Should the census really ask about race and sexuality?
These questions undermine the survey's constitutional purpose
On Thursday the U.S. Census Bureau released the local level results of its decennial survey. Because these data are used to draw maps for the House of Representatives and state legislatures, the release marks the beginning of a months- or years-long struggle to secure partisan advantage.
Amidst the inevitable controversy, one quirk of this year's census may go unnoticed. That's the low response rate to questions about race, sex, and family relationships, even among households that reported their total number of residents. Missing data will complicate redistricting as well as efforts to better target public policy. But they send an important message: the classifications built into the census are crude, intrusive, and erode the principle of equality before the law.
Unanswered questions are nothing new. This time, though, the nonresponse rate apparently climbed from the historical average of under 3 percent to something between 10 and 20 percent. The gap may decline as the Census Bureau revises preliminary results. But it still poses a problem for figuring out who lives where.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
In order to supply missing data, census officials will employ a technique called imputation. For example, if a parent reported their own race, the census might assume the same about their children. In the 2002 case Utah v. Evans, a narrowly divided Supreme Court found that imputation does not violate the Constitutional requirement of "actual enumeration." Still, greater reliance on imputation is sure to provoke further litigation.
It's easy to see why political operatives, demographers, and lawyers worry about inaccurate numbers. From the citizen's perspective, though, there's something encouraging about refusal to complete a complicated eight-page form, to say nothing of supplemental surveys that further divide the population into bureaucratic categories.
Scholars call the aim of these sorting efforts "legibility." In his classic Seeing Like a State, the political scientist and anthropologist James C. Scott argued that legibility is among the central goals of the modern state. Before the 18th century, governments did not know very much about their populations. Systematic data collection was not just an attempt to improve understanding. The work of counting and classifying was a way of enhancing control.
The quest for legibility has an especially troubling history in the United States. From the very first census in 1790, the national government began sorting residents by race. Distinctions between whites, slaves, and "other free persons" were necessary to calculate representation under the "three-fifths" clause. In order to apply this clause, the government became responsible for generating quantified racial distinctions.
It's tempting to think the census is merely collecting information that is already "out there." The concept of legibility suggests that the act of counting helps generate the reality it is supposed to document. Scholars Karen E. Fields and Barbara J. Fields dubbed this process "racecraft." Essentially, they argued that dividing the population into racial groups encouraged people to think of themselves as belonging to those same groups, which made the categories themselves seem essential.
The problem isn't limited to race. Last month, the Census Bureau announced it will collect information about sexual orientation and gender identity on the Household Pulse Survey it has administered during the pandemic. The stated intention is to better target relief to the people who need it. What it actually does, as with race, is to further reify categories and weave them into the fabric of public policy.
Such initiatives seem constitutionally permissible. In a series of cases going back to the 1870s, the Supreme Court found that Congress has the power to collect various kinds of data that go beyond a simple headcount. It's worth asking, though, whether collecting ever more elaborate and detailed demographic information is compatible with equality under the law. In principle, a liberal democratic state is supposed to "see" us as equal citizens, not as members of racial, sexual, or other groups.
Not everyone accepts that principle, of course. A central claim of critical race theory is that such colorblind neutrality is chimerical. Despite their reputation for radicalism, though, advocates of this idea are part of the essentially statist drive for legibility that goes back centuries. The collection of extensive statistical data filtered through complex categories is necessary for increasing the power of the state to prevent disparate outcomes.
Although Hispanics have an especially fraught relationship to census categories, it's unlikely that refusal to answer questions about such matters on the recent census were acts of intentional civil disobedience to racecraft. More Americans used an online form that made it easy to skip sections. The Trump administration's failed attempt to add a question about citizenship may have made immigrants wary of submitting information. And the census probably suffers from the low trust that afflicts other institutions and has made polling more difficult.
Even so, blank questions send a clear warning. The government should tread carefully when trying to make our ethnic identities, family structures, and other intimate matters legible to its purposes. Our system of proportional representation in the House of Representatives and state legislatures requires accurate counts of the population. This year's results suggest that going beyond that purpose undermines the census and makes it less useful for its mandatory goal.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Samuel Goldman is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, where he is executive director of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Institute for Religious Freedom and director of the Politics & Values Program. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard and was a postdoctoral fellow in Religion, Ethics, & Politics at Princeton University. His books include God's Country: Christian Zionism in America (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018) and After Nationalism (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021). In addition to academic research, Goldman's writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications.
-
The hidden cost of lead exposure on American mental health
Under The Radar Millions of mental health diagnoses have been linked to childhood lead exposure in new study
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
What exactly are tariffs and how do they work?
The explainer Refresh your understanding ahead of Donald Trump's promise to levy heavy tariffs once he's back in office
By Becca Stanek, The Week US Published
-
Crossword: December 11, 2024
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff Published
-
US election: who the billionaires are backing
The Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
'Nobody sees themselves in the word 'other'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published