PBA Home > Institutional Research & Analysis > Surveys > Community Survey 1998 > Race/Ethnic Identity

CU-Boulder 1998 Community Survey

Race/Ethnic Identity

Racial/ethnic categories: Students were asked to identify their race and ethnicity using new questions and categories then suggested by the Office of Management and Budget. These categories allow respondents to indicate membership in multiple racial or ethnic groups. In addition to the self-identifications under these new categories ("OMB categories"), we also examined the racial/ethnic information recorded in student records ("SIS categories"), which limit each student to a single classification.

SIS Categories:

Select the one category that most accurately reflects your ethnic background.

• African American or Black, not of Hispanic origin.
• American Indian or Alaskan Native.
  Name of Tribe or Nation.
  Enrolled member of tribe or nation.
  Nonenrolled member of tribe or nation.
  
• Asian or Pacific Islander.
• Hispanic, Chicano, Mexican American, Latino.
• White, not of Hispanic origin.
• Multiracial-indicate other ethnic or racial terms that further or better describe your ethnic background.
• I do not wish to provide this information.

Questionnaire/OMB Categories:

1. Are you of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity-that is, of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race?
   (please circle one)
   1. Yes      2. No
2. What race(s) do you consider yourself? Check all that apply.

• African American or Black: Having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
• American Indian or Alaskan Native: Having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and maintaining tribal affiliation or community attachment.
  Are you an enrolled member of a tribe or nation? _____yes _____no
  If yes, name of tribe or nation:
  
• Asian: Having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, e.g., Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Phillipine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: Having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
• White: Having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
• Other: Please describe.

Results: In general, students selected one racial/ethnic category on the survey, and for the most part their selection was consistent with their identification in SIS (Student Information System database) records (see table below). One notable exception is Native American students, of whom 57% selected two racial categories—in this case, almost always Native American and white. Though their SIS-OMB match was slightly lower than that for other groups, their match rate was still very high--83% of SIS-classified Native American respondents selected "Native American" (at least) on the survey.

The one group whose survey responses were exceptionally different from their SIS records is respondents classified by SIS as "unknown." Of these students, 91% selected a survey identification different from "other," and in fact 89% identified themselves on the survey as white.

The reader may also notice that only 33% of Hispanic respondents selected only one racial/ethnic category. This number, however, must be interpreted carefully. Because the question about Hispanic ethnicity appears separately from the list of racial classifications, as recommended by OMB at the time the survey was administered, Hispanic respondents were in fact encouraged both to indicate Hispanic ethnicity and to select a racial category. As discussed below, this caused some confusion among some respondents who wished to (and did) identify themselves solely as Hispanic. However, because "Hispanic" is regarded by OMB as an ethnicity and not a race, these same people could also correctly identify themselves as Hispanics of white racial background, of black/African American racial background, or of Native American racial background, depending on their origins. In any case, the fact that 67% of Hispanic respondents selected 2 or more survey categories is not comparable to the response patterns of other groups.

University of Colorado at Boulder Community Survey
SIS categories versus ethnic codes checked on survey
Fall 1998

No international students were sampled.
Percent of respondents selecting survey ethnic categories
(e.g., 57% of SIS Native Americans selected more than one category on the survey; 83% of SIS Native Americans selected Native American on the survey; 59% of SIS Native Americans selected white (also))

When respondents pick multiple categories, three patterns emerge. First, the vast majority of these students are claiming only two racial identities. Only 11 students identified themselves using three or more categories. Second, the most common biracial identity involves students of color who select "white" in addition to their primary identification. Although there is a smattering of multiracial identifications that do not include "white," these are very few. Third, white students generally identify themselves only as "white"; the one exception also selected "Native American."

Issues and challenges in using new racial/ethnic codes: The use of two different classification systems, one that allows for multiple classifications and one that does not, poses some significant challenges to the analysis and interpretation of the survey results. First, we used the SIS categories to select our sample, in order to ensure substantial representation from groups of color. However, in several instances the identity a student reported on the questionnaire was different from that recorded in SIS records.

A second difficulty lay in the need to reconcile the single-identity SIS records with multiple-identity responses to the questionnaire item. On the one hand, it is likely that many students feel strongly about their multiracial identities, and would like to be viewed according to their own self-definitions. This would argue for counting all selected identities. On the other hand, many students classified in SIS records as students of color also selected "white" on the survey. Thus, one consequence of including every selected identity in the current analysis would be to substantially increase the proportion of respondents regarded as white. A second consequence would be counting responses from many students in multiple categories.

Finally, the new OMB categories place "Hispanic/Latino" into an initial question about ethnicity, separate from the race items. The old SIS categories treat Hispanic/Latino as equivalent to other categories, such as African-American. This created some confusion for our respondents, and it may have led to some overreporting of "white" identity, given that students had to select a race in addition to their Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Many students whose official status is "Hispanic" in university records would appear biracial using the OMB categories, despite the possibility that they do not identify with Anglo-American status.

Among the issues to be determined were: Should students be included each category they selected, thus allowing the total of all categories to exceed 100% of the sample? For example, one student would be counted as two students (and his or her responses counted twice) as a consequence of selecting two racial categories. What should happen with extremely small categories, such as the OMB’s new "Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" designation, that had too few respondents to be analyzed separately? How could we best represent the actual identities of students while retaining the relative ethnic group sample sizes that had been selected for the survey?

Racial and ethnic identification used for this report: Ultimately, we decided to use the SIS categories to classify students into racial and ethnic groups for this report. Though there were differences between SIS and OMB categories for some students, the two systems produced substantially similar classifications for most students. We also believe that using OMB categories would inflate the apparent numbers of white students. Though it may have been possible to use a system that included all selected categories, but set the total number of categories to 100% of the number in the sample, on several test items this system produced results that were no different from those using the much simpler SIS category system. Therefore, all results presented here use the racial and ethnic categories under which students are registered at the university. The one exception is that students recorded in SIS as "unknown" who gave a specific racial identification on the survey (e.g., on SIS the student is "unknown" but on the survey s/he selects "white") were reclassified into the group indicated on the questionnaire.

Comments on new OMB categories: The questionnaire gave students an opportunity to comment on their reactions to the new OMB categories. Only 53 respondents (21%) provided comments. Comments reflect both positive and negative impressions of the categories. Most comments did not in fact address the adequacy of the categories themselves. Instead, the largest number of respondents (25, or 47% of those providing comments) stated that using categories at all was inappropriate. For example:

• Why does it matter? We’re all Americans.
• Race shouldn’t matter in college. Universities should not request this information.
• They are in and of themselves a means to continue racism in the US, by placing a person’s ethnic background at the center of attention before anything else.
• They always seem so general and continue to perpetuate division rather than unity. As long as there are categories there is strong racism blooming.
• There should NOT have to be categories. I HATE this school!

The remaining respondents commented primarily on issues of how to use the questionnaire appropriately. One-quarter of the students (13) gave comments on specific categories:

• Don’t like word HISPANIC. Chicano/Latino is better and include Cuban, Mexican, etc.
• It seems confusing why the Middle East is included in this category because it doesn’t seem to receive all of the same "benefits" as (or same attitudes towards) European backgrounds do in the rest of society.
• They should have a mulatto category.
• I think "white" should have more definition such as "English," "Irish," "French," etc.

Others (7) said they were unclear on how to use the categories:

• I’m white, but I have a small amount of Native American in me (1/8). Does that count?
• Why is hispanic choice separate from the rest?
• Is Taiwan included in the Pacific Islands?
• What about bi-racial people?

Finally, 11 students (21%) gave general positive comments, such as "well categorized," in response to the OMB categories.

Table of Contents for 1998 Community Survey

jo - l:\ir\survey\comm\cm98\report\sectn3.doc
hm - last updated 5/17/2000

Last revision 07/23/02