Multiracial movement

SIGNIFICANCE: The multiracial movement originated in the growing numbers of individuals in the United States who identify with more than one racial background. Its impact was most evident in challenges to official racial classifications, particularly on the decennial census, which have traditionally required individuals to identify with only one racial background.

In 1979, interracial couples in Berkeley, California, founded I-Pride (Interracial/Intercultural Pride) in order to provide general support for interracial families. However, its specific goal was to get the Berkeley public schools to reflect the identity of their offspring accurately by including a multiracial designator on school forms. During 1979–80, the Berkeley public schools added “interracial” to school forms, the first time such a classification had been used in modern United States history. By the 1990s, I-Pride had become part of a coalition of more than fifty grassroots organizations that had come into existence since the 1970s. The coalition began pressuring for the addition of a multiracial identifier to the decennial census. These organizations included groups such as Multiracial Americans of Southern California in Los Angeles (MASC), the Biracial Family Network in Chicago (BFN), the Interracial Family Alliance in Atlanta (IFA), the Interracial Family Circle in Washington, D.C. (IFC), and a national umbrella organization called the Association of Multiethnic Americans (AMEA). This coalition also included A Place for Us/National, which is a national nondenominational religious support network for interracial families, organizations such as the Georgia-based activist, informational, and educational Project RACE (Reclassify All Children Equally), and Interracial Voice, an advocacy journal on the Internet that provides a public forum for the discussion of issues related to multiracial-identified and interracially married individuals.

This network of organizations encompasses individuals from various racial backgrounds; however, it has attracted a significant number of Black and White couples and their children, largely because of the one-drop rule of hypodescent, which designates everyone of African descent as Black. The network also has attracted a smaller number of “multigenerational” individuals who have backgrounds that have been blended for several generations. Although they have been socially designated as members of the various traditional United States racial groups (European American, African American, Native American, Latino American, and so on), they have resisted identifying solely with those socially assigned communities.

The 1990 Census

The controversy over the issue of multiracial identity became intense in 1988. On January 20 of that year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the branch of the government responsible for implementing changes in federal statistical surveys, published in the Federal Register a notice soliciting public comment on potential revisions in Directive No. 15. This directive was implemented in May 1978 as the government-wide guide for conducting racial/ethnic surveys. The revisions would permit individuals to identify themselves as “other” if they believed they did not fall into one of the four basic official racial categories—Black, White, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native—or in the so-called “ethnic” category, Hispanic. Heretofore, the OMB advised that the category that most closely reflected how the individual was recognized by the larger community should be used in cases where there was any uncertainty. (Although an “other” category has not been used on all statistical surveys, it has been provided on each census since 1910 to increase the response rate to the race question. However, write-in responses in the “other” category are reassigned to one of the traditional racial categories.)

ResponseAssigned CategoryTotalBlack47,835Mixed, multiracial (or multiethnic)Other32,505Mulatto (or quadroon, octoroon)Other31,848White27,926EurasianAsian19,190AmerasianAsian18,545Biracial (or interracial)Other17,202White and JapaneseWhite 9,329White and FilipinoWhite 7,081CreoleOther 6,244

Many interracial couples and multiracial-identified individuals requested that a multiracial or biracial identifier, instead of “other,” be added to the five categories. (On the 1970 census, multiracial offspring were classified in terms of the father’s racial identity; in 1980, the US Census Bureau shifted to a formula relying on the identity of the mother. However, a “biracial” or “multiracial” designation was not permitted.) The OMB received overwhelmingly negative responses from the public to the proposed changes to Directive No. 15, particularly the addition of a multiracial identifier. This included some federal agencies, such as the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Personnel Management, and several large corporations. Some of this opposition was based on logistical and financial concerns about the increase in data collection, paperwork, changes in the format of forms and computer programs for data analysis, and data burden on respondents.

Various African American leaders and organizations in particular voiced their opposition to the change. They argued that most, if not all African Americans, have some European, and in many cases, Native American ancestry (although most identify solely with the Black community). Consequently, they feared that many individuals would designate themselves as “multiracial” rather than Black in order to escape the continuing negative social stigma associated with African Americans. Similar concerns were expressed by individuals and organizations representing other traditional communities of color, including Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. In addition, opponents argued that the rule of hypodescent, if originally oppressive, has also been a means of mobilizing communities of color in the struggle against white racial privilege. More important, this mechanism has prevented a reduction in the number of individuals who would be counted as members of the traditional communities of color. These numbers were needed to enforce and support civil rights legislation and claims aimed at tracking historical and contemporary patterns of discrimination. They were particularly important in arriving at goals for achieving social and economic equity in the manner of affirmative action.

On November 12, 1988, the AMEA was formed in Berkeley to serve as a national network for the various independent support groups. Its overall goal was to promote healthy images of interracial couples and multiracial individuals. More specifically, its purpose was to increase public awareness about the importance of adding a multiracial identifier to the decennial census. A flurry of telephone calls and correspondence between officials at the OMB and the Census Bureau and various individual groups affiliated with the AMEA ultimately resulted in some clarity as to how multiracial individuals might be accommodated on the 1990 census. Officials said they would specifically code write-in responses in the “other” category as “biracial,” “multiracial,” or some other designation that clearly indicated a blended identity. This would help determine what, if any, changes should be made on the year 2000 census. This was a departure from policy on previous censuses. However, none of the approximately 253,000 multiracial responses in the other category on the 1990 census can be used as an accurate estimate of the actual number of individuals who identify as multiracial. Also, vast numbers of individuals followed the tradition of circling one box because they were unaware of any other alternative.

The Year 2000 Census

Efforts to get the US Census Bureau to make “multiracial” an acceptable means of self-identification were unsuccessful for the 1990 census. Nevertheless, forms for the Operation Desert Shield/Storm Deployment Survey included a multiracial designator for the offspring of returning intermarried veterans. Under the guidance of Project RACE, several states included “multiracial” as an acceptable official means of self-identification. Georgia, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Maryland made this option available on all official state forms. Florida and North Carolina included a multiracial identifier on all school forms. A 1994 survey of eight hundred public school districts, conducted by the Education Office for Civil Rights, found that approximately 30 percent of the school districts use a special separate category. Other districts simply use the mother’s racial designation; some use the father’s. The American College Test (ACT), which is the alternative to the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) college entrance exam, included “multiracial” as an acceptable means of identification. Most universities were resistant to any changes in the collection of racial data; however, Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, included a multiracial identifier on its official forms. Beginning in 1989, reports prepared by the Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., counted individuals who indicated identification with a multiracial background. Nevertheless, these data were reassigned at the federal level to one of the four official racial categories (along with the Hispanic identifier, when it was given as an option) or added into the figures for each of the racial groups with which multiracial individuals identified. This second method is especially useful when trying to track those whose background includes historically underrepresented groups of color for the purposes of affirmative action.

“Multiracial” was not accepted as a means of self-identification on federal forms during the early 1990s. However, the OMB began a comprehensive review process in 1993 to discuss possible changes in this direction on the year 2000 census. After extensive cognitive research and field testing of sample households, the OMB on October 30, 1997, approved changes that would allow multiracial individuals to identify themselves as such on official forms. (The key findings based on the comprehensive review were that between 1 percent and 1.5 percent of the public would select a multiracial identifier when offered an opportunity to do so.)

Most activists had hoped for a combined format that would include a separate multiracial box but would also allow individuals to check the other boxes representing the various components of their background. The OMB proposed a format that read: “What is this person’s race? Mark[X] one or more races to indicate what this person considers herself/himself to be.” This format was chosen partially in response to the unanimous support it received from the various federal agencies that require data on race and ethnicity. These agencies argued that the mark-one-or-more alternative—unlike the combined format—would require fewer changes in formatting on existing forms and allow for data continuity. More important, the data could be counted in each of the existing official racial categories with which multiracial individuals identified, thus including the historically underrepresented racial components in their background. This would be especially important for the purposes of the continued enforcement of civil rights legislation and in meeting affirmative action guidelines. This format is similar to the one that appears on the Canadian census. Since the 1980s, Canada has allowed individuals to check more than one box on the census race/ethnic ancestry question. In addition, Canadian census data have been used for the purposes of achieving “job equity” in a manner similar to affirmative action and other civil rights mandates in the United States.

The mark-one-or-more format also received strong support from traditional civil rights organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). These groups argued that a standalone multiracial identifier would lead to a decline in their numbers. (It should be noted, however, that the combined format would have prevented this loss. In addition, that format would have had the advantage of making it possible to count the data in each of the racial groups with which multiracial individuals identify as well as specifically acknowledging the identity of multiracial individuals.) Furthermore, the traditional communities of color expressed concerns about the potential divisiveness of even the appearance of a multiracial box, whether as a stand-alone identifier or in combination with checking multiple boxes. These concerns were very influential in prompting the OMB officials to choose the mark-one-or-more format. In addition, various representatives from traditional communities of color expressed concerns about how the data would actually be tabulated even though they supported the mark-one-or-more format. The OMB officials indicated that they would make recommendations and provide additional guidance with respect to this question before the year 2000 census after consulting with officials from various federal agencies, interested groups, demographers, planners, and social scientists. The year 2000 census forms used the mark-one-or-more format without a standalone multiracial identifier.

The Year 2010 Census

Like the year 2000 census form, the year 2010 census form used the mark-one-or-more format without a standalone multiracial identifier. The 2010 census also included examples of self-identified races respondents could fill in for “Other Asian” and “Other Pacific Islander,” although respondents were not limited to these options. The examples for “Other Asian” are Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, and Cambodian. The examples for “Other Pacific Islander” are Fijian and Tongan. Although forms for both years provided separate questions about Hispanic origin and race, and instructed respondents to answer both questions, the year 2010 form specified that the census did not consider Hispanic origins to be races.

The Year 2020 Census

The year 2020 Census continued the tradition of aiming to be more inclusive and accurately represent ethnicity and race. Changes were made to reflect growing population and decreases among different Latino groups. In the example groups given for “Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin,” the example groups were revised to reflect the largest Hispanic origin population groups in the country. The term “Negro” was also dropped from the year 2020 Census for the first time. It had previously been one of the descriptor terms for those marking African American or Black descent. The year 2020 Census also included a Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) response category, the first time such a write-in response area was included. The results gained showed that 3.5 million people reported MENA descent.

The 2020 census data revealed changes to the diversity and ethnic makeup of the country from the previous census. While the White race remained the largest race or ethnicity group in the country, the population who identified as “White alone” decreased by 8.6 percent from the 2010 census. Further, the multiracial population increased exponentially, with a 276 percent increase from the previous census. 33.8 million people identified as multiracial in 2020. The category for “Some other race alone or in combination” also increased129 percent and became the second-largest race alone or in combination group, surpassing Black or African American. Another significant increase occurred in the category for “American Indian or Alaska Native” which increased 160 percent from 2010 to 2020.

Bibliography

Jones, Nicholas, et al. “2020 Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country.” U.S. Census Bureau, 12 Aug. 2021, www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.

Marks, Rachel, and Merarys Rios-Vargas. “Improvements to the 2020 Census Race and Hispanic Origin Question Designs, Data Processing, and Coding Procedures.” United States Census Bureau, 3 Aug. 2021, www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2021/08/improvements-to-2020-census-race-hispanic-origin-question-designs.html. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Marks, Rachel, et al. “3.5 Million Reported Middle Eastern and North African Descent in 20202.” United States Census Bureau, 21 Sept. 2023, www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/2020-census-dhc-a-mena-population.html. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Root, Maria P. P., ed. The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996.

Root, Maria P. P., ed. Racially Mixed People in America. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1992.

Spencer, Jon Michael. The New Colored People: The Mixed-Race Movement in America. New York: NYUP, 1997.

United States Census Bureau. United States Census 2010. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce, 2010. Digital file.

Zack, Naomi, ed. American Mixed Race: The Culture of Microdiversity. Lanham: Rowman, 1995. Print.