Conservative media campaign to thwart Census from gathering race data needed to enforce laws
In a blog post, Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian advised respondents to the 2010 Census to avoid disclosing their ethnicity by selecting "[s]ome other race" and writing in "American." Other conservative bloggers and radio hosts have followed suit, mounting a campaign to thwart the Census' efforts to gather information on the topic, which the Census says is needed to enforce federal laws.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Krikorian encourages people to "[p]ass it on"; other bloggers comply
Krikorian pushes "a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes." From Krikorian's March 8 post on National Review Online's The Corner:
[U]ntil we succeed in building the needed wall of separation between race and state, I have a proposal. Question 9 on the census form asks "What is Person 1's race?" (and so on, for other members of the household). My initial impulse was simply to misidentify my race so as to throw a monkey wrench into the statistics; I had fun doing this on the personal-information form my college required every semester, where I was a Puerto Rican Muslim one semester, and a Samoan Buddhist the next. But lying in this constitutionally mandated process is wrong. Really -- don't do it.
Instead, we should answer Question 9 by checking the last option -- "Some other race" -- and writing in "American." It's a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, "American" was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.
So remember: Question 9 -- "Some other race" -- "American". Pass it on.
Malkin: "Ditto that!" In a March 9 post headlined "My race is 'American,' " Michelle Malkin wrote, "Mark Krikorian is fighting back against Census form race politics and urging you to do the same," and quoted from Krikorian's post. Malkin then wrote, "Ditto that!" Right-wing bloggers at Power Line, Ace of Spades, and RedState have also embraced Kirkorian's initiative to "pass it on."
Campaign spreads to right-wing radio
Beck: "Do not answer the race question. How dare you? How dare you?" On his March 9 radio show, Glenn Beck asserted that the Census question will result in people getting "more dollars if you are a minority." He further stated:
BECK: The reason why you don't answer a race question is because: one. Everyone counts as one. All men are created equal. If you are offended back in 1790 about slavery and that everyone should count the same, do not answer the race question. How dare you? How dare you?
At least in 1790, they were doing it to slow the South down on slavery, to try to stop it as much as they can. Today, they're asking the race question to try to increase slavery, your dependence on the master in Washington. No way. Don't answer that question.
Limbaugh: "There's a campaign out there ... to get this done, have a little fun with it." On the March 11 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh told a caller, "Let me give you some advice on this thing. I want you to listen up and listen close." Limbaugh further stated, "I want you to check the box that says 'other' and write in 'American.' " Later, he reiterated:
LIMBAUGH: Just don't forget on the Census form, when you check off your race, check the box that says "other" and write -- in all caps -- write in "American." There's a campaign out there -- I guess we just started it -- a campaign out there to get this done, have a little fun with it.
Census: Race data required to implement federal laws
Census: Race data necessary "to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act." According to the U.S. Census Bureau, states are required to use race data to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and federal programs rely on race data for implementation:
Race is key to implementing any number of federal programs and it is critical for the basic research behind numerous policy decisions. States require race data to meet legislative redistricting requirements. Also, they are needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act by local jurisdictions.
Federal programs rely on race data in assessing racial disparities in housing, income, education, employment, health, and environmental risks.
The Census Bureau has included a question on race since the first census in 1790. The Census Bureau Web site has a race overview page with links to data and substantial reference information. Almost all Census Bureau population and housing data sets include data on race.
NY Times: "Counting people by race ... is useful for enforcing civil rights laws." In a March 7 editorial, The New York Times stated that "questions about age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity and homeownership are used to help execute and monitor laws and programs that are targeted to specific groups," adding, "Counting people by race and ethnicity, for example, is useful for enforcing civil rights laws, like the Voting Rights Act." From the Times editorial:
Another baseless criticism of the census is that it is unconstitutional to ask anything beyond the number of people living in a residence. Numerous federal and Supreme Court cases have upheld the constitutionality of collecting additional information in the census, provided it is relevant and necessary to good government.
To that end, questions about age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity and homeownership are used to help execute and monitor laws and programs that are targeted to specific groups. That is not to downplay legitimate debate fueled by questions that go beyond who is living where. Counting people by race and ethnicity, for example, is useful for enforcing civil rights laws, like the Voting Rights Act. But it also provokes argument about identity and equality in a diverse society. [The New York Times, 3/7/10]

















They want a white country, so naturally they don't want to account for the different races and cultures among us, let alone allow that accounting to provide some (gasp!) benefit to these "others."
Tell that to the other races on the "right". They would be interested in your ridiculous assertion.
See how foolish your race baiting victicrat mentality makes you look?
Elaborate. Please. What laws would the republicans enact to make the country white?
The right wing, and especially the teabaggers, are actually quite racist, just like their leaders Rush and Glenn.
Women? Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Susan Collins. Cynthis Lummis. Elizabeth Dole.
There's 3 minorities and 4 women, and they are not alone.
Political Parties by Racial, Ethnic and Ideological
Republican party:
Hispanic - 5%
African American - 2%
Other race - 4%
Non-Hispanic White conservative - 63%
Non-Hispanic White not conservative - 26%
Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious...
What you call a stupid, baseless lie, most of us with eyes and ears call common knowledge.
It's time you grow up, Peter Pan.
"Republican officials calling for more racial profiling" - prove that this is first and foremost motivated because they want a white country.
"Fox News propagandists warning of the imminent danger to the white male power structure" - besides their opinion talk show hosts and guests, please detail where this is some stated policy and advocated by their news departments.
"constant whining from the Right about "our country" being taken over by Mexicans, Muslims and other brown invaders" - other than a yearning for strict border enforcement of our existing laws, what is the other context for your assertion?
Let me save you some embarrassment, you will give me a couple of anecdotal examples of some idiot on the right who is a racist and then extrapolate that to back up something so ridiculous as "They want a white country" from an entire political ideology.
That is what race baiters do, shamelessly and dishonestly. Racial tension must be burning brightly and actively seething in this country for people like you and your rhetoric to succeed. It needs to be stoked so a good way to do it is by hurling out inflammatory accusations such as this one. I get it. I know your MO. Most here don't see it, but I do.
As I said, grow up. You look pathetic, whiny and the victim role isn't cute anymore.
You can't keep your lies straight. That's the problem with lying - it's hard to keep track.
If can't understand, I am sorry.
Yes - like down thread when you accused CC of posting something he didn't. Like any day you post here and try and change other poster's words.
Thanks you ermotional liar, you.
Because I never see much else. Have I missed it?
As far as I can see - yes, you have missed just about everything.
And you lie about it to boot. But carry on with your emotional arguments.
See you on some other thread when you try and post more lies. But since it's closing in on quitting time for you, I guess that will be tomorrow.
You wrote:
Tell that to the other races on the "right". They would be interested in your ridiculous assertion.
With that statement, you weren't saying the right is made up of a diverse group of individuals?
I simply showed polling that shows the right is in no way a diverse group of people. Of course one look at the Republican convention, would serve the same purpose.
Any minority group, that threatens the Republican White majority, guarantees racist, nasty, negative campaigning from Republicans
Reagan's "welfare queen driving a Cadillac", a campaign geared towards stereotyping African Americans as not working, taking your hard earned money to buy expensive cars.
Tancredo's Sotomayor-Latino KKK, a campaign geared towards labeling Hispanics as racists for demanding equal rights. Can't have La Raza doing for Hispanics what the NAACP did for African Americans.
And who can forget Jessie Helms "white hands" against African American Harvey Gantt, a campaign geared towards scaring White folks. Elect that Black man and you'll lose your good jobs to those lazy, affirmative action Black folks.
Republicans may not come out and say they want a White country, but their actions say it for them.
Telling the truth is race baiting?
Current African American Republican House Members/ZERO
Current African American Republican Senate Members/ZERO
Last African American Republican House Member - J.C. Watts, 1995
Last African American Republican Senate Member - Edward William Brooks, 1967
There were 36, out of approximately 2,000, African American delegates at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
Current Hispanic Republican House Members/3
Current Hispanic Republican Senate Members/ZERO
The 3 Hispanic Republican House members, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart & Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are all representatives of Florida.
Only 2 Hispanic Republican Senators ever, Octavian Ambrosio Larrazolo, New Mexico 1928-1929 & Mel Martinez, Florida 2005 - 2009
There were 100, out of approximately 2,000, Hispanic delegates at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
This is an honest and fair question, because there is a desire to act in a certain manner if you are a part of the given minority. Politics is a part of that culture.
"you will give me a couple of anecdotal examples of some idiot on the right who is a racist and then extrapolate that to back up something so ridiculous as "They want a white country" from an entire political ideology"
Did you know the majority of African Americans used to be Republicans. And that at one time, the Democratic party had to be sued to get them to accept African Americans in their party?
It wasn't until FDR and his New Deal, that African Americans starting leaving the Republican party and Republicans started courting a group of voters that never voted for them before, Democratic southern whites.
And Republicans, in courting Democratic southern whites, ran campaigns against African Americans using language designed to appeal to southern whites. Words like "states rights, anti affirmative action, pro welfare reform, were used to convince southern Democratic whites, that the Republican party was no longer the "ni**er lovers party", as Democrats and Dixicrats used to call them.
The Republican party opened the door for the racist southern Democratic/Dixicrat whites and that's were they found a home.
The history of the Republican party IS the example!
How parties have viewed issues like religion, big business, etc have altered through time, and will alter in the future.
Looking to put a single party in a perpetual box is simply a bad idea. What you need to look at is what the party beleives now. And the GOP is certainly not racist.
You know, I could actually argue that this attempt box a party is itself a political ploy, one that has largely succeeded in capturing the vast majority of certain minority groups.
I'm afraid we are going backwards with this kind of manufactured controversy on something as basic as the census!!How many people indentifying as Native Americans are in the country right now!? It should be important to know that.If we can count Polar bears surely we can count our diverse American selves!!!
Isn't some of the demographic data relevant to things like immigration laws or info combinations like geographic/racial distribution.How do we ensure no inadvertent disenfranchisement takes place if we don't know such things?
Also, not related to race, but, regarding the people, especially the politicians, telling people to not fill out or return the Census at all because it's "unconstitutional", it's obvious they haven't read the Constitution.
Race was a factor do to the 3/5th language of Article 1 Section 2, but it was modified by the 14th Amendment Section 2 of the Constitution which eliminated the need to count the people by race.
Use of race data to implement federal law is inherently racist. Let's get to a color blind society. I know racism exists but government should not promote it.
If someone can explain to me how, I would be interested?
The federal programs are created for victims who have been discriminated against. If whites become victimized in one neighborhood, then the gov't would work to resolve that problem. The particular race isn't what is protected at all.
There's never been an instance where you've understood anything better than I have.
And I'm still not Sue.
All you could do was make baseless ad hominem attacks. Thanks for documenting that you have reached the end of your rope, and thanks for proceeding to hang yourself with it. A smarter person would simply not reply, but your personal animus is so everpresent that you can't resist that urge.
Please don't feed this troll post any more.
Of course not. What I actually wrote was
Now, with that being said, there are some programs (such as Affirmative Action) that do expressly help some races but not others. The thing is, though, that these programs are designed to help level the playing field, not give someone an unfair advantage over someone else.
Also, let's say the census finds that in North Philadelphia, for example (just choosing Philly because I live here), the majority of the population is poor, black, and under-educated. Isn't it beneficial to know that information and use it to help rectify that population's problems? We're not talking about some general, nebulous population, but a specific community with specific problems. How could it be unhelpful to know specific demographics?
Or to put it differently, would you send a Buddhist to help Catholics with theological issues?
right ON, I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt throughout this conversation, but if you honestly believe that anyone thinks that the Census was commissioned for that purpose I don't think there is any point to continuing. Where has anyone supported that idea? Where did you get it from? Does it even make sense to you?
You seem like you are posting here just for the argument. If that is true, fine. Just let me know so that I can avoid you.
If that is false, explain to me where you get these ideas from.
Where has anyone said that the purpose of the Census is to treat poor whites differently than poor blacks?
Your assertion in the previous post, however, needs to be rewritten. Nobody has said to treat specific individuals differently because of race. Instead of re-writing what others have before me, I'll just point you towards Another_Cat's post above, and add that he/she was not writing about racist policies, but about a general social mode that is not equal for different races and ethnicities.
If we determine that a group is currently disadvantaged because of previous prejudices, then things should be done to rectify those current disadvantages. If we determine that a group is currently suffering prejudice or inferior treatment because of current mistreatment, then fixes should be created to remove those barriers/rectify those problems too.
And we won't KNOW if a neighborhood, community or region which is disadvantaged and which is mostly populated by a particular race unless we SURVEY that neighborhood, community or region via the US Census to find OUT what the racial makeup is of that community.
You don't have a leg to stand on in this argument, RightON. Time to haul out the personal attacks I guess - oh, wait, you already made a baseless personal attack on Clams Casino when you couldn't legitimately refute his point about your previously-expressed views on how recognizing different races/cultures is divisive/racist!
And therein lies the naive simple response, naturally coming from you. Because when you treat one group differently you automatically engage in reverse discrimination. Think about it, google it if you can't figure it out.
Are you really this crazy, that you don't know that readers here SEE who was willing to do research and who has been spouting baseless talking points that have been repeatedly debunked?
And no, rectifying previous injustices is NOT bad. It's NOT reverse discrimination either. That's what oppponents call it to demonize it.
The term affirmative action refers to policies that take race, ethnicity, physical disabilities, military career, sex, or a person's parents' social class into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity or increase ethnicity or other forms of diversity. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination. Opponents argue that it promotes reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action is a term coined in the United States. Matching procedures in other countries are also known as reservation in India, positive discrimination in the United Kingdom and employment equity in Canada.
Please, keep making a fool of yourself. Keep showing us how disconnected from reality you are, and how your personal animus so controls you.
It's easy to say that when you are a pasty-faced, blue-eyed blonde male who makes $25 million a year or more and live in a $4 million dollar home.
Clueless.
You have nothing else.
If that is too nuanced of an answer for you, forget it.
Because unlike race baiters, I am not invested in keeping hundreds of years of racial oppression front and center. Figure it out.
Please, enlighten us.
Exactly what part of all this is giving you trouble?
Exactly what part of all this is giving you trouble?
Otherwise you moan and whine just to hear yourself.
I kinda knew that.
A clear sign of a troll post.
It didn't.
Lying again? Let's scroll up and see what CC actually posted...
He said he wasn't going to explain it to you. He may or may not be a city planner. But that is not what was posted.
Point stands.
The US Census bureau also has an FAQ about what they do and why.
Information on race is required for many federal programs and is critical in making policy decisions, particularly for civil rights. States use these data to meet legislative redistricting principles. Race data also are used to promote equal employment opportunities and to assess racial disparities in health and environmental risks.
If you're really interested in why they might determine if an area dominated by one race might be detrimentally affected by an environmental concern, then you can google and figure it out. I doubt you're really interested.
I DID provide one example of exactly WHY they might do it. I then exposed that his question likely wasn't an honest one, which he proved with later responses to other posts. And all he did here was make an ad hominem attack, claiming that my citing of a specific example and highlighting how that specific example (among many others RightON could find if he truly wanted to), and discussing how the US Census is the ONLY tool to complete efforts like this, as "vague"? Really?
Do you really think that people don't READ what the previous poster actually wrote, so that you can brazenly distort it without worry that you'll be caught in your dishonest, disreputable and dishingenuous portrayal of another's words?
Please don't feed this troll any more.
Environment could be a factor in the higher incidence of diabetes in African Americans. Census data would be a tool in determining and quantifying that.
There are links between race, income and illness from environmental hazards. Census data would be a tool in determining and quantifying that.
There appears to be an environmental component to the higher incidence of lupus in African Americans. Census data would be a tool in determining and quantifying that.
There are similar situations with breast cancer.
There are many others. They weren't that hard to find.
How many tries did that take? You should try thinking for yourself for once rather than expecting everyone else to do it for you.
Because you don't want them fixed. Because if they are you and your race baiting rhetoric becomes useless. That is your dirty little secret, which you don't want exposed.
Sorry, just did.
There's no evidence that we want them fixed, and it's irrelevant to boot whether or not we want them fixed, how we would fix them or how important they are on the scale of problems that need to be remedied.
You haven't exposed ANYTHING but your own lack of character and paid troll behavior.
Please don't feed this paid troll any more.
Oops, sorry, it's his quitting time anyway, so he won't be replying anymore.
"There's no evidence that we want them fixed"
Nope, there sure isn't. Thanks for the brief shred of honesty Sue.
Thanks for yet again showing the paucity of your character, that you'd take advantage of that missing word to totally distort the rest of my post. You had said that we don't want them fixed, and I was clearly totally disagreeing with your assertion that we don't want them fixed. So I was saying that there's no evidence that we don't want them fixed.
And you knew that.
I always appreciate when someone like you destroys your own credibility!
Oops. But you have no credibility left. Everyone laughs at you. You're a joke. You used to be somebody. Now you're only a paid troll.
These issues should not be assumed to cause divisiveness without knowing more about them! Glad you asked!
The thing that I didn't like was having to choose 'white' as my race. I selected 'white' but also 'other' and listed 'human' with a not that white was not a race. I know no one will care about what I wrote, and it won't make a difference, but it made me feel better.
# of adults in household: 2
Race: American-American
That is all.
Curb your paranoia. Not everything is some nefarious plot.
However, let's put that issue aside. There is a great deal of benefit to American society in many ways, including economically, by having a broad set of demographic data available. Race is only one small aspect of that, but it's an emotional hot-button that some conservatives are jumping on. Using the census to gather that demographic data is an extremely efficient and accurate method of obtaining it. It's used all the time by state, local and federal governments. It's also used by charitable organization, grass roots movements, research organizations and many, many many private businesses.
There really isn't anything sinister about it.
The US Census has FAQ's about why they collect data, and it also explains that they can and SHOULD collect that data. The OMB has been doing this for years and years - saying that collecting this data is right, proper, and necessary.
"The Census Bureau collects race data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget."
The data being USED, including data about racial makeup of regions, communities or neighborhoods, by some other group or some other governmental agency, is perfectly legit and appropriate.
Polling has shown about 20 -25% of voters that said the race of the candiate would influence their vote.How many aren't going to even answer that question honestly?How many more do it when they vote or judge people but they don't/can't/won't see it!!
How can you begin to assess grievances/complaints of discrimination with out some demographic data?This is beyond cynical to malign the Government for conducting a census in the same way it has been done for centuries.Go back and check;race was always included along with age, names,sex,etc.State of birth was also included long ago.The 1st time names were listed for Blacks was in 1870 census!You know why ..right?
People who willingly accept this prospect are to be admired.
People who loudly proclaim their willingness but continue to comply with the law are despicable.
Race is included in lots of places like Driver's License,Passports,etc..Why the census paranoia??
I'm a brown-haired, brown-eyed, short-as-all-crap German-descended American, and I don't care who knows it. Whatever you are, that's awesome too. But if you feel like THIS is where you have to make a principled stand, well, you're priorities are SORELY misplaced.
It’s time we stop thinking of people in terms of ethnic and racial groups and starting thinking of people as individuals. This is a great way to send the message that we are tired of being classified as hyphenated Americans.