
The question concerning race on the last census asks "What is this persons race?". Even though it seems like a response to that question should have a straightforward response, it is far from the case, especially since the United States has a population that has a diverse background. Instead, the options in response of the race question include predefined check options of race with the option to write in an "enrolled or principle tribe" or under the "American Indian or Alaskan Native" checkbox, another option to write-in under the "other Asian" or "other Pacific Islander" checkbox, and another option to write-in some other race as a last checkbox. As one can see, that is an example of one of the flaws of the 2010 United States Census because it only allows options for write-in under some specific checkboxes. Some may criticize this set up because under the "White" checkbox and "Black, African American, or Negro" checkbox there are not any structured option to specify or list principle race or tribe like under the "American Indian or Alaskan Native" checkbox. Thus, this hints at some races don't have any specificity other than black or white from the eyes of the United States Census Bureau. This is not the only controversy or issue caused by the current question either. This question causes other controversies like the complexity of those from multiethnic backgrounds identifying on the census, outdated wording of some of the terms for description of races, and some American demographics feel like they are not represented on the census. The race question used on the previous 2010 United States Census should be altered to a more open, fill-in-the-blank response based on self-identity. In this argument, I will prove that it will needed to be change to one based on self-identity for the next census. Many, including myself, see that there are issues regarding the wording of the question concerning race on the census and the representation of all people and their races in equal manner. Throughout this essay, I will argue that the United States Census Bureau should change the question to an open-ended question based on self-identity, rather than the archaic racial naming used now that have beginnings on US censuses dates in the 19th century. 

The history and the purpose of the census must be examined before the census's positing in defining race in the current of the United States. The original purpose of the United States Census was to take an accurate account of the population. U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 2 states: 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. (US Const. article I, section III)

From the above quote, one can see that the original goal of the census was given from the US Constitution was to have an accurate measurement, or "actual Enumeration,"  of the population every ten years, so that representatives and taxes should be equally apportioned throughout the states. In the present, the census is not just a measurement of the population, but an analysis and inquiry of the United States population. This is in part of because Congress gave the Census Bureau more jurisdiction to inquire about the population's personal and economic standing. An expert from Julia.com states, "all persons over eighteen years of age to answer an ever-lengthening list of inquiries concerning their personal and economic affairs" (The Census Requirement). This quote hints at the continual "ever-lengthening" list of questions that the census will continue to inquire. From analyzing the past history of the census, it is recognizable that United States Census Bureau has expanded its scope in the part of inquiry regarding race. In other words, as time progressed and the census began to incorporate more and more questions, one can acknowledge a shift in the census from just solely inquiring about population from the stance of being able to delegate representatives and taxes to being a symbol of the fluidity of racial qualifications in the United States, which still occurs today. This set the stage for the content and descriptions used in the modern-day race checkboxes in response to the question.

Throughout the history of how the census has been accounting race, the frequent changings of what the census defined the demographic of individuals descended from African slaves represents the growth of the importance of race in the census and American society as well.  Ever since the 1790s, African Americans have been central in being an example of how the census is fluid in the changing of its idea of what defines one to be a part of each race. At the start of the census, African Americans were divided into slaves and all other freed persons other than white. Then the previously stated shift as discussed previously started to happen in the 1850 census. From the 1850 census to the 2010 census, African Americans have been called African American, black, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, or negro. As may one infer, all of this constant name changing of a large demographic of Americans can cause controversy because it represents how the census has never really had a grip on being able to define race throughout the past and the present. Gene Demby, describes a graphic that shows the history of the responses mandated by the United States Census Bureau in response to the race question, as "the graphic underscores the political and social slipperiness of these identifiers, which we tend to think of as fixed, scientific truths in everyday life" (Demby). Demby acknowledges the fact that how the United States Census Bureau defined race has not been an accurate science in the past by any means because how it defines one to be a part of any race is not concrete. This is one of the reason why the census continues to have issues in regards to race today. 

There are also more controversial issues concerning African Americans on the census. The current checkbox option on the census for this demographic is "Black, African Am., or Negro". The first problem many have with this checkbox option is that it groups many different peoples from different backgrounds together just because of skin pigmentation. In other words, there are many backgrounds not being accurately represented from this checkbox. For example, someone with a Kenyan background has an entirely different background that someone of African American background. The census counts both individuals as the same. Both of these people come from two different cultures and two different histories. That is one of the sizable problems with the recent census because it doesn't have a place for Americans to show how diverse the country really is and just places them in archaic 18th century terms like black, white, and so on. Our country is more diverse than just white or black. In this previous example, it doesn't allow any room to show how diverse the population or African diaspora really is. In addition, one would think that the census would facilitate this response like "American Indian or Alaskan Native" checkbox option that has a write-in description box to further describe your identity. But, the option to further describe one's identity for this demographic lacks this. Another issue that many have with this checkbox is the including of the word Negro. Cohn questions the term place on the census coming to a conclusion that it simply has fell out of favor like other terms used to describe African Americans in the past. (Cohn) Many observe the word Negro as a word surrounded by negative connotation that comes from the relationship of that word and the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s. Some others may argue that they see no harm in the word, especially those who grew up in this pre-civil rights era and it is what America at that time taught them to identify as. African Americans are not the only demographic that has a general issue with the wording and possible responses provided by the United States Census Bureau.

People with a Hispanic or a Middle-Eastern background also have inconvenience with responding to the race question of the census. Even though Hispanic isn't a race, many self-identify as that or something similar like Latino or Latina. Many Hispanics are not sure of should how they identify, especially since many have come from mixed backgrounds consisting of Native American, European, and African. On the current 2010 census, the census didn't include a checkbox option for this demographic. Some controversy is caused in result because how would some of a Hispanic background identify especially if they don't have an option to record the location from Latin America where themselves or their ancestors came from. The United States Census currently states they should identify as white and a follow up question inquiries about if that person if of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin. Some don't find justice in identifying as white will the list themselves as mixed race and check the boxes "American Indian or Alaskan Native", "Black, African Am., or Negro," and/or "White". As one can see there is much confusion dealing with this response to this question from the largest minority by population in the United States. This becomes an issue when it comes to analyze the data collected from the census. Amaro describes "the impact of these changes on health data among Hispanic/Latino populations" (Amaro) Amaro explains the problems created by not including an option from Hispanics/Latinos on the checkbox on the results the census collects and on the health data extrapolated from these results.  People of Middle-Eastern descent are having a similar issue as identifying on the census as well. "Not Quite White: US Census Race Classification and Arab Americans", a YouTube video, discusses the history and expresses the feeling of many Arab Americans of their idea of self-identity versus what the United States Census defines how they should identify as white. ("Not Quite White: US Census Race Classification and Arab Americans") The U.S. Census Bureau defines that they should list themselves as white, even though they have a cultural background that is substantially different than White American backgrounds. Also, many people that are of descent from the Middle-East have backgrounds influenced by neighboring African and Asian areas as well. Should they identify as mixed race or just mark the checkbox for "White", ignoring some of their background? Thus, many Arab Americans feel like they should have their own checkbox option so the United States Census Bureau can differentiate how many Arab Americans in the United States from White Americans. One would think there would be another checkbox for Arab Americans, especially since the main goal of the census is to accurately account population for analysis. Arab-Americans, African Americans, and Hispanics are not the only demographics that have overall issues and controversies from the current census.

The difficulty of people with a biracial or multi-racial backgrounds of the race to identify on the census is present as well. Beginning in the 2000 census, the census allows that one can select multiple checkbox options from the provided responses. One would think this would solve this issue of individuals with biracial and multi-racial backgrounds identifying on the census, but it just makes the situation more complicated. First, if all of the identities people identify aren't listed like Hispanic and Arab-American aren't listed, how is the census going to be an accurate representation of the population? In addition, how can the census separate people with biracial and multi-racial backgrounds if Hispanics or Arab Americans are logically using these same checkbox options? This is another example of the flaw of the response to the race question of the census. Also, with the addition of the option to select multiple races to identify, this causes issues with statistical analysis of the data collected from the census. Dacosta warns, "against treating multiple race counts as if they refer to socially meaningful populations" (Dacosta). In other words, this can become in representing many individuals who identify with many race skews the data. For example, how would the census accurately count the population of an individual who identified as white and black without double counting him or her in the population?

There are many different solutions that one may see to fix the problems and controversies caused by the 2010 census. Some may just argue to remove the question from census because those think that we are simply Americans and that is the only thing that counts. Glazer supports this claim by making his readers question their views by proposing the following logic:

"The census is supposed to give us a portrait of America. But is this what America looks like? Is race so important a part of America that it deserves such prominence and such detail" (Glazer)? 

Glazer argues that the question should be removed and his reasoning, like many for removal of the question, is that this question goal is to separate Americans by pointing out their differences rather than uniting Americans. Opposition to this solution would state that this wouldn't show the diversity of the country. I think that we should have a question dealing with race or ethnicity because it is important to keep some sort of record of this for analytical purposes and to look back on from the future, like we do to older census records today. Another solution to the race question debacle is to make a response based on fraction boxes. Some argue to list races to estimate your racial background composition. I think this solution has a good motive of representing people of mixed backgrounds, but only in theory would this solution work. For example, this will cause many issues including how to respond to this type of question for many demographics including African Americans and Hispanics. According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American (23andme). Since states the average admixture, many African Americans will have more or less admixture. In addition, one wouldn't know it his or her make-up accurately unless they take a series of DNA tests, which still have a margin of error. Even though the fraction box estimate will make it easier for people of recent biracial and multi-racial backgrounds, this will cause issues for populations like African Americans and Hispanics who have a multi-racial background that stems backs hundreds of years. Others may see that there should be a rewording of the question. I think that is a must. As do I, Prewitt feels that the question should be changed to "What national origin, ethnicity, tribe, language group or ancestry do you consider yourself to be" (Prewitt) ? In my point of view, "What is this person's race?" seems very archaic and it hints that the person feeling out this inquiry is of one race and doesn't represents that many come from multiracial questions. To fix this issue with this question, I think the question should be based into self-identity. Some other people may argue to keep the question the same, but change the solutions to either include more checkbox options or to allow a write-in. The flaws with adding more checkbox options is that it is not feasible to list all of the different backgrounds of people across the globe on a supposed to be quick inquiry. Basically, I think the race question of the census should be changed to a question about self-identity with a less structure type of response. 

I think for the next census in 2020, the race question should be changed to an alternative format that allows more room to express self-identity than in previous censuses. First, the format will consist of an individual stating a series of numbers that correlates to races and ethnicities listed on an attached sheet. On the attached sheet, all races and ethnicities will be listed with a number assigned to every one of them. It will be similar to an old SAT test that had all the colleges in the country assigned to a specific number for one to list of what schools they wanted to send their scores to. For example, if I wanted to self-identify as African American and white, I will find the corresponding numbers to African American and white. Then, I will list them both. There will not be a limit of how many races or ethnicities you self-identify with. This format with assigning numbers to every ethnicity and race works better than an open-response question because this still allows valuable data to be collected in a standardized fashion so that the data can be more useful than an open-ended response. This question also solves a lot of the previously mentioned issues by reducing controversy by providing an outlet for everyone to self-identify as they choose and not by stipulations created by the United States Census. This is an improvement from previous census because it finally gets away from asking one to respond to this question based on how American society and the United States Census Bureau views them to what one views him or herself identifying with.

Overall, there are many issues that are aroused from the race question of the census. Whether its issues with the naming of population, the broadness of the checkboxes, or the lack of representation of some demographics, there are many different faults dealing with this question. Some argue that the question should be removed or that the checkboxes should be altered, but I argue that the question should be changed to a one based in self-identity. A question that will let one self-identify will finally break the mold past censuses of forcing one to identify based on appearance and racial organization forced upon by society. Finally, will be able to decide rather how he or she should identify.  

