According to an article in today’s San Jose Mercury, 26% of California students who took the SAT I this year refused to identify themselves by race. Nationally, the number was 20%. (Hat Tip to reader Gus Mahler.)
The SJM’s reporter, Jon Fortt, was not pleased. Referring to “that pesky, unidentified 26 percent,” he wrote that their refusal to identify their race
threatens to play havoc with statistics at the College Board, the test’s owner.
The missing answers muddy a trusted measure of which student groups
aspire to college, a key gauge of the progress of black and Latino
students. When so many won’t pick a race on the form, how can one
accurately measure any group’s progress?
It’s an important problem for the College Board to solve….
To me, this sounds more like a solution than a problem.
UPDATE [8 Sept.]
The estimable Linda Seebach, who I’m happy to say is a Discriminations reader, had an excellent column last April on the racial identification (or not) of SAT takers.
Curse those pesky indeterminates!
“According to an article in today’s San Jose Mercury, 26% of California students who took the SAT I this year refused to identify themselves by race. Nationally, the number was 20%.” [From Discriminations] Only 26%! Frankly, California can do better….
Question:
What fraction of people who DO identify their race lie?
Me.
I say I’m either American or Native American. I think I still qualify.
And it’s not just the SATs. Most racial data is self-reported, and in most cases the percentage of those who either refuse to state or lie is probably high enough to render the data invalid. And yet all sorts of important policy decisions are made based on this bad data.
Probably the only way to truly get accurate racial data would be to literally force everyone to self-report, and to pick from a predesignated list. Which is exactly what proponents of affirmative action would do if they thought they could get away with it. In fact, the only way that leftists can get the kind of society they want in general is through precisely that kind of tyranny.
If no racial or ethnic information is ever taken, exactly how can one determine when discrimination takes place, and to what extent it exist?
You are right. We can
An example I alway use to demonstrate the stupidity of asking about race is the example of Gregory Williams. He claims to be black even though he appears white and in reality only has some black ancestors. In addition, he is married to an anglo women but his children still get to claim to being black.
Look at his picture at: http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/pr/president.htm
If no racial or ethnic information is taken, how can discrimination take place?
Ethnicity and skin color are NOT the same thing. There are dark skinned people like Bernie Williams (Puerto Rican) of the Yankees, and Sammy Sosa(Dominican) who aren’t considered “black”. American.” There are fair skinned people like Lena Horn, Prince and Vin Diesel who aren’t considered white. Richard actually hits on the real history of America and race with his “one drop terminology.”
It’s important however, to identify race on applications, forms and tests because, whether we like it or not, American Society indentifies race in its decision making processes.
I’d rather have the evidence documented and not need it, then have no evidence for my case when I do.
Cobra, of all people, I’m surprised that you don’t know how the racial system works. Anyone from Latin America, regardless of race, is classified as Hispanic. Thus “black” Hispanics are not counted as Blacks. I guess they got a better union than you.
“It’s important however, to identify race on applications, forms and tests because, whether we like it or not, American Society indentifies race in its decision making processes.”
Cobra, as long as we insist on identifying race, then race will be identified. How can you ever believe that black people are not discriminated against, as long as race information is available to decision makers?
Laura, I think your argument works well for centralized decisions (such as calculating SAT scores) but not for those at the local and personal level, when race is usually obvious to the participants. Police officers, hiring managers, teachers, and town council members, for example, don’t need compiled data in order to discriminate based on race.
Oh, sure. But SAT scores are what we’re talking about here.
Cobra posted:
“It’s important however, to identify race on applications, forms and tests because, whether we like it or not, American Society indentifies race in its decision making processes.”
—
You clearly do Cobra, race is the only thing that matters to you, and so your demands for Affirmative Racism.
But I can see that the schools have failed yet again. Statistics not only don’t show discrimination, they cannot show it. If discrimination is taking place, it must be affecting individuals. Funny that you lot can’t manage to find a great number of individuals who were discriminated against and use innapropriate statistics that cannot prove what you claim, even potentially.
—
“I’d rather have the evidence documented and not need it, then have no evidence for my case when I do.”
—
Evidence of what Cobra? That you don’t have a clue what evidence is?
Show me the blacks you claim were discriminated against Cobra, if your claims hold water, they must necessarily exist. And I’ll match every one you find with three discriminated against by way of Affirmative Racism, who’s rights you piss on and who’s victims you call privileged. But you don’t see right and wrong Cobra. You say blacks are discriminated against, so what? Explain to me why this is a problem, then explain to me why it is right and necessary to discriminate against white men.
BTW, where can I sign up for this white privilege? I could use some right now.
Rich
Three cheers for those fouling up the AA Express. If we want a colorblind society, we won’t get it by reversing the polarity of the racism.
I also recommend lying to pollsters as a matter of principle.
PS. I generally check the most obscure racial group offered – Aleutian Islander is one of my favorites (Mixed and Other are also good ones).
I also recommend lying to pollsters as a matter of principle.
Wait, don’t tell me, I know this one: you’re a lawyer.
Cobra, do I understand that you approve of the “one-drop rule”? That a mixed-race person with one provable Black ancestor is automatically Black, regardless of his/her appearance or the ethnicity of his/her other ancestors?
It seems to me we can go one of two ways here. Allow self-reporting of race — which means allowing people to say “mixed” or “other” or “decline to state,” because there are people who feel very strongly that they are mixed-race or that the fixed list of categories they’re given doesn’t include them or that race is a biological fiction. Or else, nix self-reporting, and have someone come in, look at each test-taker, and mark down the apparent race. Charming, yes? But this is a thought-experiment here; I’m proposing it only in the Swiftian sense.
Seriously, you can have one or the other (or neither, which of course is what I’d prefer), but not both. If the question is whether a person is likely to have experienced racism in day-to-day interactions, then the question would be whether s/he appears to belong to a particular racial minority, not whether s/he considers him/herself a member. A hypothetical racist cop or store clerk or lender or whatever isn’t going to check your family tree for Black ancestors; s/he’ll just eyeball you and put you in a category. A category that would probably include the multiracial Tiger Woods and the biracial Barack Obama, but certainly not Gregory Williams and probably not Mariah Carey. (When I first heard her called a Black artist I was flabbergasted. To her credit, IMO, she doesn’t want to be called one.)
So, which is it that matters, Cobra? What race you believe yourself to be, or what race others perceive you to be? Because in the latter case, if you want racial stats you are not going to get accurate ones through self-reporting; you’re going to have to train up a staff of official race-identifiers. Is that actually what you want?
Richard, Michelle, Laura
Although I agree with your position, I think it is a little naive. Even if white and Asian students refuse to identify themselves by race, there is still an incentive for “underepresented” minorities to identify themselves by race and receive an AA boost. I don’t see how encouraging white and asian students to not identify themselves “spoils” the AA system.
In fairness, I suppose one could argue that if everyone identified themselves as a “minority”,decision makers would be foiled. However, I believe students would quickly figure out how to get around this problem by including copies of their drivers license or some other official document with a photograph in their application. I know this sounds far fetched, but I talked to someone who worked in the admissions office of a 5th Circuit university (post-Hopwood, pre-Gutter) and this was a not too infrequent practice.
Oh, so what you’re saying, James, is that your APPARENT race is what matters to the decision makers. Else why include a DL photo? Does this mean you agree that we should have some trained official race-identifiers?
I think you’re getting into a slippery slope here. I applaud the kids who refused to race-identify on their SATs. I always did that, and I still do that. I started because they wouldn’t allow you to mark three separate races. Then, by the time they added the ‘Other’ category, I had come around to the feeling that getting preferences based on your race was just as bad as being discriminated against because of your race.
Are people still discriminated against? Certainly. But are the reasons for that discrimination always based on race? I hardly think so. I suspect that those like Cobra who see race-based discrimination everywhere they turn and in every and all circumstances tend to behave in ways that make discrimination a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the discrimination they experience isn’t because of the color of their skin; it’s because of the chip on their shoulder and their typically confrontational and easily-offended attitude.
I interview a lot of people for jobs, and I see this ‘attitude’ quite a lot, especially in those with minimal education. It makes them feel better to tell themselves and others that they didn’t get the job because the interviewer was a bigot and wouldn’t hire a black.
The truth is, I won’t hire someone who is unqualified or lazy, someone who is impolite and disrespectful, or someone who doesn’t know how to dress and behave in an appropriate manner in a business environment. If that person happens to be black, he won’t get hired. Neither will a white/yellow/red person, male or female, with the same characteristics.
Does that make me a bigot? Well, probably, by Cobra’s standards. See, I didn’t hire the black man; to him and those with his sense of entitlement, nothing else matters. I doubt you’re going to change his mind, or the minds of others like him. The alternative is too uncomfortable – admitting that the fault may very well lie with themselves. Can’t have that, not in this culture of feel-good-don’t-worry-about-reality.
Michelle makes a great point. Self-reporting is highly suspect because it assumes a shared vocabulary. Some people categorize oral sex as “sexual relations” while others do not. Some people regard lust as “adultery” while others do not.
Incidentally, Dave Chappelle had a rather funny “Race Draft” skit relevant to this general subject, in which representatives from racial and ethnic groups argued over which should be awarded Tiger Woods, Mariah Carey, Colin Powell, Lenny Kravitz, etc.
Claire
I am somewhat troubled by your statement
“the discrimination they experience isn’t because of the color of their skin; it’s because of the chip on their shoulder and their typically confrontational and easily-offended attitude.”
There is no doubt in my mind that discrimination still exists and it isn’t always a function of some perceived “personality deficit” on the part of the victim. I recently saw a program on 20/20 addressing the issue of “name discrimination” and was surprised to hear this statement by a job recruiter in supposedly liberal Northern California.
“But capable doesn’t always matter. A job recruiter for Fortune 500 companies in northern California revealed an ugly secret.
“There is rampant racism everywhere. And people who deny that are being na
James, you’re quite right that if someone has been trained to reject Black candidates for any position, that’s illegal. And if this woman says she was specifically asked to cull out “Black” names from piles of resumes, she doesn’t belong anonymous; she belongs as star wittness in a massive class-action lawsuit.
But . . .
There was a study a couple of years back that tried to address this very question. The authors took the top 10 or so Black baby names and the top 10 or so white baby names from records of 20 years ago or so, and first tested them on random passersby in some major city: “Look at this name. Do you think this person is white, or black?”
A few names whose actual frequency in the racial group didn’t match public perception were thrown out, and then the researchers made up fake resumes, with names generated by pairing first names from the two lists with a bunch of generic Anglo-sounding surnames. The “white” names generated more callbacks.
The problem, to my mind, was that the “Black” names were of the Keisha/LaTonya/Cherelle order, and the “white” names were more Emily/Jennifer/Susan. I’d assume that the first group were Black, but I can’t imagine taking it for granted that the second group were white. I mean, if it were Ian/Trevor/Fiona/Vladimir/Natasha, sure.
I was inclined to suspect “bias against people with recently-invented names” rather than “bias against Blacks.” But if someone outright claims that she was directed to sort resumes on this basis, as I said, someone ought to make her a witness and sue.
I think John blogged on this study at the time; I know that Eve Tushnet wrote a tremendous lot about it.
Michelle, the problem you see seems to me quite reconcilable. The resumes with “Black” names were viewed negatively while the resumes with “white” names were viewed neutrally. It was only positive bias in relation to that accorded to the Black resumes.
In other words, employers weren’t making piles labeled “White” and “Black,” but rather removing Black resumes from the general, working pile. That this resulted in a pile of white resumes was the effect, not the purpose.
Nels, that was kind of my point. Except that I suspect it was anti-recently-made-up-name-bias, not anti-Black-name-bias, operating here. I have a feeling that candidates named Starfire or Harmony or Liberty would have done well, either. But there weren’t any such in the survey. And almost all the Black names were of a kind that first appeared only in the 60s. (Well, that isn’t quite fair; it was more the womens’ names than the mens’. The latter were more of the “Tyrone” kind — much more popular among Blacks than whites, but not so recently invented.)
“Race and Ethnicity”
These are two seperate things and it’s important to differentiate between the two. I can’t help feeling like affirmative action based on ethnicity is, in the general case, less supportable than affirmative action based on race or, more accurately, apparent race.
If I were a racist and hurling racist epithets at someone, the exact ethnicity is not really a great concern of mine. I’m not going to differentiate between a Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, or other East Asian person.
When you get beyond that to a more calculated level where someone may be sitting with a resume and deciding to hire or not hire a candidate, and actually drawing upon knowledge (whether this knowledge is accurate or not) to make a decision, then it becomes questionable: Is it, or is it not acceptable to make inferences about a person according to perceived broad cultural norms?
I think it is, and, pretty much, it’s impossible to stamp that out. It’s going to be that way no matter what. Even if German engineering is no better than Irish engineering at this very moment in time, I’m still going to go buy a German-made automobile over an Irish-made automobile.
“Arbiters of Race”
What I think is probably more valid is simply an assessment of “apparent race” but such an assessment would be ridiculously convoluted. What sort of skin tone do you have? What is the shape of your eyes? What is the shape of your nose? Do you have heavy eyebrows? Unusual hair color or texture? It quickly becomes obvious how farcicial it is to try and identify racial characteristics and then mete out the appropriate amount of “affirmative action” based on how strongly your features resemble favored groups. You also bring into the picture a selected group of individuals whose judgement must be trusted to accurately report race.
While this is probably an improvement over self-reported race in terms of exactitude, creating a class of people to do so externalizes the process and makes it more visibly disingenuous. It is far less insidious to simply list a limited set of races than to have one assigned by another person, although the list one could choose from might be even more restrictive than the arbiter.
It is great news that the SAT’s statistics on race are being undermined by inaccurate and unreported information. I myself would misrepresent or not respond to such questions. Unfortunately, college admissions processes often require a photograph these days because admissions officers recognize the growing threat to racial discrimination that this trend poses. It seems innocuous to send a photograph, but, in reality, a system of arbitration about race has already been created, just not by the government. Colleges that require photographs are entirely willing to make assumptions about an applicant’s race, if unstated, according to their name and their photograph.
As an aside:
Is name-based discrimination appropriate? Possibly not, in which case the hiring process should be done blindly. I suspect it already is done that way in some places.
I’m just as willing to discriminate in favor of a Jennifer over a Shaniqua as I am in favor of a Jennifer over a Krystal (or any of the other self-indulgent name alterations that people are engaging in these days).
Regardless, the onus is not on those arguing against affirmative action to disprove that name-based discrimination disproportionately affects minorities.
The demographics around here are such that we couldn’t screen out the applicants with black-sounding names if we wanted to. We’d never interview anybody.
That said, people do not do their kids a favor when they name them eccentrically. I don’t think they’re taking the long view when they do that. My kid’s history teacher called those “anesthesia names” – the mom was still groggy when she filled out the birth certificate.
Michelle,
You and other posters are quick to suggest that lawsuits, especially class action lawsuits are the remedy for cases of discrimination. Well, let’s take a look at what you need to do to prove your case of discrimination in a class action lawsuit:
“(d) Title VII – deals with all matters of employment (hiring, firing, compensation, comparable worth, job transfer, etc.) It only applies to employers with 15 or more employees and engaged in interstate commerce. This area of law has produced the distinction between “disparate treatment” (individual victimization) and “disparate impact” (group victimization). Disparate treatment, to be proven, requires a showing of intent (usually quid pro quo; intimidation, ridicule, an insult). Disparate impact, to be proven, requires a showing of statistics, and a social scientific interpretation of those numbers.”
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect03.htm
In other words, you had better have RECORDS that denote RACE if you want to be successful in a class action lawsuit on racial discrimination. Now, that would be awfully hard to do if people just naively marked “other” on forms and applications. In other words, indicating your race can help PROTECT YOU from discrimination, or at least help VINDICATE you if you are wrongfully discriminated against. What’s a good reason for me to do that in a nation that is still, in my estimation, racist?
Now, for identification purposes, LAW ENFORCEMENT makes no attempt at “color blindness” in their records, and I’ve yet to see ANY poster to this blog lodge a complaint here.
Michelle, you also seemed surprised that I believe skin color stratification plays such a large role in America, if not the entire world.
Well, there is an excellent article that details explicitly some of the history behind skin color stratification in the Western Hemisphere here.
http://www.afrigeneas.com/forum-world/index.cgi?noframes;read=95
As far as names, I work at a company where the boss’s sons names are Shmuely, Auron, Dovey, Shalom-Moshe, so I wonder at times what the reactions to their applications would be.
Cobra, you aren’t understanding my point. The post, in the first place, was about SAT scores, which are graded blind. You could put the most racist crew in the world in charge of grading the SAT, and they still couldn’t skew it, precisely because racial data and even names are not provided to graders.
Sure, a really determined racist who happened to be hired to grade SATs might manage to deduce a student’s race from his/her personal essay and deliberately ding all the Black kids s/he could find. I really, really don’t think this is likely.
Re Title VII, this is about job discrimination. Not the SAT, where there is (as I just said above) basically zero chance of racial discrimination in grading. But if you want your documentation, have whoever formally hires an employee specify that person’s apparent race (NB not what the person him/herself thinks his/her race is, but what the employer thinks it is) and submit that info to the government.
Michelle,
My argument would apply to the SATs as well. There are many posters here who base their arguments against Affirmative Action in school admissions upon average SAT performace by race. In order to make any of those conclusions, you’d have to have accurate responses on the race question, don’t you? Now, if your argument is that there is no need for racial identification on standardized test scores, then how would you be able to tell if the education system in this still largely segregated nation is effectively teaching all of its children?
We need racial identification on standardized test scores for the SAME REASON we need them on job applications. We must have a readily available source of data to monitor progress. If there is no data to indicate a specific community having a problem, just like the class action suits, I fear the powers that be will see no reason to act on any potential remedies.
In other words, there will be NOTHING standing in the way of a “backdoor revival” of the separate but unequal world of decades ago.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/schools/0401/22/a05-39264.htm
http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=268
The difference in our positions, is that you seem to have a lot more TRUST in the fairness and benevolence of the ruling “majority” than I do.
“There are many posters here who base their arguments against Affirmative Action in school admissions upon average SAT performace by race.”
I think you’ve misunderstood what the posters have said. The arguments I see is that SAT scores should count the same for everyone, regardless of race. That’s quite another thing.
Cobra,
Now, if your argument is that there is no need for racial identification on standardized test scores, then how would you be able to tell if the education system in this still largely segregated nation is effectively teaching all of its children?
You test the children; you look at the scores. If there are children failing or faltering or falling behind, you do something about it. This is not difficult. (No, of course DOING it is very difficult; but understanding it is not.)
Cobra, I still don’t know how you want race assessed on the SAT and the like. You don’t seem to like self-assessment, and, as I’ve posted already, the only obvious alternative is external assessment. Do you like that? Do you want it?
Michelle,
You’re arguing semantics. Students can choose to use a phony name on the test if they choose as well, can’t they?
And you didn’t address my point on the re-segregation of schools in America, and why racial identification is a bad idea given this reality.
Students can choose to use a phony name on the test if they choose as well, can’t they?
On the SAT? Are you serious?
Um, dude, if anyone could walk in and take the SAT and submit a score sheet under any name, you’d have the Mother of All Fraud Problems. It doesn’t work like that. I don’t remember how it was handled when I took it (hell, that was 20 years ago), but you certainly had to demonstrate that you were the person whose name would end up attached to the test.
And you didn’t address my point on the re-segregation of schools in America, and why racial identification is a bad idea given this reality.
Something isn’t quite parsing in there, but let it go. I don’t think what you call the “re-segregation of schools in America” needs addressing at all. I don’t think that kids need some optimal racial mix to learn. I don’t think Black kids need to be surrounded by white kids to learn. I don’t think white kids need to be supplied a particular fraction of Black kids to learn. I think kids who aren’t learning ought to be identified and helped, and really don’t give a damn what race they (or anyone else) think they belong to.
And I still don’t understand how you intend to collect these statistics. If you force the kids to answer, and refuse them the options of “mixed race” or “other” or “decline to state,” the kids that would have used those options will mostly lie. Indeed, they can’t help lying, if the true answers aren’t on the list. So your data are worthless.
Michelle,
You write:
“Um, dude, if anyone could walk in and take the SAT and submit a score sheet under any name, you’d have the Mother of All Fraud Problems. It doesn’t work like that. I don’t remember how it was handled when I took it (hell, that was 20 years ago), but you certainly had to demonstrate that you were the person whose name would end up attached to the test.
>>If you do absolutely nothing on the SAT but mark your name, you will get 200 points on each section…40 points total. Answer an SAT question incorrectly and you will receive negative points…either a minus third or fourth of a point. Answer correctly and it’s plus one for you. Leave it blank and nothing happens. On both tests, guess an answer only if you are able to narrow the possibilities. Randomly guessing won’t help, as you are likely to guess wrongly as you are to answer it correctly. >>
–from etutor.com
So you can see, I have facts to support my statement.
You also write:
>>>I don’t think what you call the “re-segregation of schools in America” needs addressing at all.
Michelle, if you look at the reems of data availible detailing the vast qualitative difference between education in minority neighborhood vs. majority neighborhoods, and STILL claim that school re-segregation doesn’t need addressing at all…well, you’ve pretty much validated all the theories I’ve posted on this blog about why we still need preference programs.
Cobra, what you just posted doesn’t support your statement at all. When etutor.com says you get 400 points for marking in your name, all it means is that an absolutely blank test submitted with a name attached to it would receive a score of 400. It doesn’t mean that you can walk in and attach any name you like to a test (blank or not) and submit it. You have to register to take a particular exam in advance, and you have to demonstrate that you are who you say you are when you pick up your test (which already has got your name on it, IIRC).
Seriously, the College Board folks aren’t complete idiots.
Re “re-segregation” (could we call it something else, please? something that makes plainer that we are not talking about Bull Connor here?), my point was that if kids are falling behind, they need to be supported. And I don’t care what color they are, and don’t see why anyone should. If any schools are ill-funded, in disrepair, having trouble retaining good teachers, fix those problems. Do you really need to know the racial breakdown of the student body before you do that?
You have to show a picture ID, i.e., driver’s license, to take the ACT and the SAT. My daughter just took them this year. They are very serious about not having people give false names.
Michelle,
If law enforcement was as efficient in verifying the identification of people as you claim the standardized test administrators are, I wouldn’t lose sleep over the terrorism threat anymore. If you don’t think shennanigans go on during college board exams, I don’t know what else to say to you. We must agree to disagree.
Alright, let’s say “racial balkanization”, if it’s a more comfortable term, but if the results of the practice is the same, I can’t see the benefit of sugar-coating it. If you look at the reality, you can’t help but see the stark difference in education quality between urban, mostly minority schools, and suburban mostly majority schools. Fixing those problems is not only a monumental task, but in my opinion, simply treating the symptoms of a larger disease.
That was one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time Cobra, thanks for the laugh. “So you can see, I have facts to support my statement.” Heh!
Do you think identity fraud constitutes 26% of all SAT test-takers? What about 20, 10, 5, even 1%?
“.”,
Cheating on the SAT doesn’t have to reach 26%. I’m just saying that it exists, despite the vehement claims of perfection by other posters in here.
If a picture ID and a social security number are supposed to represent the ultimate in enforcing regulations, I guess, by analogy, nobody under 21 EVER gets alcohol at a bar, because those are the SAME STANDARDS of security.
“Of the 2 million SAT tests taken each year, about 3,000 tests are examined for irregularities, with roughly 1,000 tests proving problematic because of cheating and other reasons, said Tom Ewing, ETS spokesman.
But even the experienced SAT administrators have no guarantees of catching teacher cheating, he said. The ETS, like WASL administrators, relies on calls from students, parents and others to alert them to suspected cheating.”
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/education.htm
If you can pay $20 bucks for a fake ID (or NOTHING with the state of computer programs today), exactly what’s stopping somebody from HIRING a bright, standardized test-taking “ringer” to take the test in place of him? When I took the test back in the stone ages, we went to a different school, in a different city, surrounded by strangers. Who’s going to know? And with the cost of tuition SKYROCKETING, you don’t think people take advantage of the situation, perhaps improving odds of getting into an elite school? But obviously, posters in here don’t seem to believe fraud is possible.
The racial identity question on forms PROTECTS MINORITIES. If some people screw it up, fine. Leave the protections in place.
–Cobra
Cobra,
I apologize for not replying sooner; I wrote a reply yesterday afternoon, but it got hosed when my connection shut down inexplicably for the umpteenth time (long, boring story), and then I didn’t go back and rewrite it. Sorry.
My point was that there are serious efforts to prevent people falsifying their names on the SAT. There cannot possibly be serious efforts to prevent people falsifying their race on the SAT, because that would mean actually trying to specify who belongs to what race, and my, wouldn’t that be fun?
Black/white? Vietnamese/Mexican? (Would that one depend on the surname? I mean if the parents’ names are, say, Truong and Martinez, do we go by which is the father?) Half-a-dozen varieties dispersed among eight great-grandparents? A kid has to pick one answer to questions like this, or you haven’t got your precious statistics?
Really, Cobra, this is one question I think the kids ought not to have to answer. And if you want answers, do what I suggested in my thought-experiment above. Bring in people trained to assess “race-as-it-would-be-perceived-on-the-street,” and have them eyeball each kid and mark down an official racial category. If you’ve a good reason why this is a bad idea, I would like to see it.
AAAACK! It just crashed again. Sorry.