering becoming a bone marrow donor, should contact bethematch.org.

KPTV-KPDX Broadcasting Corporation.

Meet our Presidents


Makensie McDaniel