Just Say NO to Racial Data and Quotas!

The old Jim Crow "one-drop rule" is enforced on Census 2000!  Multiracial responses which include "white" are to be counted as "minority" for allocating racial pork.

Diversity = Adversity

Site
Index:
Site Index / Menu.

Census 2000 is Biased Against Multi-Ethnic and White Citizens!

Back:
BACK:  Census 2000 Main Page.
Census
Main
Page

Census 2000 enforces the old Jim Crow "one drop" rule.  OMB has issued official guidelines stating that if a person checks "white" and any minority, the respondent is to be counted as the minority for purposes of allocating racial preferences and funds. 


(A) STATUTORY MISSION OF THE CENSUS:   Title 13 of the U.S. Code requires that the apportionment counts resulting from the census -- the resident population totals for each state -- be delivered to the President within 9 months of the census date.

          In the 1990 and most 20th Century censuses, the census date has been April 1, meaning that the Office of the President received the counts by December 31 of each census year. Within a week of the opening of the next session of the Congress, the President must report to the Clerk of the House of Representatives the census counts for each state and the number of Representatives to which each jurisdiction is entitled. Within 15 days, the Clerk of the House informs each state Governor of the number of Representatives to which each state is entitled. The legislatures in each state are responsible for geographically defining the boundaries of their congressional and other election districts -- the redistricting process which requires more detailed census data.

Page Index:

(B) MULTI-RACIAL / INTERRACIAL AND 'MIXED' HERITAGE:  In the 1990 census, individuals wishing to report multi-racial or interracial heritage were forced to check the "other" box -- and over 10 million Americans did check the "other" box in the 1990 census.  But black civil rights leaders strongly objected, saying that collection of such data "diluted" their political influence. 

          Nonetheless, and over the protests of the black lobby, the Census 2000 form (both short and long) listed dozens of possible racial / ethnic combinations to choose from: 

Census 2000 Racial Categories (Check All That Apply)

Spanish/Hispanic/Latino:

  • No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino
  • Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano
  • Yes, Puerto Rican
  • Yes, Cuban
  • Yes, Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino (specify)

Race:

  • White
  • Black, African American, or Negro
  • American Indian or Alaska Native (specify)
  • Asian Indian
  • Chinese
  • Filipino
  • Other Asian (specify)
  • Japanese
  • Korean
  • Vietnamese
  • Native Hawaiian
  • Guamanian or Chamorro
  • Samoan
  • Other Pacific Islander (specify)

Other race (specify):

          Some critics, especially the black lobby, believe that the huge number of racial categories allowed on Census 2000 renders the data useless.  That would be nice.

          But what is this white category?  I am not "white"!  I am German-Irish-American, but there is no space on the Census 2000 form for me:

What Happened to the White Categories?

Census 2000, and all prior censuses, completely ignored the rich ethnic heritage of white émigrés to this great country:

  • Armenian-American (not counted)
  • Austrian-American (not counted)
  • British-American (not counted)
  • Bulgarian-American (not counted)
  • Dutch-American (not counted)
  • French-American (not counted)
  • German-American (not counted)
  • Greek-American (not counted)
  • Irish-American (not counted)
  • Italian-American (not counted)
  • Jewish-American (not counted)
  • Latvian-American (not counted)
  • Lithuanian-American (not counted)
  • Polish-American (not counted)
  • Russian-American (not counted)
  • Scandinavian-American (not counted)
  • Swiss-American (not counted)

Other "White" (specify):

Thus, dozens of so-called white ethnicities were excluded from the 2000 Census.

NOTE:  An alert reader informed us of the following:  "... white ethnic groups such as German - Americans, are recorded in the sample count of the census, Summary File 3, which asks questions (among them, questions on ancestry) to a sample of 1 in 6 households."  My response is that the government, and the Census Bureau, apparently have so little respect or regard for citizens of Northern European descent that they only used a "statistical sample" of 1 in 6 households to count us! -- Tim Fay, Editor.


(C) EFFECT ON CIVIL RIGHTS / NON-DISCRIMINATION LAWS:  Civil rights laws designed to protect black Americans and other favored ethnicities would still be enforced regardless of whether citizens provide racial / ethnicity data on Census 2000.  So don't provide your racial or ethnic data, and don't encourage our government to continue pigeonholing us into divisive racial niches.

          Even though race has been taken into account since the first census in 1790, the primary purposes of collecting census data are still (a) reapportionment of the House of Representatives seats; and (b) monitoring people's wealth and progress, as well as forecasting the nation's future needs -- regardless of race!

          Adversity.Net, and countless others, including the Libertarian Party, a majority of the Republican Party, most conservatives, and many moderates believe that it should NOT be the purpose of the Census to create a racial spoils system!

          In particular, the OMB should completely abandon the objectionable practice of trying to pigeonhole Americans into a racial niche.  To do so is to divide the bounty of our great country according to racial identity, and that is nothing more or less than racial discrimination.


(D) OLDER CENSUS NEWS - SETTING THE STAGE:

INJUNCTION GRANTED IN CENSUS SUIT (Houston, Texas) (posted 3/29/00 - no link)

          U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon granted attorney Mark Brewer a temporary restraining order today in the Census Suit filed by five Houston, Texas residents. Attorneys for the government conceded and the court ruled that none of the five plaintiffs will be subject to actual or threatened prosecution during the pendency of the litigation.

          Effectively, said Brewer, this prevents prosecution against any American who chooses to not answer questions other than the number of people living at their address. According to Brewer, the government also conceded that the plaintiffs have standing. This removed what was potentially the biggest impediment to the case going forward.

          Brewer stressed that his clients do not want to stop or interrupt the actual enumeration called for by the Constitution. "These plaintiffs are ordinary citizens and true patriots. Like most Americans, they want to obey the law, perform their civic duty and be counted. But, they don't want to be threatened with criminal penalties for failure to respond to the outrageously invasive and intrusive questions demanded by the Census Bureau. They also share the genuine concern that if they only answer the constitutionally permissible question (i.e., how many people live at their address), they risk not being counted at all," said Brewer.

          Brewer points out that the Census Bureau admits that its statistically random use of short and long form questionnaires actually increases the risk of non-responses and thus, "undercounting." And, since the questions could not be lawfully asked by the government or private persons in any other context, there can be no legal use of the information, once collected.

          Examples include questions of race, ethnicity, age, sex, and even disability. "Unfortunately, we know the government is capable of misusing census data. The federal government was only able to find, round up and imprison Americans of Japanese ancestry in 1942 by the illegal use of Census Bureau data," said Brewer.  (Press release from the Campaign for a Colorblind America 3/27/00.  For more information contact: Jeff Van Fleet or Mark Brewer 713/209-2950)
[no link available]

Census Obsessed with Race?  (11/22/99 - no link)
          "...Next April 1, Washington will perpetrate the greatest invasion of privacy in history -- the 2000 census. At a cost of roughly $7 billion, it will attempt to survey, classify and categorize 275 million Americans.

          "Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for a decennial census for the purpose of apportioning House seats among the states. While the census is one of the few things the federal government does that's actually authorized by the Constitution, that mandate (a simple head count) has metastasized beyond recognition.

          "Those fortunate enough to get the long form in the mail will be asked 52 impertinent and intrusive questions. All but one (how many reside in your household?) have nothing to do with reapportionment -- unless you consider the number of toilets in your domicile, what you pay for homeowners' insurance or the length of your commute relevant to the distribution of House seats. ... These are questions the government of a republic would never dare to ask, indeed has no reason to know.

          "...[And] there will be the ubiquitous racial-classification questions. ... Racial classification has become quite the racket. For diversity-mongers, it is essential for the distribution of spoils, including quota hiring. Welfare-state politicians need to know who to pander to and to what extent. Should Al Gore pay more attention to Latinos or blacks? ... [S]elf-designated spokesmen for various minorities get power from the numerical growth of their constituencies.

          "It's good for everyone except Americans -- that dwindling number whose principal identity is national, instead of racial, ethnic or linguistic, that is to say, non-hyphenated Americans.

          "Racial politics polarizes. Like dogs fighting for scraps of food, it pits groups against each other. It accustoms us to thinking and acting like members of interest groups instead of those with common bonds that transcend accidents of birth. The Census Bureau wants to know my skin pigmentation, the texture of my hair, the shape of my eyelids, my grandparents' national origins. None of its damned business." [Emphasis added.] (The Washington Times 11/22/99 page A16 by Don Feder, nationally syndicated columnist.)
[ no link available ]

Census Director Wants to Hire Illegal Aliens to Take Census!  (07/13/99)
          The National Review On-Line reports the following wacky Census News From the July 12 issue of Hispanic Link: "At a press briefing during the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in Philadelphia last month, Census director Kenneth Prewitt told reporters that the bureau was planning to use illegal aliens (his words) as well as legal immigrants to help out with the Census next year in finding the hard-to-count in the Hispanic neighborhoods.  "He said it several times, until one reporter asked him whether the Congress would think it was a good idea to have undocumented workers on the government payroll. ... If Prewitt didn't mean to say he was ready to hire illegal immigrants, then why did he try to make a distinction between "legal residents" (meaning non-citizens allowed to live in the United States) and "legal immigrants."   If there is one, it's awfully technical.  House Republicans should make sure Prewitt promises unequivocally not to hire illegal aliens for Census 2000."   (National Review On-Line 07/13/99)
[link http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr071399.html ]

Calif to "buy" minorities in Census 2000 for $37.50 each! (05/05/99)
          WASHINGTON -- "The speaker of the California Assembly came to the capital this week with an offer the federal government couldn't refuse: $30 million in state money to improve the 2000 census for what is probably the nation's hardest-to-count state population.

          "The expenditure proposed by Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), if approved by the state Legislature and Gov. Gray Davis, would dwarf contributions that other states are making toward the crucial decennial population count.

          "In [the 1990 Census], California had a larger "undercount"--residents who were missed by the census, generally from poor and minority communities--than any other state and has suffered for it by losing additional representation in the House of Representatives and hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid.

          "Although California's official 1990 population was recorded as 29.7 million, experts say that figure omitted more than 800,000 residents who either failed to answer the federal request for information or could not be reached."

          Assuming that 800,000 minorities will be "undercounted" in 2000 without the $30 million census bribe from California, then the cost for California of purchasing additional minorities for the purpose of increasing federal aid is computed as follows:  $30 million divided by 800,000 "undercounted" minorities = $37.50 for each additional minority counted in Census 2000! 

          Thus, $30 million is not a bad investment by California considering that the purchase of these extra minorities could result in an additional hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid!  (Based on Los Angeles Times, 05/05/99 by Nick Anderson)
[link http://www.latimes.com/CNS_DAYS/990505/t000040375.html ]

Minorities Told "Report Your Race, or Lose Federal Aid" (03/31/99)
          "We want to hit the ground running, make sure that New Yorkers — and especially immigrants, Hispanics and minorities — understand that if they're not counted, they don't count," City Councilman Guillermo Linares (D-Manhattan) said at City Hall.

          Councilman Linares exhorted his minority voters to make sure they are counted or risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars in race-targeted government funding for race-based aid programs.

          "Also yesterday, at Ellis Island, representatives from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund announced a similar nationwide campaign to encourage Hispanics around the country to be counted."  (NY Daily News 03/31/99 by Carolina Gonzalez)
[link http://www.mostnewyork.com/1999-03-31/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-24273.asp?last6days=1 ]

Racial categories shouldn't be an issue
          "Bad form aside, the matter of how Americans are to be identified as to race is a notoriously unscientific, subjective and often contemptible way of categorizing and classifying citizens. The simple, all-American answer: The government -- since it is bound to treat people as individuals who possess freedom, dignity and equal rights regardless of race, color or creed -- should not ask people what 'race' they 'belong' to.

          "The best approach to this imbroglio would be to eliminate race as a category on the census altogether. Constitutionally, the census was instituted to apportion congressional districts, and race isn't supposed to matter in that process.

          "What if every American checked every single box on the form, claiming "membership" in every arbitrary racial group -- and making hash of the race statistics?" (From the Jacksonville Daily News, 11/10/97)
[link http://www.webcom.com/intvoice/jacksonv.html ]


End Census 2000 Bias Against Multi-Ethnic and White

 

Census 2000 MAIN Page Census 2000 Bias Against Multi-Ethic and White Multi-Ethnic Data Renders Census Colorblind!
(2001)
Bush Opposes Use of Fictitious Sampled Minorities in Census
(2001)
EDITORIAL:
Census 2000 Creates a National Racial Profile

Main Site Index:

Top:
Go to Top of Page
MAIN NEWS
Index

by category
DONATE
Contributions are tax-deductible
HORROR
STORIES

and case studies
TERMS
and Definitions
SEARCH
Site
LEGAL HELP
Firms and Resources
LINKS MESSAGE
Board
GO:  Home Page
Home
Page Index
URL's and page names for site
Favorite
EDITORIALS

National opinion
DIRTY RACIAL
POLITICS

How Quotas are Enforced
EDITOR'S DESK
What's Hot!
RACIAL
PROFILING

D.O.J. Requires It!
EDUCATIONAL
TESTING

News Analysis
CENSUS 2000
Racism
ABOUT US

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: August 06, 2006.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.