Multiracial up to 14 Percent!

The rise of multiracial and multiethnic babies in the U.S.

The FINANCIAL — One-in-seven U.S. infants (14%) were multiracial or multiethnic in 2015, nearly triple the share in 1980, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. This increase comes nearly a half century after the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriage.

Multiracial or multiethnic infants include children less than 1 year old whose parents are each of a different race, those with one Hispanic and one non-Hispanic parent, and those with at least one parent who identifies as multiracial. This analysis is limited to infants living with two parents because census data on the race and ethnicity of parents is only available for those living in the same home. In 2015, this was the case for 62% of all infants.

The rapid rise in the share of infants who are multiracial or multiethnic has occurred hand-in-hand with the growth in marriages among spouses of different races or ethnicities. In 1980, 7% of all newlyweds were in an intermarriage, and by 2015, that share had more than doubled to 17%, according to a recently released Pew Research Center report. Both trends are likely spurred in part by the growing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S.

The general public seems mostly accepting of the trend toward more children having parents of different races. In a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, 22% of U.S. adults said more children with parents of different races was a good thing for society, while half as many (11%) thought it was a bad thing. The majority (65%) thought that this trend didn’t make much of a difference.

Among all multiracial and multiethnic infants living with two parents, by far the largest portion have one parent who is Hispanic and one who is non-Hispanic white (42%). The next largest share of these infants (22%) have at least one parent who identifies as multiracial, while 14% have one parent who is non-Hispanic white and another who is Asian.

The share of infants in two-parent homes who have parents of different races or ethnicities varies dramatically across states. For example, 44% of infants in Hawaii are multiracial or multiethnic. Shares are also high in Oklahoma and Alaska (28%). At the same time, just 4% of children younger than 1 in Vermont are multiracial or multiethnic, as are 6% of those in North Dakota, Maine, Mississippi and West Virginia.

Source: The Financial

Comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

April 19, 2017

Comments on Proposals From the Federal Interagency Working Group for Revision of the Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity

Project RACE (Reclassify All Children Equally) is the national organization advocating for the multiracial community. Our population requires changes in the racial and ethnic classifications in this country so that we are counted correctly and accurately for research, making and enforcing laws, redistricting, school data, etc., but also for medical reasons. We have no idea what the health risks are for our population because we have not been included on forms requiring health information. These are matters of life and death. To that end, we are commenting on the Proposals From the Federal Interagency Working Group for Revision of the Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,

In order to maintain our confidence in Federal statistics, our recommendations will address the multiracial population, which is also called “two or more races” and we hope will be taken under consideration by the OMB.

We are in favor of the combined format, as outlined by the Federal Interagency Working Group, because it is inclusive and provides for equitable and balanced results for our population. Testing for the 2015 National Content Test (NCT) by the Census Bureau showed, in fact, that there was consistency for multiracial individuals with this method. It did reduce reporting of Some Other Race, which we address below. It also appears to better reflect self-identity, which is critical to the multiracial population.

The salience of terminology used for race and ethnicity classifications and other language in the standard are critical to our community, and should have been addressed by the working group. Specifically, it is crucial that instructions are included in every instance where racial and ethnic data are collected as follows: Paper collection: Mark all boxes that apply. Note: You may report more than one group. Online collection: Select all boxes that apply. Note: You may report more than one group. These formats are the only way we can be assured that our respondents will, in fact, know they can check two or more races. These formats have been tested during the NCT by the Census Bureau and have been shown to offer the best guidance for and assurance of the most accurate resulting numbers. The new instructions increased the rate of consistency of multiple-responses when compared to the old instructions. We strongly recommend this critical approach to ensure that our population, which is often seemingly forgotten by the OMB, be counted as accurately as possible.

We also recognize problems with “Some other race” or “Other” categories and the multiracial population. If someone writes in “multiracial,” “biracial,” or “mixed,” for example, they should be tabulated and reassigned to the “two or more races” category. “Some other race” was the third highest category on previous decennial censuses, which caused much confusion and resulted in an undercount of the multiracial population. Federal agencies other than the Census Bureau commonly utilize some type of “Other” category and proper guidance should be provided by the Federal Interagency Working Group.

It is our hope that our suggestions will be taken seriously by OMB in its review of Federal Register Comments. Thank you.

Susan Graham for the members of Project RACE

No Do-Overs on 2020 Census

‘There are no Do-Overs’ – Advocates Sound Alarm on 2020 Census

 ‘There are no Do-Overs’ - Advocates Sound Alarm on 2020 Census

“Congress’ failure over the past few years to pay for rigorous 2020 Census planning, and now the Trump Administration’s insufficient budget request for 2018, will strike at the heart of operations specifically designed to make the census better in historically undercounted communities,” said Terri Ann Lowenthal, former staff director with the House Subcommittee on Census and Population.

She spoke during a national press call hosted by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The call was moderated by Wade Henderson, president and CEO of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

“The decennial census is by far the most importance and critical tool in our country to ensure that diverse communities are equitably served with government resources and that the American people are adequately represented at all levels of government,” said Henderson. “The census is required by the U.S. Constitution and policymakers are responsible for making sure the job gets done right. All of us must insist that they do that because there are no do-overs.”

Currently the Census Bureau is being funded at 2016 levels, as Congress has not approved final spending bills for 2017. The bureau has requested a 25 percent “ramp up” for preparation activities. But President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal recommends keeping funding levels where they are currently, $1.5 billion.

Census advocates say this is a crucial time for laying the groundwork and are calling for Congress to reject the administration’s budget proposal in favor of one that covers all preparation activities.

A ‘major civil rights issue’

Recently, the U.S. Government Accountability office deemed the 2020 Census a “high risk federal program,” in part because the U.S. Census Bureau is planning to utilize several never-before used strategies – such as collecting responses over the internet – but may not have the time and resources to adequately develop and test them.

Budget limitations have already hindered major preparations, including the cancellation of tests of new methods in Puerto Rico and on two American Indian reservations, and resulted in mailed tests rather than electronic or in-person ones, as well as delayed community outreach and advertising campaigns.

Advocates say current funding shortfalls will result in many people – particularly black, Latino and rural households, and families with young children – being missed by the count. Arturo Vargas is the executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. He calls the underfunding of the census a major civil rights issue for Latinos and other communities of color.

“A successful 2020 Census is not possible if Latinos are not accurately counted,” Vargas said.

Millions of Latinos, the second largest ethnic group in the U.S., were missed in the 2010 census, including 400,000 children under four, according to Vargas.

For each uncounted person, state governments and communities lose thousands of federal aid dollars, which go to anti-poverty programs, education, infrastructure, emergency services, healthcare and other programs.

An undercount can also trigger changes in political representation – from redrawn district lines, to fewer seats in local, state and federal offices, often diminishing the power of communities of color.

Advocates say that new cost-saving strategies like collecting responses over the internet rather than paper forms require investments on the front end. Delayed preparations cannot be made up later. Surveys administered online may also be hampered by the “digital divide” if adequate field tests are not taken.

Lack of access to broadband and the internet may make it “more challenging to [reach] those historically left out of the census in the first place,” Vargas warns.

The ‘first high tech census’

The first “high tech” census also opens the door to cyber security concerns, which have been exacerbated of late by evidence of foreign attacks on the 2016 presidential elections. Such concerns could make Americans even more hesitant to participate.

Lowenthal says she and other advocates must be prepared for a “wild card” event, such as President Trump publically questioning the importance of the census via social media.

“One errant tweet could shake public confidence and in the process depress participation and undermine faith in the results, conceivably all the way to the halls of Congress,” Lowenthal said.

Census advocates are eyeing several other threats to the decennial count and its yearly counterpart, the American Community Survey. The ACS is sent yearly to about 1 in 38 households to collect demographic data on everything from employment and home-ownership to educational attainment.

Republications in Congress are pushing to make participation in the ACS voluntary which could severely damage the data, says John C. Yang, president and executive director of the non-profit advocacy group Asian Americans Advancing Justice.

“The ACS updates the Census throughout the decade. As such it is required by law and must remain so to provide the vital info needed from our communities,” Yang said, emphasizing that the ACS is the only source for detailed data of ethnic subgroups, such as Vietnamese of Chinese descent.

Census advocates are also on high alert because an unsigned leaked executive order, titled “Protecting American Workers from Immigrant Labor,” referenced a directive to the Census Bureau to collect data on immigration status.

Advocates are alarmed by the intentions behind this unsigned order.

“Latinos and other immigrant families are keenly aware of heightened immigrant enforcement actions in their communities, and this may increase distrust in contact with public agencies including the Census Bureau,” Vargas said.

Proposed Census Changes

Ethnic groups wary of proposed 2020 census changes

Civil rights groups warned Monday that a possible change to how the Census Bureau asks about race and

ethnicity in 2020 would end up clouding the picture more than it helps, and could skew the way the government

distributes aid or enforces discrimination laws.

In the last national census taken in 2010, people were asked to identify their race and to report separately if

they were Hispanic. But Census officials are considering lumping those two queries into a single question

that deals with both race and ethnic origin.

Advocacy groups said they feared important information about individuals could be lost with the change.

The current two-question system, for example, allows respondents who identify as “Asian” to check off a box

signifying whether they are Chinese, Japanese, Filipino or a variety of other origins. But the new proposal

would have them check Asian, then offer a spot for them to write in a specific origin if they want —

but they wouldn’t be prompted by check boxes.

If people don’t report their origin, it’s not as useful when it comes to programs such as language assistance

for elections, said Terry Ao Minnis, director of census and voting programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice.

“The Census Bureau must ensure we do not move backwards,” she told reporters Monday.

“For our community, this means a maximum number of check boxes should be included for

‘Asian Americans’ and the ‘Native Hawaiian\Pacific Islander’ subgroup.”

The 2010 census gave respondents 14 options for ethnicity, as well as a place to write in another ethnic group

with which they identified. Under the two-question set-up, however, respondents only have seven options,

according to the Census website. Each of the options must be written in to indicate the place of origin.

The Census Bureau said a lot of people currently check “Other” when asked their race in a two-question system,

but offering a single question pushes them to answer — suggesting they found a label that

suited their identity, Census officials say.

“Overall, when a Hispanic category is provided as a response option within the combined approach,

some other race becomes one of the smallest response groups, demonstrating that our combined question

is more in line with how Hispanic respondents view themselves,” Nicholas Jones, director of race and ethnic

research and outreach at the Census Bureau, told reporters last month.

On Monday, the Bureau said it is still studying the issue.

The decennial census is politically charged, with interest groups arguing over how the count is done and how

people are categorized. Some conservatives balk at what they say are intrusive questions, while liberal groups

argue the questions need to be targeted to better find out communities’ needs for government help.

Arab-Americans want their own identification option on the next census, saying they currently are classified as white,

leaving no accurate way to count their community.

Samer Khalaf, national president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said that’s a problem

when they need to ask for funding for problems specific to Arab-American communities in the post-9/11 world.

Mr. Khalaf said it’s especially difficult for people from countries like Sudan or the Nubian region of Egypt who

are dark-skinned but come from Middle Eastern countries technically classified as white by the census.

“We cannot be defined by one single color, we have a rainbow of people,” he said. “They’re confused about what

they should indicate. Do they say they are black, or do they say they are white because they technically come from

a country designated as ‘white’ by the census?”

Latinos from Caribbean countries who also identify with an African heritage face a similar problem of not

knowing which box to check, said Rosalind Gold, senior director of policy, research and advocacy for the

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.

Most people who end up checking the “Other” box for ethnicity are of Hispanic heritage, and Ms. Gold said limiting

options for race and ethnicity questions could end up providing less information about these respondents.

“Some are concerned that by eliminating that other category, we are going to lose some kind of information about

Latinos who don’t necessarily see themselves in the standard racial categories,” she said.

Source: Washington Times

FYI-Official Business

Below are the abbreviated comments from Project RACE in response to the current Federal Register notice regarding the 2020 Census. The comments were submitted on January 14, 21015. We are awaiting confirmation notification. Staying current with the planning for the 2020 Census and drafting responses to official notices is just one of the things Project RACE does for the multiracial community.

 

January 14, 2015

Re: Comments on 2015 National Content Test

Project RACE (Reclassify All Children Equally) respectfully submits the comments below regarding the 2015 Optimizing Self-Response and Census Tests. We are the national advocates for multiracial children and their families. We are often rendered invisible by federal agencies in the discussions and planning for racial and ethnic classifications. We are concerned with ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected in the 2020 Census regarding race and ethnicity.

As you know, the 2000 Census partially accommodated multiracial respondents by allowing us to check more than one racial box. The request by the multiracial community to use the preferred term “multiracial” was denied then and for the 2010 Census. As a result, multiracial respondents who checked more than one race are called “MOOMs” (Check One Or More), “Two or More Race People,” or “In Combination” respondents for purposes of tabulation. Tabulation wording does influence common usage because it is a descriptor of the total numbers.

OMB advised federal agencies to utilize “in combination” in its guidance for federal data on race and ethnicity in December, 2000. However, there has been much confusion about the nomenclature since 1997 when OMB specified, “When the primary focus of a report is on two or more specific identifiable groups in the population, one or more of which is racial or ethnic, it is acceptable to display data for each of the particular groups separately and to describe data relating to the remainder of the population by an appropriate collective description.”

Our requests for utilizing the word “multiracial” on the federal forms has been denied, even though it is important for multiracial children to see a descriptive word for themselves that is correct, respectful, and accurate. We work with many schools, medical facilities, clinical trials, etc. that do use the term “multiracial” on the forms with these directions: If you are multiracial, you may select two or more races. We would like to see testing of this wording on the instructions for the 2020 Census. Census Bureau personnel have indicated that will not happen. We have not been given any reason and our suggestion was not tested.

The instructions for indicating a person’s races are critical to the clarity of the category, which can affect the total numbers of people across all racial classifications. The multiracial population needs assurance that we will not lose numbers based on how the question is asked. “Mark X one or more boxes” proved to be confusing. Our hope is that the testing of “Mark all boxes that apply…note, you may report more than one group” will prove more effective for the multiracial population.

It would be very meaningful to the multiracial population if the appropriate term is at the very least used for tabulation, replacing “in combination.” Ironically, the Census Bureau often uses the term “multiracial” when discussing this population and in presentations, but not in its “official” data collection. If you seek clarity, the term “alone” should be dropped or changed to “racial,” and the term “in combination,” should be changed to “multiracial.” To give an example, consider that the decisions of the OMB and Census Bureau are often reflected by the media. When we see a racial and ethnic pie chart in a newspaper or Internet story, we want to see the multiracial community represented as “multiracial,” not “combination people” or “other.” Both OMB and Census personnel know perfectly well that proper nomenclature is extremely important when used to describe race and ethnicity, yet it is completely disregarded when it comes to only one population group—multiracial.

Additionally, it is reprehensible that OMB Bulletin No 00-02, Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement (March 9, 2000) sets forth racially insensitive instructions in its EEO Enforcement instructions, whereby a person who checks more than one race is assigned to one of their minority races. Discrimination is often the result of a person designating more than one race, and to be reassigned to one race only defeats the purpose of enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unfortunately, we see cases where multiracial children are bullied because they are multiracial, and they have no protection in that eventuality under the OMB guidelines.

We ask that these issues be revisited in testing for the 2020 Census. Changing “in combination” to “multiracial” would mean government acceptance of a word that is very widely used by non-governmental entities. It would also indicate sensitivity for proper nomenclature that is given to other racial groups, which we have been asking for since 1990. Any consideration that can be given to this demographic group that is rapidly and substantially increasing would be appreciated by the multiracial community.

 

Sincerely,

Susan Graham

Executive Director

Project RACE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Heads Up to the Multiracial Community-IMPORTANT

A Heads Up to the Multiracial Community-IMPORTANT

 Flag

 

Not all leadership in the Multiracial Community are looking out for your best interests. Be very careful. One “leader” took a position recently about a report that came out by an unofficial source, a slick report called “Race and Ethnicity in the 2020 Census: Improving Data to Capture a Multiethnic America.” What’s wrong with that? Plenty is wrong in the 36-page tome and who is promoting it.

First, the small collaboration that supports this report is made up of three small organizations: The Leadership Conference Educational Fund (LCEF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), and the National Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO).

Let’s look at the LCEF. Its president and CEO is Wade Henderson. Gosh that name sounds familiar! Ohhhhhh, wait, Henderson was the Washington Bureau director of the NAACP back when we were fighting for a place at the table and for multiracial people. He was adamantly against a multiracial box and/or multiple check-off boxes.

The AAJC is afraid of losing population numbers, just like the rest of us. I’m not sure they belong on this bandwagon except when it comes to adding Asian sub-identifiers.

NALEO is Arturo Vargas’ organization. Uh oh, his name is familiar, too. He’s on the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations. Arturo is a likeable guy—unless you cross him and/or the Hispanic population. They do deserve a place on the NAC Committee, and in this report, although it is just another reminder that the Census Bureau is really running the show instead of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where the decisions on race and ethnicity are really made. Arturo is the guy to do this, and we’re glad they didn’t choose somebody else like a Hispanic/Latino advocate who is pretending to represent the multiracial community.

Speaking of the Census Bureau, Terri Ann Lowenthal was the principal author of the report. Big surprise (yawn). Terri Ann was a staffer for Representative Thomas Sawyer during the 1990s. She was no friend of the multiracial community, although she shared with me once that she had a “mixed” kid. She left the government so that she could work for the government. Yes, you read that right. She became a kind of consultant to OMB, the Census Bureau. She is a good soldier and writes whatever the bureaucrats want her to write.

One more interesting thing about this report is that “the staff of the U.S. Census Bureau” helped with this report. OK, so the usual suspects are in bed together again and still. Business as usual. Just don’t get too cozy thinking this is an independent undertaking.

I’ve read the report—twice, so you don’t have to, It’s a big report in very small type, but I urge you to come to your own conclusions. You can read it here: http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/Census-Report-2014-WEB.pdf

My job is to go through these things for you and report the truth. I have highlighted the most important parts. I do believe that anyone commenting on the report should read it thoroughly and report back to the multiracial community on those things that concern us, not only one race or ethnicity (i.e. the Hispanic question). So here we go.

First, the writers pat everyone on the back. They applaud everyone from A to Z, but that’s the custom. If you ever get a chance, listen to any Census Bureau Internet webcast and hear it for yourself. You’ll feel like a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader.

I will say that the report gives excellent background on the history of the U.S. Census until it gets to page 4, which is also the first of only a handful of times the word “multiracial” is used. The point of reading through all the text is to get to the standards that were set by the 2000 census, but then comes the BIG OMISSION: it gives the five racial categories and two ethnicity questions, and doesn’t as much as mention the big deal of checking two or more races! Trust me, it was the question leading up to the 2000 census, and they completely overlook it in an important place in the report.

So what does this all mean to us? It means that sometime between September, 2015 and April 1, 2017, revisions could (and let’s face it, will) set off an OMB review. They do this via a Federal Register notice, which will only be seen by those OMB intends for it to seen by. We are not on their list. Why? Because the one guy, Brian Harris-Kojetin, who handles these things at OMB will not answer our calls and emails. Hmmpffff, we’ve been ignored by bigger people! Like Nicholas Jones, who is the Chief of Racial and Ethnic whatever at the Census Bureau. The multiracial community is precisely the kind of stakeholder that should be notified so we can write letters.

PUT A NOTE ON YOUR CALENDER AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 TO CHECK BACK WITH PROJECT RACE ABOUT WHEN YOU WILL NEED TO WRITE A LETTER TO OMB. WE’LL TELL YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW. THAT’S THE ONE CHANCE WHEN YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HELP THE MULTIRACIAL COMMUNITY WITH THE 2020 U.S. CENSUS!!!

They talk about AQE testing, which is yet another acronym for something that means testing. OK, I can share. It stands for Race and Hispanic Origin Alternative Questionnaire Experiment. They go into requests for new categories (i.e. MENA, which stands for people of Middle Eastern and North African descent), voting rights, redistricting, employment, education, fair housing, healthcare, poverty, and even criminal justice and how they are all affected by clarity in civil rights. They sum it up thusly: “First, for purposes of implementing and enforcing many civil rights laws—especially in the voting rights arena—data on the Hispanic or Latino population are treated on par with data on the five race groups, experts note.” Wait a minute. Where are the multiracial groups, which they refer to as “combination people”? Oh, that’s right. They don’t take our group into consideration for civil rights matters.

Stay with me now. Here it comes. Right on page 17:

 

“The updated Education Department categories do

not ask Hispanics to report a race; they also collapse

multiple race responses into one, unspecific category of

“Two or more races,” instead of assigning multiracial

individuals to their respective race choices.(Endnote 65) The latter

practice is especially worrisome to civil rights data users,

given the growth in the multiracial and multiethnic

populations. The percentage of the population reporting

multiple races grew by nearly a third (32 percent) between

2000 and 2010, compared to an overall 10 percent

growth in the U.S. population.(Endnote 66) Failure to capture multiple

race responses as part of specific race groups can

adversely affect the ability of educational institutions to

meet minority student enrollment thresholds under various

education programs.”

 

Do we really need to be reminded of what a mess the Department of Education (DOE) made with their interpretation of OMBs guidelines and the fact that OMB left enough loopholes land for them to do this? They don’t even mention that the Census Bureau not only collapses multiple race responses into one, unspecified category of “Two or more races,” but calls us Two or More Race (TOMR!!) people. This entire paragraph is unnecessary unless the authors are looking to follow DOEs horrible civil rights injustices like taking students who check Hispanic and anything else and making them only Hispanic. They conclude that: “Civil rights advocates note that census race and ethnicity data are the most comprehensive, objective tool for understanding the intersection of issues that can be barriers to equality of opportunity and social justice.” Oh yes! We get that, but are we included? Not so much.

We finally get to the RECOMMENDATIONS chapter. What are these folks trying to get to? What do they want to see? Let’s look at the question of whether there should be a combined format question. It’s really none of our business with the exception of whether they would retabulate the Hispanic numbers into only one category, in which case, it certainly is our business because we would lose numbers. We can play this game, too, if only we were invited to play. On the MENA question, again, not our business unless….By the way, if they decide not to add the MENA category, watch them blame us–little, insignificant in every other way, us.

There it is: our BIGGEST problem. They don’t have any recommendations about the multiracial community. They don’t address the evil retabulation. They don’t say a word about our request to be recognized respectfully as “multiracial,” and not “combination people,” “Two or More Races” (TOMR) folks, or their other name, the “Mark One or More” (MOOM) population.

My very favorite paragraph of the entire report comes on page 19:

 

“Stakeholder Engagement

  1. The Census Bureau and OMB should keep civil rights

stakeholders apprised of research and testing plans and

outcomes, and establish opportunities for meaningful

and timely dialogue and consultation with civil rights

leaders, experts, and organizations, before key decisions

are made with respect to the 2020 census race and

ethnicity questions and the Standards for Classification

of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity and related

implementation guidance.”

 

We’re civil rights stakeholders. All I could note in the space next to that paragraph is, “NO SHIT.”

There are 17 recommendations in all. But the endnotes are fun, too. For example, the report refers to a day-long roundtable in July 2014 hosted by the three organizations that ordered this report. It refers to them as “respected” civil rights yada, yada, yadas, Endnote 4 adds this tidbit:

The July 31, 2014, roundtable, “Race and Ethnicity

Data in the 2020 Census: Ensuring Useful Data

for Civil Rights Purposes,” was an invitation-only,

closed door, and off-the-record event. It took place in

Washington, DC.”

 

OK, full disclosure, but come on! It sure sounds like they are pretty proud of their special invitation only, closed door, and off-the-record selves. I certainly understand how multiracial population leaders would not want to do the in-depth work to detangle this mess. Yes, this is still about the multiracial group. We don’t mind playing bad cop to a good cop, as long as that cop is doing the same in-depth work that we’re doing. It’s only fair.

Susan Graham

Executive Director

Project RACE

 

 

National Fallout

 

National Fallout

 

A biologist, a chemist, and a statistician are out hunting. The biologist shoots at a deer and misses five feet to the left, the chemist takes a shot and misses five feet to the right, and the statistician yells, “We got ’em!”

I spent the better part of last week watching to a webcast of The National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations (NAC). It reminded me of the little scenario above, because the results in no way added up to the goal or the end result. OK, I’m not sure they actually had a goal, but they should have. Instead they spent more time talking about what they wanted to do without actually doing anything.

I do know one thing for sure: the United States Census Bureau has proven that the multiracial community does not exist. We have no representation on the committee, but all of the other populations are represented very well. They even added some new communities, such as the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) group and people with a brand new acronym, MENA (Middle Eastern and North African).

I think I heard the term “multiracial” uttered twice. “Mixed” was said once or twice. Two days of approximately 50 people in one room talking about race and ethnicity and not stopping to wonder what our group could contribute, including what they call us?

The speakers all followed the same format; one person would tell everyone what they were going to tell them. Another person would then read to the group whatever was on a slide in their slide deck. Someone would let the room know when they were done saying what they had to say and then it was time for questions. They had devised some kind of scheme for where to place their name cards, but apparently that didn’t work so they had to change it. There was actually a discussion about which way the tables should be placed. The sound quality was terrible.

Everyone cared about their own special interest group, which bogged down each discussion. Well, that’s not exactly right. The person representing the LGBT group wanted more attention paid to counting homeless Americans, but no one responded to that suggestion. One person called herself a “race and gender scholar.” Believe me, the place was full of them and they spent most of the time telling each other what a great job they were doing and thanking the Census Bureau folks.

The star of the show was clearly Nicholas Jones, whose real title is “Chief, Racial Statistical Branch, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.” He makes the decisions about race. You’ll just have to trust me on this. He proudly proclaimed that he and his staff have met with the Arab, Asian, Latino, Afro-Latino, and Civil Rights groups in preparation for the 2020 Census. Can you think of a stakeholder group Jones did not meet with? Score yourself a point if you picked the multiracial group.

In thinking about this situation, I came to the conclusion that the government does not understand or believe that the multiracial population is a community. No, we’re not a community that usually agrees on all of the same basic principles, but we are a community nevertheless. The Census Bureau has taken the community out of the multiracial population and our community let it happen. As much as Project RACE has tried to stay on the radar, by monitoring the Federal Register daily, emailing our concerns to the various committees, nominating people to the NAC, and much more, we have missed the advisory committee boat. It’s just kind of floating out there wondering where it’s going.

There was a great deal of talk about “equity and balance” with all groups. Sorry, if it didn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling, but we were not at the table to revel in it with the others. Yet, I did get a lot of information. I learned about the concerns of communities that were invited to the table. I also saw how full of themselves the government employees and academics really are. It was hardly wasted time. But as a United States citizen and taxpayer, I couldn’t help but wonder how much this ostentatious meeting of self-professed brilliant people who never did come to any good outcomes from this meeting cost.

Well into the final hours, everyone did agree that they all wanted to be on the Race and Ethnicity Working Group. Oh yeah, that’s where the action is. Who wants to deal with Administrative Records Modeling or figuring out how to optimize response to the Census, or designing the mailer when you can be discussing race and ethnicity? Then it happened. Someone realized that there is no longer a Race and Ethnicity Working Group! Its Chairperson had rotated off the Committee and no one really thought about extending this important group. That prompted a long discussion about whether they should even have such a group.

Ann Morning, an academic who has written a few things here and there about the multiracial population announced her feeling: it’s too much work. Yes, a working group is supposed to W-O-R-K. Does Ann Morning represent the multiracial community? No.

Someone did come up with the idea of a subcommittee (strike that, they can’t be called subcommittees) for the AIAN (American Indian Alaskan Native) category because they have some “name problems” much like the multiracial population. But then someone brought up the question of what should be done with “dissenters.” I swear. Someone else said they didn’t like the term “dissenters,” because it’s just too darn negative. Firing squad?

I honestly question the need for the whole lot of them. The real crux of the issues is what Nicholas Jones presented in a webinar four days before this meeting! Let’s face it, friends, Nicholas Jones has worked everything out to his satisfaction long before he even gets to these meetings. He’s not the kind of guy you would seek out to tell him he’s wrong.

I admit I did learn a lot from this meeting, mostly from the ideas of the participants from the other special interest stakeholder groups. Oh, and mark your calendars now—the next NAC meeting will be March 26 and 27, 2015. You won’t want to miss the show.

Susan Graham

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Census Bureau Biases!

Census Bureau Biases Uncovered!

The U.S. Census Bureau released a report on the Population Characteristics of Fertility of Women in the United States in 2014. Where do they get this information? “This report utilizes fertility data collected in the June 2012 Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS), as well as the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), to discuss these and other trends,” according to them.

This report represents hundreds if not thousands of reports the Census Bureau writes and disseminates that include racial and ethnic information.

What’s so unusual about this report? It gives the following information on women in the United States included in the report:

Race and Hispanic Origin

White Alone

White Alone, non-Hispanic

Black alone

Asian alone

All other races, race combinations

Hispanic (any race)

What?! “Race combinations” are suddenly lumped in with all other races? That was not supposed to happen. It was exactly what Project RACE warned would happen if the multiracial community settled for the check one or more only scheme. It becomes impossible to find out what numbers represent the multiracial population when we are merely lumped in with “other.”

This is not rocket science, it is common sense and if you’re not outraged by it, you should be.

 

The Multiracial Population and History

This article appeared in Education Week. While it is sad that complete Hispanic  history is not taught in civil rights history, at least some things are taught. The civil rights of the multiracial population is never taught. -Susan

Hispanics Are Forgotten in Civil Rights History

Whenever civil rights has been covered in history class, or when I’ve seen a documentary or read an article concerning such, I have always been very aware of what is missing, and it is something that I am interested in and looking for. As an American of Hispanic descent, I never see any information related to my ethnicity’s cause for civil rights. Where is the plight of Hispanics represented in the civil rights discussion and history of the United States?

In my household, I have heard the stories from older relatives about the treatment of Mexican-Americans in Texas in the 1900s. From what has been relayed to me, it was not much different from how black Americans were treated in Mississippi. Through my parents, I have heard of schools for Mexican children, separate drinking fountains, having to sit in the “black” balconies at movies, and not being able to go to restaurants and other establishments that were designated as “whites only.”

Even with ground-shifting demographic changes, many public schools continue to be highly segregated 60 years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the principle of “separate but equal” education, but those shifts have also created opportunities to approach diversifying schools and classrooms in new ways.

But the public record of what the conditions were for the people of my background is severely lacking. It is as if we did not exist in this country between the Alamo in 1836 and the introduction of Freddie Prinze to the world in “Chico and the Man” in 1974.

When discussing civil rights milestones, where are the discussions about Mendez, et al. v. Westminster School District of Orange County, et al.? This 1946 case challenged the racial segregation that was occurring in Orange County, Calif., schools against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. This landmark litigation was instrumental in repealing many of the segregationist provisions in California law, but it is not presented at all in the canon of civil rights milestones. In fact, even as a Hispanic, I had not heard of this case until President Barack Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Sylvia Mendez, the daughter of the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, in February 2011, and I searched for who she was and why she was being honored.

“It is as if we did not exist in this country between the Alamo … and the introduction of Freddie Prinze.”

When discussing civil rights milestones, where are the discussions about Hernandez v. Texas? This 1954 case established that the protection granted by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not only for white and black Americans, but that all racial groups required equal protection. This case questioned the use of Jim Crow laws against other classes of Americans, and determined that Americans of Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, Inuit, Native American, and other nonwhite or black descent should also be treated equally.

Along with the discussions of the Freedom Riders and freedom marches, where are the discussions of the 1938 pecan shellers’ strike and the wrongful arrest and imprisonment of over 700 Mexican-Americans peacefully protesting a cut in wages and walking off the job in San Antonio? This action was seen as impacting the creation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which defines many of the occupational rules that govern workers’ rights. Should the name of the Mexican-American labor leader Emma Tenayuca be, at least, presented alongside other civil and women’s rights activists when the conditions that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are presented?

Considering that people of Hispanic descent make up more than 16 percent of the total population of the United States today, efforts should be made to shine a light on the history, conditions, people, and effects of Latino activists and legislation. It’s time to give a large portion of the population its due, so that maybe when educational resources are developed into lesson plans, Hispanics have an element of pride and purpose in knowing that our predecessors also played a role in shaping the world and civil rights that we enjoy today.

Nicholas Dauphine is a senior at Claudia Taylor “Lady Bird” Johnson High School in San Antonio, where he is a National Hispanic Recognition Program Merit Scholar and a member of the National Honor Society.

Source: Education Week

NAACP News and the Multiracial Advocacy Opinion

NAACP NEWS—OUR OPINION

 

Below is the official wording from the NAACP on its appointment of Cornell William Brooks to be the new National President and CEO. Should this concern the multiracial community? Yes.

Yes, because they have more clout with the federal government than we do. Yes, because certain leaders in the multiracial movement pledged allegiance—and multiracial numbers—to the NAACP in the 1990s and beyond. Yes, because they want the one drop rule intact (one drop of “black blood” makes a person black), and yes, because they set out to do away with multiracial people many years ago.

Yes, because we at Project RACE don’t think any racial or ethnic group should have the right to stomp on our civil rights! Yes, because the NAACP never meant to “bridge” our two communities as they sold that aspect to AMEA, hapas, and others. Yes, because the individual identity of multiracial children, teens, and adults is not dependent on acceptance from the NAACP. We do not need their blessing.

Brooks was quoted as saying, “I look forward to working with the dynamic board and staff, and continuing the important work of the Association in advancing racial and social justice and equality for all.” For all? Really? Or for those who check more than one race, then are re-tabulated as black?

The new tag line for the NAACP is this: “The NAACP fights for your civil rights – Stand with us.” NO THANK YOU.

Susan Graham, for Project RACE

  New Leader of NAACP Named

 The NAACP National Board of Directors announced its selection of Attorney Cornell William Brooks to be the Association’s next National President & CEO. He will become the 18th person to oversee operations at the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization in its 105-year history.

“We are proud to welcome Attorney Cornell William Brooks as our new president and CEO,” said Roslyn M. Brock, Chairman of the NAACP Board of Directors. “Mr. Brooks is a pioneering lawyer and civil rights leader, who brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the Association. We look forward to leveraging his legal prowess, vision and leadership as we tackle the pressing civil rights issues of the 21st century.”

Brooks, a longtime lawyer and human rights activist, serves currently as the President and CEO of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice based in Newark.

A fourth-generation ordained minister, Brooks has worked to pass legislation enabling previously incarcerated men and women to rebuild their lives as productive and responsible citizens, called a model for the nation by the New York Times. He successfully pushed for state legislation to reduce the effects of widespread foreclosures. Mr. Brooks has worked to develop social impact investing tools to employ more people in higher wage work.

Brooks served as senior counsel for the Federal Communications Commission, executive director of the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington and as trial attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. He has also campaigned tirelessly as an advocate for public education, affordable healthcare, and fiscal responsibility.

“I am deeply humbled and honored to be entrusted with the opportunity to lead this historic organization,” said Brooks. “In our fight to ensure voting rights, economic equality, health equity, and an end to racial discrimination for all people, there is much work to do. I look forward to working with the dynamic board and staff, and continuing the important work of the Association in advancing racial and social justice and equality for all.”

Brooks earned a Bachelor of Arts from Jackson State University, a Master of Divinity from Boston University School of Theology, and a Juris Doctorate from Yale Law School.

The Hollins Group of Chicago, Illinois, conducted the nationwide search for the new President and CEO that included a review of over 450 applications; meetings with 30 semi-finalists; and interviews with the National Board of Directors.

Attorney Brooks will be formally introduced to the NAACP membership in July at its 105th National Convention in Las Vegas, NV.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, grassroots civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities.