Assumptions: identifying race.

How many of you have found yourselves looking for a job recently? I have: Contacting some colleges about working as an adjunct (that's academese for "part time") counselor.

Perhaps someone has asked you, too, very politely, to complete a questionnaire about yourself. Do any of the following questions sound familiar? What assumptions have you made about your 'self'?

Are any of you of "American Indian or Alaskan Native" origin? Are you "Asian or Pacific Islander"? Are you "Black/African American (not of Hispanic origin)"? Are you "Hispanic/Latino"? Are you "White (not of Hispanic origin)"? I've excerpted those categories from the "Statistical Information Questionnaire" sent to me, along with an application form, by Solano [California] Community College.

But....

What shall I make of this? Why do American Indians and Alaskan Natives get categorized together? How did the College come up with thirteen sub-categories for Asians and Pacific Islanders? Why not twenty? Or seven? What, exactly, do "Asian Indians," "Hawaiians" and "Filipinos" have in common? (And by whose standards?)

The criteria for "Black/African American (not of Hispanic origin)" include "All persons having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." That sounds clear enough, at first. But if I look through a non-aristotelian lens at this, it looks a lot less 'clear' - at least to me.

Do individuals whose ancestors 'all' came from Africa and nowhere else - qualify? Seems reasonable. But what about those individuals who also have ancestors from other 'ethnic' or 'racial' categories? How do we determine just how many ancestors are needed, in order to qualify as "Black/African American (not of Hispanic origin)"?

What if one of my great grandfathers came directly from Africa? Would I qualify? I'm about the whitest-looking boy you're likely to find. Somehow, I have a sense that someone might get upset if I were to vote myself into the 'African American' category. So, how would I answer these questions? (And why would anybody get upset about my answers, anyway? But that's another story.)

Let's take a look at Solano's "Hispanic/Latino" category. This one has six sub-sets, and specifies "All persons of Chicano, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race." Hmmm. How many hundreds of thousands of "Black/African Americans" can also trace their ancestry to some "Spanish culture"? Just what, exactly, counts, here? And just when do we begin this 'origins' business? How far back do we go? At what date do we start labeling our 'racial identity'?

And, by the way, do we include in the "Spanish culture" category someone born in Madrid?

But - "White (not of Hispanic origin)" apparently includes "All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East." Isn't Spain around there somewhere? (And I don't much care for that "all" business, either.) For that matter, what does "original peoples" signify? Apparently Solano College now contemplates the spontaneous generation of races, with various distinct groups just popping up everywhere.

I don't recall reading about this theory in school.

Stories We Tell Ourselves

My father told me years ago that I was "three-quarters Irish, and one-quarter German," and that our families came to Massachusetts from Newfoundland. Does this mean that none of my ancestors, ever, strayed from that very narrow path? Jeez, how boring! I can hardly credit that as a hypothesis. And, true-ish or not: How did Dad know, and did he have any justification for making such an 'absolute' and 'factual' statement? So, how much can I - should I - rely on those 'facts'?

Maybe you've pondered these categorizations before. Maybe you've made some unmindful assumptions, and accepted labels like these as somehow 'right' or 'obvious'. Maybe my questions don't even make much sense to you. But play along with me here, and see what you think, while I share with you some more of my finds.

The Shared Delusion 

In addition to Solano's "Statistical Information Questionnaire," I've also run into documents called "Demographic Survey," "Equal Employment Opportunity Survey," "Pre-Employment Questionnaire," "Confidential Data Sheet," etc.

The people who wrote each one of them seem determined to try to make me describe my 'place' in what-goes-on, using just one or two neat little labels.

Rancho Santiago College wants me to provide my "Ethnic Identification." Interesting choice of words. And would that refer to 'identification' of my 'ethnicity' by me, or by somebody else? Sometimes on these forms, I just tell them that I find their questions way too abstract for me. But I don't think they get it.

Pueblo College wants me to "indicate my ethnic background." That asks for fewer assumptions, and if I did agree to perform the abstractions required, at first the request would seem simple enough. But, then, maybe not.

Contra Costa College 'merely' asks me to "check the box which best describes your race/ethnicity." - Says who? And yet it sounds so reasonable, doesn't it?

Mt. San Jacinto College, for Pete's sake, asks of me "How do you identify yourself?" I'll have to contemplate an appropriate response to that one.

And, as the saying goes, what choices do I have?

Rancho Santiago, in sincerity and good will (we can but hope), sticks me with these choices: "American Indian/Alaskan Native" [Maybe they've been talking with Solano College]; "Asian or Pacific Islander (except Filipino)" [Maybe they haven't been talking with Solano College]; "Black (not of Hispanic origin)"; "Hispanic (all persons of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin American or other Spanish Culture, regardless of race)"; "Filipino"; and "white."

De Anza College aims to keep it simple. It offers me these choices: "American Indian/Alaskan Native"; "Hispanic"; "Asian/Pacific Islander" (and once again Filipinos 'fit' under this label); "African-American"; and "White/Non-Hispanic."

Wait a minute: Didn't we just come from a choice of plain old "white" (with no Hispanic exceptions) at Rancho Santiago? And what about the itinerant Filipinos? How on earth do the statistical bureaucrats make any sense at all out of this all-too-raw data? How much 'validity' or 'value' can the results have, when different individuals abstract differently, - and then act-as-if they've developed 'similar' data?

Anyway, at least De Anza College goes through the motions of not forcing a choice upon me. It gives me options of "Other" and "Decline to Answer." Sometimes I complete "Other" with "Newfoundlandian." That makes as much sense to me as some of the other choices. "Decline to Answer" reminds me of those voice mail menus that ask me to push 7 when I've finished recording my message. I kind of figure the message will pretty much end when I hang up, and I can save that extra wear and tear on my button-pushing-finger. It all adds up.

Cerro Coso College gives me eight sub-choices under "Asian"; four sub-choices under "Hispanic"; "Black (Non-Hispanic)" (sheesh); "White"; "American Indian/Alaskan Native" (maybe there's some intercollegiate compact mandating agreement on this one); four sub-choices under "Pacific Islander"; and "Filipino" (hey, back to a category of their own again).

Contra Costa College wants me to choose between "Black"; "Filipino"; "White"; eight sub-choices for "Asian"; six sub-choices for "Hispanic"; and six sub-choices for "Pacific Islander" - but now that label also applies to "Eskimo." So much for the intercollegiate compact.

You know, even if you had some 'racial identity' going into this process, you'd probably come out of it pretty confused and uncertain. Hmmm: Bureaucracy as a general semantics training technique? We may be on to something.

Back to Contra Costa: Before somebody gets to claim the label of "Native American," they have to prove "at least one-quarter of blood quantum of tribes or bands indigenous to the United States or Canada." (Using "quantum" proves that the determinations are very Scientific.)

I've often wondered: What if two individuals take The Test, and get similar-but-not-quite-the-same results? How does that work, exactly?

The Story of Bob and Ed

Let's say Bob finds out that he has a nice, full "one-quarter of blood quantum" and qualifies as an official Native American. Ed ends up with "one-quarter of blood quantum" minus some-teeny-tiny-amount. No official Native American status for Ed.

But - Bob works as an accountant in Manhattan (Indian place names don't earn extra credit in this story), and celebrates St. Patrick's Day with his Dad, Michael. On the other hand, Ed and his mother and extended family have lived on the Navajo reservation for years. He takes part in tribal government, and teaches Native American history at a local college.

How does this labeling thing work again? And how does it connect to what-goes-on?

Federal law requires colleges to ask questions like the ones I've described. But Pueblo College has streamlined the process. (Maybe they know Bob and Ed.) The entire demographic section of their questionnaire says: "Please indicate your ethnic background: 'American Indian'; 'Asian American'; 'Black'; 'Hispanic'; 'White'." No messing around with sub-choices, and not even any "other" categories.

Hey: If you've got to generate these abstract labels, why not keep them real abstract? An admirable approach, in a way.

Barstow College actually requires me to state (as, I gather, a 'fact'?) my "Race/National Origin." Do those have the 'same' meaning? And what the heck is the son of an 'African American' man and a 'white' woman whose father came from Spain supposed to do? Pick "Caucasian"? Pick "African American"? Select something from the Hispanic column?

What happens if we know him as an accountant named Bob, who works in Manhattan? Maybe - "Decline to Answer"? Or - "Why are you doing this to me??"

Huh?

By the way: Barstow College doesn't want any of those messy concerns about what-goes-on confusing its nice, neat Confidential Data Sheet. It instructs me to "check only one." Let's ponder this, shall we? Actually stapled to said Data Sheet I find a list of required "Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Personal Characteristics" for the prospective faculty member.

According to the list, Barstow wants someone with "Demonstrated sensitivity to and an understanding of the diverse academic, socio-economic, cultural, disability, and ethnic backgrounds of community college students." - But only, I guess, as long as they agree to fit under just one, 'right', label.

Mindfulness

What labels do you feel comfortable with? Do you accept some labels without much consideration? What assumptions do you make - perhaps quite unmindfully - about your 'race', 'ethnicity', or other aspects of your 'self'?

Do you "know who you are?" How do you know? What labels do you question? Why?

For my part, for instance, I have no idea who I 'am'. I have some experiences of myself. But in an empirical, non-aristotelian sense, I really have only those experiences - those hypotheses about what goes on. I don't believe that I've come across a 'fact' in about thirty years.

- And these people want me to "state my race"!

NOTE

* Pete Christopher has declined to provide any information regarding his 'racial' or 'ethnic' background, aside from testy reminiscences about "good old Curmudgea." He has, however, expressed some curiosity about those readers who might assume (1) that 'he' is male; (2) that 'his' name is "Pete Christopher"; (3) that he has any idea what he's talking about; (4) etc. He has invited those who wish to verify any of the above to e-mail him at <[e-mail]>. (Then he asked, "Why would anyone assume that e-mailing me would 'prove' anything?")