Identity Politics in The 21st Century

Identity Politics in the 21st Century:
The Racial Labeling Decisions of Multiracial

Americans
Lauren Davenport
May 12, 2014

Abstract
Racial and ethnic attachments are widely understood to be socially constructed, en-
dogenous to cultural, economic, and political dynamics. Yet race is typically treated as a
xed and mutually-exclusive trait in models of political behavior. To the extent that race
is deemed a variable worthy of analysis in public opinion research, it is important that we
understand how racial identication decisions are made. In this paper, I disentangle the
identication processes of a group for whom racial labels are thoroughly constructed: indi-
viduals of mixed racial parentage. When given multiple racial options with which they may
identify, what determines the racial labels that individuals of Latino-White, Asian-White,
and Black-White backgrounds choose to select? Employing a rich and novel dataset, I nd
that self-identication is a reection of socioeconomic status, neighborhood context, religion,
and most signicantly, gender. Taken together, these results help us better understand the
contextual nature of race in contemporary U.S. politics.
I thank Chris Achen, Nick Ahamed, Will Bullock, Tony Carey, Kevin Collins, Corey Fields, Paul Frymer,
Marty Gilens, Rachel Gillum, Chelsea Green, Zoli Hajnal, Deborah Schildkraut, Gary Segura, and Aimee Trujillo
for their helpful comments and feedback on this paper. I am also grateful to the Higher Education Research
Institute (HERI) and the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at UCLA for providing Freshman
Survey data access.
Assistant Professor, Political Science, Stanford University. E-mail: ldd@stanford.edu.

Introduction
The signicant inuence of race and ethnicity on political behavior is well-established (e.g., Mc-
Clain et al. 2009; Barreto 2007; Hutchings and Valentino 2004). But in order to accurately
interpret the impact of race on a dependent political variable of interest, we must rst understand
how racial identication develops.
Membership in a racial or ethnic group is established by descent, though it is also constructed
because races and ethnicities are not inherently meaningful (Brubaker 2009; Chandra 2006; Brass
1991; Fearon 2006). The evolution of federal racial categories demonstrates that racial mean-
ings are endogenous to historical, cultural, and social dynamics and can be redened through
political processes (Nobles 2000; Omi and Winant 1994). Until recently, race was treated as an
ascribed, mutually exclusive trait devoid of choice in U.S. politics, with membership easily de-
ned and instantly recognized (Telles and Sue 2009; Lee 2008; Williams 2006).
1
The changing
of the census in 2000 to enable multiple-race classication illustrates that racial identication is
no longer a straightforward concept, particularly for individuals of mixed-race backgrounds. And
yet, a mutually-exclusive denition of race continues to be apparent in models of American public
opinion and political behavior, which for decades have included respondent race in the form of
indicator variables such as Black or Latino.
Disentangling the substantive meaning behind identication choice provides a stronger theo-
retical framework for understanding the political ramications of race. As Haney-Lopez (2006,
xxi) notes, race exists alongside a multitude of social identities that shape and are themselves
shaped by the way in which race is given meaning. Nonracial identities such as gender (Gay and
Tate 1998; hooks 1981), social class (Wilson 1980; Dawson 1994), national origin (Rogers 2006),
sexuality (Cohen 1999), and religion (Harris-Lacewell 2006) intersect with racial experiences and
are tied to the strength of racial attachmentswhich, in turn, have implications for political be-
havior and attitudes. While there is a profound relationship between social identities and the
signicance of racial identities, less is known about the eect these social identities have on the
particular racial labels Americans select.
Whereas racial labels are generally seen as limited to the shared race of ones parentsand
1
Group membership was particularly stringent for those of mixed Black ancestry, who were typically identied
as singularly Black, in adherence with hypodescent, or the one-drop rule (Davis 2001).
1
therefore devoid of choiceindividuals of mixed-race parentage represent a group for whom these
labels are wholly constructed. By assessing the identication decisions of the growing multiple-
race population, this research helps us better understand how race is formed in contemporary U.S.
politics. What happens when young adults of interracial parentage are permitted to self-identify
with multiple racial groups, and how do nonracial social identities mediate racial identication?
Drawing upon literatures in political science, sociology, and psychology, I argue that socioeconomic
status, gender, and religion sharply constrain and construct racial labeling decisions. Biracials
negotiate their identication based on their interpersonal interactions, neighborhoods, and places
of worship, labeling themselves in relation to their peers and adopting the label deemed most
socially acceptable in their environment.
To disentangle the eects of social identities and other demographic factors, I examine a
unique national study of over 37,000 respondents of mixed-race parentage. Given the myriad
potential multiracial subgroupings,
2
I focus on predicting identication outcomes for the three
largest multiple-race populations in the United States: people of Asian-White, Latino-White, and
Black-White backgrounds.
3
Examining the racial decisions of these emerging groups claries the
processes by which race, and identication more broadly, are constructed.
Results show that, across biracial subgroups, auence and Jewish religious identity each have
distinct whitening eects on self-identication, whereas subscribing to other ethnic religions pushes
biracials to singularly identify with their minority race. However, the single most important
predictor of racial identication is gender; all else equal, biracial women are more likely than
biracial men to identify as multiracial. I explore and discuss reasons for these disparities in the
papers conclusion.
The contributions of this research are three-fold. With the inclusion of many important vari-
ables lacking from other studies used to assess multiracial identication, the data-rich survey I
examine helps extend recent literature on multiracialism in several notable ways. I thoroughly
break down the eects of a range of variablesincluding parents marital status, household in-
come, and religionon respondent self-labeling, and to more fully comprehend how socioeconomic
2
For example, there are a total of 126 possible racial/ethnic combinations in the U.S. census.
3
Among couples who married interracially in 2011, 70 percent involved couples wherein one spouse was White
and the other was either Latino, Asian, or Black. Because Hispanic/Latino is considered an ethnic group in the
U.S. Census, precisely how many Americans identify as multiracially Latino and White is unclear.
2
context shapes identication, I append census measures for median household income at the zip
code level. More generally, I examine how young people of White-Black parentage are choosing
to self-identify in the 21st century, and the degree to which the one-drop rule limits their racial
labeling. Finally, these data enable me to empirically assess the determinants of singular White
identication, a racial label about which we currently understand very little, but that has major
implications for the future American racial structure (Gans 2012; Cross 2002).
Previous Literature on Racial/Ethnic Identication
Although the ability to self-identify with multiple racial groups on surveys and federal forms is
relatively novel, social scientists have long-theorized the eects of having dual racial parentage and
the boundaries of classication in racially plural societies (Park 1928; Park 1931; Stonequist 1935).
More recently, a literature has emerged that examines how identication develops among people
of mixed-race (Bratter 2007; Campbell 2007; Harris and Sim 2002; Rockquemore and Brunsma
2008). Researchers have analyzed census data to evaluate the labels given by parents to their
biracial children (Qian 2004; Roth 2005; Xie and Goyette 1997) as well as interviews and surveys
of adolescents (Cooney and Radina 2000; Cheng and Lively 2009; Hitlin, Brown and Elder 2006;
Harris and Sim 2002).
Prior work has shown that people of multiracial and multiethnic ancestry have the option of
racially identifying in a number of ways and often spend years grappling with their identities,
though their decisions are constrained by social and political norms (Rockquemore and Brun-
sma 2008; DaCosta 2007; Waters 1990; Alba 1992; Bailey 2008). Research has found that the
Census labels given by parents to Asian-White and Latino-White mixed-race children most often
matches their paternal race or ethnicity because surnamea powerful symbolic indicator of ethnic
heritageis typically inherited from the father (Xie and Goyette 1997; Qian 2004).
4
However,
the preference for selecting the fathers ethnicity is not automatic, and surname is less likely to
disclose race for Black-White biracials (Brunsma 2005; Roth 2005). Other variables shown to
predict identication include racial peer networks (Herman 2004), the ordering in which multiple
races are listed (Campbell 2007; Renn 2004), age (Harris and Sim 2002), cultural knowledge of
racial ancestry (Renn 2004), encounters with discrimination (Herman 2004; Panter et al. 2009),
4
This patrilineal transmission of ethnicity also exists for multiethnic Whites (Waters 1990).
3
skin color (Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008; Khanna 2004), and spouses race (Campbell 2007).
Yet important questions remain unanswered, due to challenges inherent in sampling the mul-
tiracial population and limitations in data that are presently available. While census data boast
many strengths, including scale and the availability of neighborhood contextual variables, they
often lack important sociodemographic variables. In particular, we understand relatively little
regarding the relationship between gender, religion, and social class on biracials labeling deci-
sions.
5
These census data are also typically conned to the labels married parents give their
biracial children, though census studies that assess self-labeling can have these same limitations
(Brunsma 2006; Campbell 2007). Findings in other studies are often derived from relatively small
mixed-race sample sizes (e.g., Masuoka 2008) and/or ambiguities in the classication of multira-
cial (e.g., Hochschild and Weaver 2010).
6
Additional national surveys that permit multiple-race
identication, such as the General Social Survey and the American National Election Studies, do
not inquire about racial ancestry, making it impossible to identify those who self-identify with a
single race but have mixed parentage.
Biracials Construction of Race
Since race is inherited, an individuals racial identication options are typically constrained to the
categories of his or her parents. Yet the ability to claim membership in a racial group is a necessary
but insucient condition for identication with that group. Rather, identication requires both
awareness of ones membership in the group, as well as a psychological attachment to the group
(Conover 1984; Tajfel 1981; Tajfel and Turner 1986).
In developing their identication, individuals of mixed-race encounter constraints from multiple
areas, accepting or rejecting labels based on the type of interpersonal contact they have and
the setting in which they are socialized. Evidence broadly suggests that biracials engage in a
sort of racial acculturation, adapting to the mainstream of their environment, choosing racial
labels that reect external expectations or correspond with the predominant populations in their
surroundings. Gender, socioeconomic status, and religion each impart a distinctly racial frame
5
Though see Telles (2004) for a brief discussion of the impact of gender on multiracial identity in Brazil.
6
In order to gain statistical power, researchers sometimes combine dierent multiple-race subgroups (e.g., Asian-
White, Black-White, Latino-Native American) into a single multiracial sample. This is problematic because opin-
ions across minority groups vary substantially.
4
of reference on individuals (Shapiro 2004; Saperstein and Penner 2012; Chong 1998) and should
thus be notable determinants of biracial identication outcomes. I theorize the inuence of each
variable in turn below.
Gender
Men and women encounter dierent external challenges that inuence eachs approach to race
and ethnicity (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Crenshaw 1989; hooks 1981), and research suggests
that racial boundaries are less malleable for men. For example, interviewers more consistently
classify women as non-Black (Penner and Saperstein 2013), particularly if the woman is well-
educated (Telles 2004). Studies have also found that when individuals of mixed-race backgrounds
are racially labeled by external observers, the threshold for being perceived as a minority is lower
for male targets than female targets (Ho et al. 2011; Villarreal 2010).
The dierent mechanisms by which men and women are evaluated may in turn produce gender
divergences in racial self-identication for biracial individuals. In particular, the gendered nature
of American racism may account for dierences in racial identication between men and women.
If society categorizes biracial males not as biracial but rather as men of color, these men
may choose to claim the singular minority identication that has been imparted upon them.
7
Not only are biracial women not subjected to similar prejudices, they may also more easily blur
ethnic boundaries by altering their appearance with makeup or by straightening their hair, which
explains why biracial women are sometimes seen as an exotic Other (Rockquemore 2002).
While no study has shown aggregate-level dierences in self-identication among mixed-race
men and women in the United States, biracial men may be more likely to identify singularly with
their minority race as a result of discrimination and external classication as minority. Biracial
women, in contrast, may tend to adopt a multiracial identication.
7
Waters (1999) attributes a similar explanation to the decisions of second-generation West Indian young men
to identify as Black American (in lieu of West Indian-American). Due to the heightened racism that Black men
face in the U.S., West Indian adolescents are seen as simply Black by outsiders, and consequently feel that the
only socially acceptable response is to embrace a Black identication. Waters also nds that boys are more likely
than girls to be ostracized if they talk or act White; in addition to having their racial loyalties questioned, boys
often nd their masculinity doubted.
5
Parents Socioeconomic Status
The social networks and status associated with family income also shape individuals racial out-
looks. When measured separately, education and income may each independently inuence racial
identication. Wealth may push biracials away from a darker label (e.g., black or brown) in favor
of a lighter one (e.g., brown or white). Higher family income may whiten identication via
external markers of auencesuch as having a large home or driving a luxury carthat inuences
others to dene biracials as White or mixed-race. Parents wealth may also whiten by facilitating
contact with auent White peers, via private schools or membership in prestigious social clubs.
Residing in a more auent neighborhood can similarly lighten identication by increasing social
mobility and facilitating a transition into higher status social circles wherein others view them
as White or multiracial (Telles 2002; Telles 2004). Auent Whites may impose a whiteness
standard upon their multiracial peers, and the desire for group acceptance may compel auent
multiracials to choose a lighter self-label (Schwartzman 2007). All else equal, then, biracials living
in wealthier areas may perceive greater commonality with their White peers and consequently be
less apt to identify as singular minorities.
8
In comparison, parents education may operate in one of two opposing ways. On the one hand,
having better-educated parents may strengthen biracials minority identity by increasing knowl-
edge of racial inequality (Dawson 1994; Bailey and Telles 2006). Because education raises aware-
ness of racial discrimination, minority solidarity and identication may resonate more strongly
among college-educated parents of biracials, who may be more likely to convey to their biracial
children an understanding of racial marginalization and a pride in their minority heritage. Alter-
natively, parents with higher levels of education may encourage their children to be open to racial
labels that are unconstrained by hypodescent (Roth 2005).
Religion
Places of worship function as social networks that connect individuals to their racial and ethnic
communities (Calhoun-Brown 1999; Barton 1975). For example, Chong (1998) nds that Korean
ethnic Protestant churches help transmit Korean culture and values to second-generation Korean-
8
Relatedly, qualitative research suggests that a singular White identication among biracial women is associated
with growing up in suburban, predominantly White middle-class communities (Twine 1996).
6
Americans. Participation in church programs can also lead to stronger ethnic identication by
increasing use of native languages (Bankston and Zhou 1996).
The social and political signicance of religion diers across races, and some religions are
more strongly linked to racial and ethnic identity than others (Calhoun-Brown 1999). As a
way of emphasizing their attachment to their religious culture, biracials belonging to ethnic reli-
gionsthose that are racially homogeneous and accentuate a shared cultural heritage, history, or
homelandmay be more likely to embrace the racial identication of their religious peers.
In the African American community, the Black churchespecially the Baptist churchhas
always been an integral component of political culture and instrumental in forging beliefs about
Black group identity, interests, and leadership (Harris-Lacewell 2006; Calhoun-Brown 1996; Mc-
Daniel 2008). In fact, separate Black Baptist congregations were rst formed in order to establish
and maintain a distinctly spiritual racial community in the wake of segregationist attitudes after
the Civil War. Black-White biracials who are Baptist may thus feel stronger racial attachments to
African Americans. Being Catholic may similarly reinforce a minority label among biracial Latino-
Whites, as Catholicism is a major component of Hispanic/Latino cultural identity; 68 percent of
Latino Americans are Catholic, compared to only about a quarter of all Americans (Pew 2007a;
Pew 2007b). Likewise, identifying with an Asian ethnic religionspecically, Hindu, Muslim, or
Buddhistmay strengthen a singular Asian racial identication for Asian-White biracials.
In a dierent way, the racial homogeneity of the Jewish American community may help promote
the adoption of a singular White label among Jewish biracials. Judaism is a closed ethnoreligious
group wherein membership is strictly determined by birth or conversion (Economist 2014; Hartman
and Kaufman 2006), and American Jewish identity is characterized by a common ethnic ancestry
(Gans 1979; Economist 2014). Moreover, American Jews are a remarkably racially homogeneous
group, as 94 percent racially identify as White (Pew 2013).
Religious identity may hence have both theological and racial dimensions for biracials, pro-
viding a source of spiritual fulllment while also instilling and strengthening a sense of ethnic
community.
7
Other Inuences on Racial Identication
Parents race provides a central frame of reference in the development of ethnicity, and some of the
leading activists in the Multiracial Movement of the 1980s and 1990s were White mothers who were
upset that their part-Black children were expected to deny their race (Williams 2006). Black-
White biracials may be particularly disposed to develop a racial identication that is inclusive of
their mothers race. The matrilineal line of inuence may similarly shape identication as it relates
to parents marital status; since children with divorced or never-married parents tend to be raised
primarily by their mother, biracials with unmarried parents may identify with their mothers race
at greater rates than biracials whose parents are married.
In addition to the eect of parental race and marital status, public attitudes towards multira-
cialism are illustrative of the broader social environment in which mixed-race individuals construct
their identication. In light of the strong relationship between residential segregation, racial dis-
crimination, and racial unity (Gay 2004; Tate 1993), living in an area with a higher percentage of
minority residents should increase biracials solidarity with their minority peers, thus encouraging
the adoption of a singular minority identication. Examining the eects of geographic region also
captures racial dynamics. Americans living in the South have traditionally been the most resistant
to interracial marriage and also most strongly adherent to hypodescent, and a multiple-race label
may be a less viable option for biracials living in this part of the country (Davis 2001).
9
In con-
trast, the racial diversity and high intermarriage rates of the Pacic West reect an environment
that places a positive emphasis on multiracialism.
10
Biracials living in the Pacic West states may
thus feel especially comfortable labeling themselves as multiracial.
Finally, ethnic identities are communicated through language (Howard 2000), which is a mea-
sure of cultural exposure (Khanna 2004; Doyle and Kao 2007). For Asian and Latino biracials,
being a native English speaker may reect social distance from the immigrant experience and/or
acculturation to American society, and should be predictive of a non-Asian or non-Latino racial
9
When the U.S. Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967, the sixteen states
with such laws still in place were all in the South.
10
Whereas 2.4 percent of the overall U.S. population identied with at least two races in 2010, the states with
the highest percentages of multiple-race identiersHawaii (23.6 percent), Alaska (7.3 percent), and California
(4.9 percent)were all in the Pacic West. The two other states in this region, Oregon and Washington, also had
multiple-race populations that exceeded the national rate (Jones and Bullock 2012).
8
label.
Data and Methods
In order to measure the inuence of the abovementioned factors on racial identication, I examine
data from the CIRP Freshman Surveys, which are completed every year by thousands of entering
college students across the United States. The surveys are administered during orientation or
registration at hundreds of higher learning institutions, including two- and four- year colleges; re-
search universities; public, private, and religious schools; single-sex schools; and historically Black
colleges and universities.
11
The surveys encompass a wide range of topics, including questions on
students socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, educational history and career goals, social and
behavioral interests, and values and attitudes.
This survey is arguably the best presently available for studying the attitudes and behavior of
the American multiracial population. Pooling data from the three years in which respondents were
asked their parents races2001, 2002, and 2003yields over 37,000 respondents of Asian-White,
Black-White, and Latino-White parentage. This multiracial sample size is unparalleled in studies
of identication and public opinion, and enables me to to empirically break down the predictors
11
The Freshman Survey National Norms dataset is constructed via stratied random sample. All degree-granting,
accredited institutions of higher education that have a rst-time, full-time freshman class of at least 25 students
and respond to the U.S. Department of Educations Higher Education General Information Survey are invited to
participate in the Freshman Surveys. (Most proprietary, special vocational and semiprofessional programs are not
included.) To be considered for inclusion, an institution must provide a student sample that is representative of its
freshman population; for four-year colleges, the minimum percentage required is 85 percent, while for universities,
the minimum is 75 percent. Institutions not meeting these strict cutos may still be included if the methods
used to administer the survey do not evince systematic biases in freshman coverage. Eligible institutions are then
divided into 26 stratication groups based on institutional race, type, control, and selectivity level; a sample of
institutions are randomly selected from each of these 26 groups in order to produce the Freshman Survey National
Norms sample. In 2001, the population of all eligible institutions was 1521; of these, 704 participated in the
Freshman Survey, and 421 were included in the nal National Norms dataset. Among the universe of all higher
education institutions, small public colleges and universities were less likely to be represented in the Freshman
Surveys (approximately 25 percent of all such institutions participated) than were large public universities and
private universities/four-year colleges (which had participation rates between 50-70 percent). Although smaller
schools were less likely to participate than larger ones, between 11-62 schools within each of the 26 institution
types participated, thus yielding a comprehensive sample of all college freshmen in the United States.
9
of singular White self-identication, a racial label that often goes unexamined in multiracialism
research (Cross 2002; though see Herman 2004). In addition, I append Census sociodemographic
measures for population density, racial composition, and median household income at the zip code
level.
Broadly speaking, surveying respondents in their late teens helps yield a larger multiracial
sample, since the mixed-race population is a young one (Fryer Jr et al. 2012). Nonetheless, there
are some limitations to focusing on college freshmen, who are not representative of all seventeen- to
nineteen- year-olds. These data cannot help us assess the identication of the 1-in-4 students who
do not graduate from high school, precluding us from broadly generalizing to this age population
(Swanson and Lloyd 2013). However, approximately two-thirds of those who do graduate high
school enroll in college immediately after their senior year, so a survey of students who have
recently arrived to college should capture a large proportion of this group (American Council on
Education). The participation of community college freshmen in these surveys additionally helps
generate a socioeconomically diverse set of respondents.
Measures
Racial identication is the dependent variable of interest.
12
I classify a respondent as biracial
if s/he reports one parent as White, and the other parent as either Asian, Latino, or Black. I
exclude people who identify at least one parent with multiple races. For each biracial subgroup, I
examine identication with one of three racial labels: singularly White; singularly Minority (i.e.,
as either Asian, Latino, or Black); or Multiracial (which includes marking both parent races, or
marking the label Other Race).
13
12
Respondents are presented with three columns of racial groups and are instructed, Please indicate the ethnic
background of yourself, your father, and your mother. (Mark all that apply in each column.) The question wording
does not specify that the mother and father mentioned be the respondents biological parents. It is possible that
some respondents provide the race of a step-parent or adoptive parent, though it seems unlikely that a signicant
proportion of respondents would interpret mothers race and fathers race as references to anything other than
the races of ones biological parents.
13
I combine multiple-race (e.g., Black and White) and Other Race identiers because both are considered in-
terracial identities that move beyond a mutually-exclusive conception of race (Roth 2005), and since comparisons
of these two groups reveal no substantive dierences. Combining the groups also increases the precision of the
estimates and simplies interpretation of the analyses. I exclude from these analyses an additional 2 percent of
10
Parents Marital Status is measured by whether parents are married, or not married (the
reference). An interaction term of Parents Marital Status*Parents Race is also included,
to measure whether respondents are more likely to identify with the race of their single mother.
Female is coded as an indicator variable.
Family Income is self-reported and classied as either less than $30,000 (the reference); $30,000-
$59,999; $60,000-$99,999; and $100,000 or more.
Median Household Income is a continuous variable measured using zip code level Census 2000
gures.
Parents Education is measured categorically by White parents education and Minority par-
ents education, as: high school or less (the reference); some college or associates degree; bachelors
degree; and some graduate work/degree.
Religion is categorized into six groups, reecting the religions/denominations that are the largest
in terms of size and/or are the most racially homogeneous: Baptist; Catholic; Other Christian;
Jewish; Some Other Religion; and No Religion (the reference).
Native English speaker is captured with an indicator variable (non-native English speaker is
the reference).
Home Region is separated into ve categories: Pacic, Midwest, Mountains/Plains, Northeast,
and South (the reference).
Percent Minority Race in neighborhood is measured at the zip code level and categorized
into quartiles. Percent minority refers to each biracial subgroups minority race (e.g., percent
Asian for Asian-Whites).
Population Density is a continuous variable measured at the zip code level.
Regressions also include covariates for year surveyed and population density. Full question wording
as well as descriptive and bivariate statistics for each subgroup are in the Appendix.
each subgroup who identied with any other race or races.
11
Results
Parents Race and Self-Identication
I begin by examining identication patterns across biracial subgroups, which are presented in
Table 1. Several ndings are worth noting. First, all biracial subgroups are much more likely
to identify with their minority race than as White. Latino-White biracials are the most likely
to adopt a singular minority label, with 45 percent identifying as Latino only. Interestingly,
Latino-Whites are also most likely to adopt a White label: 1 in 5 Latino-Whites label themselves
as White, compared to 1 in 10 Asian-Whites and fewer than 1 in 20 Black-Whites. Such stark
variation suggests that the boundaries of Whiteness are more permeable to biracials of Latino
parentageand less accessible to those who are Asian or Black.
However, most biracials of part-Asian or Black parentage select a multiracial labelBlack-
White biracials overwhelmingly so, at 71 percent. That Black-White biracials are the least likely
to adopt a singular White identication is unsurprising, given historical norms against passing
as White. What is remarkable, however, is that Black-White biracials are also the least likely
to singularly identify with their minority race. That is, Black-White biracials are less likely
to identify as Black than are other part-White biracials to identify as Asian or Latino. This
contradicts Black-Whites traditionally stringent adherence to the one-drop rule, and indicates
that the rule no longer drives their identication.
14
Still, it is not the case that Black-White
biracials are attempting to distance themselves from their minority heritage, since 96 percent
identify as non-White. Rather, they seem to be making a point of dening themselves as both
White and Blackand simultaneously neither White nor Black.
[Table 1 about here]
Tables 2, 3 and 4 further break down identication by mothers and fathers race. For Asian
and Black biracials, there is a slight preference for identifying with the mothers race, as Table 2
and Table 3 show. Compared to Asian-White biracials with an Asian mother, those with a White
mother are 3 percent more likely to identify as White (and less likely to identify as Asian). Having
14
Such a high level of multiracial labeling is certainly not the case for older generations of Black-White biracials,
for whom identication developed under the one-drop rule.
12
a White mother has a slightly dierent eect for Black-White biracials, who are simply more likely
to incorporate the race of their White mother by adopting a Multiracial identication.
15
Relative
to Black-White biracials with a Black mother, those with a White mother are 6 percent less likely
to call themselves Black, and more likely to identify as Multiracial.
[Table 2 and Table 3 about here]
Biracials of Latino parentage, in contrast, tend to identify more with the race/ethnicity of their
father, as shown in Table 4. Relative to those with a White father, those whose father is Latino are
7 percent more likely to identify as Latino, 3 percent less likely to identify as White, and 4 percent
less likely to identify as Multiracial. These results parallel prior ndings that the Census labels
given by parents to Latino-White mixed-race children most often matches that of their fathers
race or ethnicity because surnamea powerful symbolic indicator of ethnic heritageis typically
inherited from the father (Qian 2004).
16
Multivariate Model and Results
Given that individuals of mixed-race parentage now have multiple racial labeling options, what
explains how they will identify? To answer this question, I disentangle racial identication using
multinomial logistic regression. Given the non-intuitive interpretation of multinomial logistic re-
gression coecients, I present and discuss here the more conceptually interpretable odds ratios.
Multivariate analyses include a model of the odds of identifying as White or as Multiracial, com-
pared to the odds of identifying with only the Minority race.
17
Separate models are run for each
of the three biracial subgroups (Asian-White, Latino-White, and Black-White).
15
Since the boundaries of Whiteness are less permeable to Americans of part-Black heritage, we would not expect
a large percentage of biracials to identify as singularly White.
16
These ndings contradict previous research showing that interracial parents tend to identify their biracial Asian-
White children with their fathers race (Xie and Goyette 1997), though this disparity may lie in the disconnect
between the racial labels imparted onto biracial children by parents, versus biracials self-identication.
17
The minority group is the excluded category due to the history of hypodescent in the United States.
13
Asian-White Biracials
Table 5 shows the odds of selecting a non-Asian racial identication. The rst column presents
the odds of labeling as White (relative to Asian), and the second column presents the odds of
labeling as Multiracial (relative to Asian).
18
The traits predictive of biracial Asian-Whites racial
identication are parents race/marital status and socioeconomic status; gender; language; and
sociocultural environment.
Relative to Asian-White biracials with a single White mother, those with a single Asian mother
have 27 percent lower odds of identifying as White, while those with a married White mother/Asian
father have 19 percent higher odds of identifying as Multiracial. This indicates that there is an
overall tendency for Asian-White biracials to identify with the mothers race.
Asian-White biracial women have 15 percent lower odds of labeling themselves as White than
similar biracial men; women also have 31 percent higher odds of labeling themselves as Multiracial.
Together, these ndings suggest that whereas biracial men tend to see themselves as either White
or Asian, biracial women generally adopt a non-White identication.
The eect of parents education on identication is dependent on the race of the parent.
Compared to similar biracials whose White parent has at most a high school diploma, having a
White parent with a college degree decreases the odds of identifying as White and increases the
odds of identifying as Multiracial. However, having an Asian parent with at least some college
education signicantly pushes biracial children towards a whiter racial labeleither as White or
as Multiracial.
Higher family incomes have a distinct whitening eect. Biracials whose families earn at least
$100,000 have 58 percent higher odds of identifying as White (relative to Asian) than biracials
whose family income is less than $30,000. The odds of adopting a White label are similarly higher
among biracials who reside in more auent neighborhoods.
Religion and language are strongly predictive of the racial labels biracial Asian-Whites adopt.
Relative to biracials who are nonreligious, those who are Baptist, Catholic, some Other Christian,
or some Other Religion (Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist) have signicantly lower odds of identifying
as Multiracial. Among Jewish biracials, however, the odds of identifying as White are 174 percent
18
Even when not stated, the ndings in this section should be interpreted as relative to the odds of identifying
as Asian.
14
higher than of identifying as Asian. Native language has a strong impact on the chances that
biracial Asian-Whites will identify as non-Asian; relative to non-native English speakers, native
English speakers have 143 percent higher odds of identifying as White, and 407 percent higher
odds of identifying as Multiracial.
There are also signicant regional eects on identication of Asian-Whites. Compared to
biracials living in the South, biracials living in the Pacic, Northeast, or Midwest have higher
odds of selecting a Multiracial label over an Asian one, while those in the Pacic and Midwest
have lower odds of selecting a White label than an Asian one.
The odds that Asian-White biracials identify as Multiracial increase as percent Asian in their
zip code increases. Thus, living in an area with more Asians is predictive of an increased tendency
to identify not as Asian, but as Multiracial.
Latino-White Biracials
Turning to biracials of Latino-White parentage, Table 6 demonstrates that the variables most
predictive of Latino-Whites identication are parents race/marital status, gender, family income,
religion, native language, and sociocultural environment.
19
Relative to comparable biracials with a single White mother, those with a single Latina mother
have 31 percent higher odds of identifying as White and 18 percent higher odds of identifying
as Multiracial, and those with a married Latina mother/White father have 24 percent higher
odds of identifying as Multiracial than as Latino. These results reinforce the earlier nding that
racial/ethnic identication among part-Latino biracials tends to be inherited patrilineally.
Compared to similar men, women have 39 percent higher odds of identifying as Multiracial.
The odds of identifying as White increase as family income rises; compared to Latino-Whites with
incomes below $30,000, those with incomes of at least $60,000 have signicantly higher odds of
identifying as White.
Relative to nonreligious Latino-White biracials, Catholics have 23 percent lower odds of iden-
tifying as White and 17 percent lower odds as Multiracial. Thus, Catholic Latino-White biracials
19
Even when not stated, all ndings discussed in this section should be interpreted as relative to the odds of
identifying as Latino.
15
are more likely, all else equal, to identify as singularly Latino. Those worshipping some Other
Christian religion similarly have lower odds of identifying as Multiracial, whereas the odds of
selecting a White identication are signicantly higher among Baptist and Jewish biracials. As
with Asian-White biracials, language is a signicant factor in shaping racial identication; Latino-
Whites who are native in English have substantially higher odds of identifying as White and as
Multiracial, compared to those who are non-native.
With regard to geographic location, relative to similar Latino-Whites in the South, those
living in the Pacic and Midwest have higher odds of identifying as Multiracial, and biracials in
the Mountains/Plains and Midwest have lower odds of identifying as White, relative to Latino.
Residing in the Northeast has a general whitening eect on identication, pushing biracials towards
a White or Multiracial label, over a Latino one.
Finally, living in a neighborhood with a greater proportion of Latinos generally decreases the
odds of identifying as White and increases the odds of identifying as Multiracial, all else equal.
Black-White Biracials
Table 7 presents odds ratios for Black-White biracials, and demonstrates that parents race/marital
status, gender, White parents education, family and median zip code income, religion, and socio-
cultural environment are the most signicant predictors of identication.
20
In contrast to Black-White biracials with a single White mother, those who have a single Black
mother have 43 percent lower odds of identifying as Multiracial, while those with a married Black
mother/White father have 43 percent higher odds of identifying as Multiracial, relative to Black.
Biracial women have twice the odds of identifying as Multiracial than biracial men.
The eects of parents educational attainment on identication are conditional on the race of
the parent. All else equal, having a well-educated Black parent translates to neither a more White
identication nor a more Multiracial label. But the White parents education is a signicant
predictor of identication; relative to similar biracials whose White parent has at most a high
school diploma, having a White parent with graduate education lowers the odds of identifying as
White by 53 percent and increases the odds of identifying as Multiracial by 30 percent.
20
Even when not stated, ndings discussed in this section should be interpreted as relative to the odds of
identifying as Black.
16
All else equal and relative to a baseline of $30,000 or less, biracials whose families earn six
gure incomes have 82 percent higher odds of labeling themselves as White. Living in a more
auent neighborhood similarly pushes Black-White biracials away from a Black identication and
towards a whiter one.
Relative to similar non-religious biracials, Baptists have 56 percent lower odds of identifying
as White, whereas Jewish biracials have 225 percent higher odds of identifying as White. The
odds of identifying as Multiracial decline by 44 percent for Baptists, by 46 percent for Jews, and
by 18 percent for Other Christians.
Findings on regional eects indicate that, all else equal and relative to comparable respondents
living in the South, biracials in the Midwest have signicantly lower odds of identifying as White
than as Black, and also greater odds of identifying as Multiracial. Moreover, living in a more
Black neighborhood decreases the odds that a biracial will identify as White by 28 percent, and
increases the odds of a Multiracial identication by 12 percent.
Discussion
There has long-been speculation regarding where people of mixed-race parentage t within the
U.S. political landscape (Hochschild and Weaver 2010; Park 1928; Park 1931; Stonequist 1935).
Before we can attempt to connect biracial Americans to political outcomes, however, we must
rst understand how their racial identities are constructed. The analyses discussed here reveal
a number of important ndings regarding the nature and origins of racial identication, showing
that it is predicated on multiple inuencesparticularly gender, socioeconomic status, religion,
and environment.
Identication patterns are summarized in Table 8, which presents the signicant predictors of
racial labeling. Each of the three biracial subgroups are presented in columns, and each has two
columns below that signify greater tendency to identify with a particular label, relative to choosing
a singular Minority one: column W denotes greater likelihood of a selecting a singular White
identication, and column M denotes greater likelihood of a Multiracial identication. A +
reects a signicantly positive eect on identication, while - reects a signicantly negative
eect on identication, at a 95 percent level of condence. For ease of interpretation, shaded cells
17
denote variables that have similar eects on identication for at least two of the three biracial
subgroups.
As denoted in Table 8, gender is a major signicant predictor of identication for every biracial
group. The + under each of the M columns for Black-White, Asian-White, and Latino-White
illustrates that, all else equal, women are signicantly more likely than men to label themselves
as Multiracial than with their minority race. This nding corroborates Waterss (1999) argument
that racial boundaries are sharper for men and that it is more socially acceptable for women to
live in multiple racial cultures simultaneously. Given prior research in sociology and psychology
that biracial men and women are racially ascribed dierently (Ho et al. 2011; Rockquemore 2002)
self-identication may reect external judgments about racial authenticity. Part-White biracial
men may be more likely to identify as Asian, Latino, or Black because they are more likely to be
culturally perceived as men of color. Women, on the other hand, may be seen as more of an
ethnic Other. Future research on the intersection of gender and racial identity should elucidate
our understanding of the particular mechanisms at work here.
In addition, for the variables Family Income and Median Household Income in Zip, the +
under the W columns indicate that economic prosperity has a distinct racial whitening eect
on biracials identication. Coming from a family earning at least $100,000 eectively pushes all
biracial subgroups further towards a White label, relative to a singular minority one. Similarly,
living in a wealthier zip code pushes part-Black and part-Asian biracials towards a whiter la-
beleither White or Multiracial. That these whitening eects persist independent of one another
demonstrate the inuence of both family income and broader socioeconomic environment on race.
Whereas parental auence has a distinct whitening eect on identication, higher levels of
White parental education push biracials further towards a minority label. For part-Black and
Asian biracials, having a very well-educated White parent (with at least some graduate schooling)
pushes respondents more towards a Minority label over a White one, and a Multiracial label over a
Minority one. This suggests that education may impart greater consciousness of racial disparities
on White parents, leading them to foster in their biracial Black or Asian children an identication
with and pride in their minority, multiple-race background. These ndings support the idea that
one need not be a member of a minority group in order to espouse racially liberal principles (Shelby
2005).
18
There is no signicant eect of the Black parents or Latino parents education on identi-
cation. This may be due to the fact that these two groups face higher levels of prejudice and
segregation; those who are parents to biracial children may possess a hyperawareness of racism
and discrimination that is unaected by additional years of formal schooling. Curiously, though,
having an educated Asian parent moves biracials towards a White or Multiracial label, away
from an Asian label. This assimilation towards Whiteness supports prior research that nds the
likelihood of identifying as Asian declines as socioeconomic status rises (Khanna 2004). Com-
pared to their counterparts whose Asian parent has at most a high school diploma, biracials with
college-educated Asian parents may be more integrated into mainstream American society. As a
consequence, they may perceive greater cultural commonality with their White peers than their
Asian peers.
Biracials worshipping ethnic religions are more likely than nonreligious biracials to singularly
identify with their minority race. Churches and temples are settings where people with shared
interests and backgrounds can interact. The cultural overlap between racial/ethnic background
and certain religious denominations for some minority racial groupssuch as Baptist for Blacks;
Catholic for Latinos; and Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim for Asiansreinforces identication with that
group. Religion can foster solidarity by underscoring shared historical experiences and member-
ship in historically oppressed minority groups, thus nurturing a feeling of racial belonging. This
intersection between religion and race also explains why biracial Jews of Black, Asian, and Latino
parentage are disproportionately more likely to call themselves White, relative to their minority
background. This inuence of religion on race may be due to proximity, high level of sustained in-
terpersonal contact with members of a particular race, or it may be the result of a more emotional
attachment that stems from sharing the same spiritual beliefs with people who coincidentally tend
to belong to the same racial group.
Overall, family structure has relatively little eect on identication, though Black-White and
Latino-White biracials whose White mothers are married are more likely than those who are single
to identify as Multiracial, suggesting a preference for incorporating the race of both parents among
these subgroups.
As regional and neighborhood eects illustrate, identication is also a product of the racial
demographics and norms of ones environment. Relative to living in the South, residing in the
19
Pacic West and Northeast states pushes Asian and Latino biracials more towards a Multiracial
label, whereas living in the Midwest seems to encourage respondents to adopt a non-White or
Multiracial identication. In addition, as the proportion of their minority race in their zip code
increases, biracials of Black or Latino parentage are each less likely to identify as White. This
suggests that living around more people of their minority heritage fosters greater group solidarity
and may help biracials feel a stronger connection to their minority background than their majority
one. Yet, greater contact with their minority race does not necessarily translate to a singular
identication with that race, as evidenced by the fact that Black, Latino, and Asian biracials
living in more minority neighborhoods are more inclined to select a Multiracial label over a singular
minority one. This suggests that living in an area with a higher percentage of residents of their
minority race may heighten the saliency of biracials in-between racial status, hence leading
them to identify with multiple races. Finally, Asian-White and Latino-White biracials whose
native language is English are signicantly more likely to adopt a whiter racial label than those
whose native language is not English.
A few caveats to this research are worth mentioning. These data measure respondents self-
reporting of their race/ethnicity at a single point in time, which limits me from commenting on the
stability of identication across contexts. Although these college freshman have nothing at stake
when lling out their surveys, it is possible that some are nonetheless inuenced by the college
admissions process, where many see their racial identication as part of the admissions game
(Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008; Panter et al. 2009). The malleability of biracials racial labeling
during adolescence and young adulthood, and the extent to which identication is manipulable
due to instrumental considerations, are therefore areas that this paper cannot speak to. Moreover,
these data do not include a measure of phenotype (e.g., skin tone, eye color, hair color/texture,
and nose shape), which can inuence how biracials are treated in society and can restrict their
identication options (Khanna 2004; Hitlin, Brown and Elder 2006; Rockquemore and Brunsma
2008). Research also suggests that closer proximity to the immigrant experience may strengthen
Asian and Latino biracials ethnic group consciousness and their perceptions of commonality with
their minority ethnicity. Xie and Goyette (1997) nd that rst-generation part-Asian biracials were
more likely than comparable second-generation biracials to be identied as Asian by their parents
in the 1990 Census. Future work would do well to explore the relationship between phenotype,
20
national origin, and racial identication.
Conclusion
Americans of mixed racial/ethnic parentage straddle a potent, longstanding, and unique racial
cleavage. Traditionally, these individuals have identied culturally and politically with their mi-
nority race (Bureau of the Census 1930; White 1948; Du Bois 1903). Although some scholars
postulated that the 2000 Census change would not lead to a signicant increase in multiracial
identication (Farley 2002), the empirical reality is that millions of Americans are now identifying
this way on Census forms (Jones and Bullock 2012). This paper shows that there is no longer
widespread acceptance of the one-drop rule among young adults in the U.S., particularly those of
Black-White parentage. The identication decisions among multiracials shed light on the extent to
which the boundaries of racial membershiponce sharply drawnare now blurred, unconstrained
by hypodescent.
In light of these results and projected demographic trends, it appears that a new U.S. color
line is materializing. The whitening eect of auence on biracials identication suggests that the
ingrained Black/White racial divide may be giving way to a more nuanced racial hierarchy wherein
racial categorization and socioeconomic status are strongly linked. Multiracialism may sustain
this hierarchy by allowing people of mixed-race to distance themselves from more disadvantaged
minority groups.
Yet the substantive political consequences of shifting identication patterns are less apparent.
Still unclear is the relationship between mixed-race identication and political attitudes. Scholars
of ethnic politics have shown that critical to Latino, Asian, and African American political behav-
ior and unity is seeing ones fate as linked to that of other coethnics, and identifying oneself with
their ethnic culture (Dawson 1994; Hochschild and Weaver 2007; Junn and Masuoka 2008; Schild-
kraut 2012). Thus, it is not the presence of racial and ethnic identities, but the meanings attached
to them, that produce political consequences. Although some work (Masuoka 2008) has begun to
explore where multiracial identiers t within the political spectrum, more research is needed on
the topic, particularly regarding multiracials social policy attitudes and partisanship. By provid-
21
ing a window into the contextual and constructed nature of racial identication, the multiple-race
population helps inform our understanding of the meaning of race in modern American politics.
22
Tables and Figures
23
Racial Parentage
Asian- Latino- Black-
Identication White White White
White 10.6% 18.4% 4.5%
Minority 35.9% 44.7% 24.8%
Multiracial 53.5% 36.9% 70.7%
N 11,282 21,134 5,330
Table 1: Parentage as a Predictor of Respondent Identification.
24
Identication Asian Mother, White Mother, All
White Father Asian Father Biracials
White 9.5% 12.6% 10.6%
Asian 37.1% 33.8% 35.9%
Multiracial 53.5% 53.6% 53.5%
N 7,412 3,870 11,282
Table 2: Asian-White Parentage as a Predictor of Respondent Identification.
25
Identication Black Mother, White Mother, All
White Father Black Father Biracials
White 5.1% 4.4% 4.5%
Black 29.5% 23.5% 24.8%
Multiracial 65.5% 72.2% 70.7%
N 1,204 4,126 5,330
Table 3: Parentage as a Predictor of Respondent Identification.
26
Identication Latino Mother, White Mother, All
White Father Latino Father Biracials
White 19.9% 16.9% 18.4%
Latino 41.1% 48.2% 44.7%
Multiracial 39.0% 34.9% 36.9%
N 10,489 10,645 21,134
Table 4: Latino-White Parentage as a Predictor of Respondent Identification.
27
Predictors White vs. Asian Multiracial vs. Asian
Parents Race/Status (excluded=single White Mother)
Single Asian Mother 0.73* (.10) 1.02 (.10)
Married White Mother/Asian Father 0.81 (.11) 1.19** (.11)
Married Asian Mother/White Father 1.04 (.18) 1.03 (.12)
Female (excluded=male) 0.85* (.06) 1.31** (.06)
White Parents Education (excluded=HS)
Some college 0.83 (.11) 1.01 (.09)
College Degree 0.92 (.11) 1.23* (.10)
Graduate Education 0.70** (.09) 1.19* (.10)
Asian Parents Education (excluded=HS)
Some college 1.64** (.21) 1.27** (.10)
College Degree 1.86** (.21) 1.25** (.09)
Graduate Education 1.57** (.21) 1.53** (.12)
Family Income (excluded=under $30,000)
$30,000-$59,999 1.16 (.17) 0.93 (.09)
$60,000-$99,999 1.33 (.20) 0.99 (.09)
$100,000 or more 1.58** (.24) 1.09 (.10)
Median Household Income (continuous) 1.10* (.05) 1.03 (.03)
Religion (excluded=no religion)
Baptist 1.14 (.18) 0.76* (.08)
Catholic 1.19 (.13) 0.78** (.05)
Other Christian 1.26* (.12) 0.74** (.05)
Jewish 2.74** (.83) 1.20 (.28)
Other Religion (including Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim) 0.64* (.12) 0.77* (.08)
Native English Speaker (excluded=non-native English) 2.43** (.59) 5.07** (.77)
Region (excluded=South)
Pacic 0.76* (.09) 1.88** (.14)
Mountains/Plains 0.84 (.15) 1.22 (.15)
Northeast 1.12 (.12) 1.51** (.11)
Midwest 0.73** (.08) 1.28** (.10)
Percent Asian in Zip (excluded=1st quartile)
2nd quartile 0.83 (.11) 1.07 (.10)
3rd quartile 0.87 (.13) 1.37** (.14)
4th quartile 0.83 (.14) 1.99** (.23)
Pseudo R2 = 0.07
N = 8,731
Table 5: Odds of Identifying as Non-Asian Among Asian-White Biracials. Standard
errors in parentheses. Regressions also include covariates for zip code population density and year
surveyed. **=p < 0.01; *=p < 0.05
28
Predictors White vs. Latino Multiracial vs. Latino
Single Latina Mother 1.31** (.10) 1.18** (.07)
Married White Mother/Latino Father 0.94 (.06) 0.94 (.05)
Married Latina Mother/White Father 1.13 (.11) 1.24** (.09)
Female (excluded=male) 0.97 (.04) 1.39** (.05)
Some college 0.94 (.06) 0.90 (.05)
College Degree 1.03 (.07) 1.06 (.06)
Graduate Education 0.91 (.07) 0.94 (.06)
Latino Parents Education (excluded=HS)
Some college 1.01 (.06) 1.05 (.05)
College Degree 1.02 (.07) 0.94 (.05)
$30,000-$59,999 1.08 (.08) 1.01 (.06)
$60,000-$99,999 1.20* (.09) 1.11 (.07)
$100,000 or more 1.42** (.12) 1.06 (.07)
Median Household Income (continuous) 1.02 (.02) 1.00 (.02)
Baptist 1.34** (.13) 0.88 (.07)
Catholic 0.77** (.05) 0.83** (.04)
Other Christian 0.95 (.06) 0.87* (.05)
Jewish 1.48** (.20) 0.90 (.12)
Other Religion (including Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim) 1.08 (.13) 0.92 (.09)
Native English Speaker (excluded=non-native English) 3.48** (.52) 3.14** (.34)
Pacic 1.03 (.06) 1.71** (.09)
Mountains/Plains 0.83* (.08) 1.09 (.08)
Northeast 1.43** (.09) 1.96** (.11)
Midwest 0.62** (.05) 1.26** (.07)
Percent Latino in Zip (excluded=1st quartile)
2nd quartile 0.76** (.07) 1.11 (.09)
3rd quartile 0.85 (.07) 1.31** (.10)
4th quartile 0.69** (.06) 1.51** (.12)
Pseudo R2 = 0.03
N = 16,719
Table 6: Odds Ratios of Identifying as Non-Latino Among Latino-White Biracials.
Standard errors in parentheses. Regressions also include covariates for zip code population density
and year surveyed. **=p < 0.01; *=p < 0.05
29
Predictors White vs. Black Multiracial vs. Black
Single Black Mother 0.68 (.21) 0.57** (.07)
Married White Mother/Black Father 1.10 (0.22) 0.90 (.08)
Married Black Mother/White Father 1.76 (.69) 1.43* (.25)
Female (excluded=male) 1.23 (.20) 2.00** (.15)
Some college 1.07 (.24) 1.13 (.12)
College Degree 0.82 (.19) 1.03 (.11)
Graduate Education 0.47* (.14) 1.30* (.17)
Black Parents Education (excluded=HS)
Some college 0.97 (.22) 0.98 (.10)
College Degree 0.98 (.23) 0.95 (.11)
$30,000-$59,999 1.10 (.27) 0.97 (.10)
$60,000-$99,999 0.99 (.27) 0.96 (.11)
$100,000 or more 1.82* (.53) 1.19 (.17)
Median Household Income (continuous) 1.26** (.11) 1.21** (.05)
Baptist 0.44** (.14) 0.56** (.07)
Catholic 0.94 (.24) 0.89 (.11)
Other Christian 0.91 (.20) 0.82* (.08)
Jewish 3.25** (1.35) 0.54* (.16)
Other Religion (including Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim) 1.60 (.51) 0.84 (.15)
Native English Speaker (excluded=non-native English) 0.67 (.33) 1.76 (.52)
Pacic 0.66 (.19) 0.99 (.14)
Mountains/Plains 0.82 (.29) 0.88 (.16)
Northeast 0.88 (.20) 1.19 (.13)
Midwest 0.56* (.15) 1.29* (.15)
Percent Black in Zip (excluded=1st quartile)
2nd quartile 0.66 (.17) 0.99 (.15)
3rd quartile 0.50 (.14) 1.12 (.17)
4th quartile 0.37 (.11) 1.34 (.21)
Pseudo R2 = 0.052
N = 4084
Table 7: Odds Ratios of Identifying as Non-Black Among Black-White Biracials.
Standard errors in parentheses. Regressions also include covariates for zip code population density
and year surveyed. **=p < 0.01; *=p < 0.05
30
Biracial Subgroup
Black- Asian- Latino-
White White White
W M W M W M
Female (excluded=male) + - + +
$30,000-$59,999
$60,000-$99,999 +
$100,000+ + + +
Median Household Income in Zip (continuous) + + +
Education of White Parent (excluded=HS)
Some college -
College degree +
Graduate school - + - +
Education of Minority Parent (excluded=HS)
Some college + +
College degree + +
Graduate school + +
Baptist - - - +
Catholic - - -
Other Christian - + - -
Jewish + - + +
Other religion (including Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim) - -
Parents Race/Status (excluded=single White mother)
Single Minority Mother - - + +
Married Minority Mother
Married White Mother + +
Pacic + +
Mountains/Plains -
Northeast + + +
Midwest - + + - +
Percent Minority in Zip (excluded=rst quartile)
Second quartile -
Third quartile - + +
Fourth quartile - + - +
Native English Speaker (excluded=non-native) + + + +
Table 8: Summary of significant predictors of racial identification. Column W
denotes greater likelihood of a selecting a singular White identication, and Column M denotes
greater likelihood of a Multiracial identication, relative to choosing a singular Minority identi-
cation. + reects a signicantly positive eect on identication, while - reects a signicantly
negative eect on identication, at a 95 percent level of condence. Shaded cells denote variables
that have similar eects for at least two of the three biracial subgroups.
31
APPENDIX
CIRP Freshman Surveys: Question Wording and Response Coding
Race: Please indicate the ethnic background of yourself, your father, and your mother. (Mark all
that apply in each column.) There are nine response options: White/Caucasian; Black/African
American; American Indian/Alaskan Native; Asian American/Asian; Native Hawaiian/Pacic
Islander; Mexican American/Chicano; Puerto Rican; Other Latino; Other. For simplicity, the
categories Mexican American/Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Other Latino are combined into a
single Latino variable. I examine only respondents who mark one parent as White and the
other parent as either Asian, Latino, or Black.
Parents status: Are your parents both alive and living with each other; both alive, divorced
or living apart; [or] one or both deceased? Two indicators: Parents living together; parent(s)
deceased or living apart.
Gender: 0=male, 1=female.
Income: What is your best estimate of your parents total income last year? Consider income
from all sources before taxes. Indicators created for: $29,999 or less; $30,000-$59,999; $60,000-
$99,999; $100,000 or more.
Median Household Income: Median income of respondents zip code (median income as
dened by 2000 Census data); all incomes coded continuously.
White parents education:What is the highest level of formal education obtained by [White
parent]? Indicators created for High school diploma or less; Some college; College degree; and
Some graduate school or graduate degree.
Minority parents education: What is the highest level of formal education obtained by
[Minority parent]? Dummies created for High school diploma or less; Some college; College degree;
and Some graduate school or graduate degree.
Percent Minority Percent of respondents zip code that identied as either Asian, non-Hispanic;
White Hispanic; or Black, non-Hispanic (as dened by 2000 Census data).
Religion: Current religious preference. Six indicators created: Baptist; Roman Catholic; Jew-
ish; Other Christian (including Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, LDS, Lutheran, Methodist, Pres-
byterian, Quaker, Seventh Day Adventist, Unitarian, United Church of Christ); Other Religion
32
(including Buddhist, Islamic, and Hindu); None.
Home region: Indicators created for 5 areas: South (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MO, MS, NC,
OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV); Pacic West (AK, CA, HI, OR, WA); Midwest (IL, IN, IA, MI, MN,
OH, WI); Mountains/Plains (AZ, CO, ID, KS, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, SD, UT, WY); Northeast
(CT, DC, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT).
Native English Speaker: Is English your native language? 0=non-native, 1=native.
Population Density: Logged values for respondents zip code population density (matching
respondents Freshman Survey zip codes with 2000 Census data).
Year surveyed: Indicators created for three years: 2001, 2002, 2003.
33
Descriptive and Sample Statistics
34
Percent Percent Identifying Percent Identifying Percent Identifying
N of Sample as White as Asian as Multiracial
Parents Race
Asian Mother/White Father 7,412 65.7 9.5 37.1 53.5
White Mother/Asian Father 3,870 34.3 12.6 33.8 53.6
Parents Marital Status
Unmarried Parents 8,379 25.0 10.1 34.7 55.2
Married Parents 2,795 75.0 11.9 39.4 48.7
Gender
Male 5,122 45.5 12.4 37.5 50.1
Female 6,145 54.5 9.0 34.6 56.4
Family Income
Less than $30,000 1,057 10.5 9.4 44.6 46.1
$30,000-$59,999 2,130 21.2 10.2 42.4 47.5
$60,000-$99,999 2,847 28.4 10.9 36.6 52.5
$100,000 or more 3,999 39.9 10.9 29.8 59.3
White Parents Education
High School or Less 1,779 15.8 12.3 43.8 43.9
Some College 1,980 17.6 10.8 40.7 48.5
College Grad 3,266 29.0 11.7 34.8 53.5
Grad School 4,257 37.7 8.9 31.2 59.9
Asian Parents Education
Some College 1,899 16.8 11.4 36.1 52.5
College Grad 3,293 29.2 11.9 33.7 54.5
Grad School 3,678 32.6 9.7 30.0 60.3
Religion
Baptist 742 6.8 12.4 45.6 42.1
Catholic 2,365 21.6 11.8 36.8 51.4
Other Christian 3,210 29.4 12.3 38.4 49.3
Jewish 175 1.6 18.3 21.1 60.6
Other Religion 718 6.6 7.0 39.7 53.3
No Religion 3,724 34.1 8.3 31.5 60.2
Region
Pacic 3,232 30.8 7.2 25.7 67.1
South 2,466 23.5 13.6 45.5 40.9
Midwest 494 4.7 10.5 44.9 44.5
Northeast 2,524 24.1 12.9 34.7 52.4
Mountains/Plains 1,772 16.9 9.8 41.4 48.9
Native Language
English 10,756 96.2 10.7 34.9 54.5
Non-English 420 3.8 7.4 61.9 30.7
Percent Asian in Zip
Lowest Quartile 1,076 10.6 14.3 50.7 34.9
Highest Quartile 4,455 43.9 8.3 26.2 65.4
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics and Percentage of Biracials Identifying as White,
Asian, or Multiracial. N=11,282.
35
N of Sample as White as Latino as Multiracial
Parents Race
Latino Mother/White Father 10,489 49.6 19.9 41.1 39.0
White Mother/Latino Father 10,645 50.4 16.9 48.2 34.9
Married Parents 7,020 66.4 17.6 45.3 37.1
Gender
Male 9,077 43.0 20.2 47.5 32.4
Female 12,034 57.0 17.1 42.6 40.3
Family Income
Less than $30,000 2,688 14.1 15.8 47.6 36.6
$30,000-$59,999 4,808 25.3 17.3 46.3 36.4
$60,000-$99,999 5,511 29.0 17.7 44.3 38.0
$100,000 or more 6,027 31.7 21.2 43.4 35.4
Some College 4,961 23.5 17.5 46.0 36.5
College Grad 5,795 27.4 19.5 43.3 37.2
Grad School 5,226 24.7 18.8 45.5 35.7
Latino Parents Education
Some College 5,265 24.9 17.8 42.9 39.4
College Grad 5,057 23.9 19.6 44.9 35.5
Grad School 4,621 21.9 19.0 46.9 34.2
Religion
Baptist 1,217 5.9 25.8 43.3 30.9
Catholic 8,756 42.5 16.4 46.9 36.7
Other Christian 5,361 26.0 18.7 45.1 36.2
Jewish 548 2.7 28.5 39.1 32.5
Other Religion 764 3.7 20.6 42.7 36.8
No Religion 3,974 19.3 18.5 41.9 39.6
Region
Pacic 5,067 25.5 15.9 39.0 45.1
South 5,960 29.9 21.0 49.3 29.7
Midwest 1,364 6.9 16.9 49.6 33.5
Northeast 4,652 23.4 22.3 37.1 40.7
Native Language
English 19,992 95.8 18.8 43.5 37.7
Non-English 879 4.2 9.2 70.5 20.3
Percent Latino in Zip
Lowest Quartile 1,581 8.2 24.9 46.7 28.5
Latino, or Multiracial. N=21,134.
36
N of Sample as White as Black as Multiracial
Parents Race
Black Mother/White Father 1,204 22.6 5.1 29.5 65.5
White Mother/Black Father 4,126 77.4 4.4 23.5 72.2
Married Parents 2,719 51.8 3.8 25.5 70.7
Gender
Male 2,420 45.5 5.2 30.5 64.3
Female 2,901 54.5 4.0 20.1 75.9
Family Income
Less than $30,000 1,132 23.6 3.7 26.2 70.1
$30,000-$59,999 1,447 30.2 4.2 25.6 70.3
$60,000-$99,999 1,228 25.6 3.9 25.9 70.2
$100,000 or more 987 20.6 6.7 21.2 72.1
Some College 1,305 24.5 4.7 24.5 70.8
College Grad 1,360 25.5 5.3 25.4 69.3
Grad School 1,179 22.1 3.4 22.3 74.3
Black Parents Education
Some College 1,248 23.4 4.2 24.0 71.9
College Grad 1,181 22.2 5.1 24.8 70.1
Grad School 1,094 20.5 4.6 25.2 70.2
Religion
Baptist 749 14.7 3.1 33.8 63.2
Catholic 849 16.6 4.4 23.8 71.9
Other Christian 1,697 33.3 4.6 24.7 70.7
Jewish 97 1.9 17.5 25.8 56.7
Other Religion 308 6.0 6.5 23.1 70.5
No Religion 1,402 27.5 4.1 21.3 74.5
Region
South 1,166 23.4 4.6 28.0 67.4
Pacic 750 15.1 5.1 24.1 70.8
Midwest 1,125 33.7 3.3 22.9 73.8
Northeast 1,675 33.7 4.7 23.0 72.2
Native Language
English 5,164 98.2 4.5 24.8 70.7
Non-English 95 1.8 7.4 29.5 63.2
Percent Black in Zip
Lowest Quartile 500 10.4 9.6 24.6 65.8
Black, or Multiracial. N=5,330.
37
References
Alba, Richard D. 1992. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Bailey, Stanley R. 2008. Unmixing for Race Making in Brazil. American Journal of Sociology
114(3):577614.
Bailey, Stanley R and Edward E Telles. 2006. Multiracial Versus Collective Black Categories:
Examining Census Classication Debates in Brazil. Ethnicities 6(1):74101.
Bankston, Carl L and Min Zhou. 1996. The Ethnic Church, Ethnic Identifcation, and the Social
Adjustment of Vietnamese Adolescents. Review of Religious Research 38(1):1837.
Barreto, Matt A. 2007. Si Se Puede! Latino Candidates and the Mobilization of Latino Voters.
American Political Science Review 101(03):425441.
Barton, Josef J. 1975. Peasants and Strangers: Italians, Rumanians, and Slovaks in an American
City, 1890-1950. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brass, Paul R. 1991. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. London: Sage Publi-
cations.
Bratter, Jenifer. 2007. Will Multiracial Survive to the Next Generation?: The Racial Classi-
cation of Children of Multiracial Parents. Social Forces 86(2):821849.
Brubaker, Rogers. 2009. Ethnicity, Race, and Nationalism. Annual Review of Sociology 35:2142.
Brunsma, David L. 2005. Interracial Families and the Racial Identication of Mixed-Race Chil-
dren: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Forces 84(2):11311157.
Brunsma, David L. 2006. Public Categories, Private Identities: Exploring Regional Dierences
in the Biracial Experience. Social Science Research 35(3):555576.
Bureau of the Census. 1930. Census History Through the Decades1930 (Population). U.S.
Census Bureau Index of Questions .
38
Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 1996. The Politics of African American Churches. Journal of Politics
58:535593.
Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 1999. The Image of God: Black Theology and Racial Empowerment in
the African American Community. Review of Religious Research 30(3):197212.
Campbell, M.E. 2007. Thinking outside the (black) box: Measuring black and multiracial iden-
tication on surveys. Social Science Research 36(3):921944.
Chandra, Kanchan. 2006. What is Ethnic Identity and Does it Matter? Annual Review of
Political Science 9:397424.
Cheng, Simon and Kathryn J. Lively. 2009. Multiracial Self-Identication and Adolescent Out-
comes: A Social Psychological Approach to the Marginal Man Theory. Social Forces 88(1):61
98.
Chong, Kelly H. 1998. What it means to be Christian: The Role of Religion in the Construction
of Ethnic Identity and Boundary Among Second-Generation Korean Americans. Sociology of
Religion 59(3):259286.
Cohen, Cathy J. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1984. The Inuence of Group Identications on Political Perception
and Evaluation. The Journal of Politics 46(03):760785.
Cooney, Teresa M. and M. Elise Radina. 2000. Adjustment Problems in Adolescence: Are
Multiracial Children at Risk? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 70(4):433444.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex. University of
Chicago Legal Forum pp. 139167.
Cross, William E. 2002. Interrogating In-Between-ness: A Review of Beyond Black: Biracial
Identity in America. Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books 49(2):205207.
DaCosta, Kimberly McClain. 2007. Making Multiracials: State, Family, and Market in the Re-
drawing of the Color Line. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
39
Davis, F. James. 2001. Who is Black?: One Nations Denition. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Dawson, Michael C. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Doyle, Jamie Mihoko and Grace Kao. 2007. Are Racial Identities of Multiracials Stable? Chang-
ing Self-Identication Among Single and Multiple Race Individuals. Social Psychology Quar-
terly 70(4):405423.
Du Bois, W.E.B. 1903. The Souls of Black Folk (1989 edition). New York: Bantam.
Economist, The. 2014. Who is a Jew? The Economist .
Farley, Reynolds. 2002. Racial Identities in 2000: The Response to the Multiple-Race Response
Option. The New Race Question: How the Census Counts Multiracial Individuals pp. 3361.
Fearon, James D. 2006. Ethnic Mobilization and Ethnic Violence. Weingast, Barry. R. and
Donald A. Wittman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy pp. 852868.
Fryer Jr, Roland G., Lisa Kahn, Steven D. Levitt and Jorg L. Spenkuch. 2012. The Plight of
Mixed Race Adolescents. The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press 94(3).
Gans, Herbert J. 1979. Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in
America*. Ethnic and racial studies 2(1):120.
Gans, Herbert J. 2012. Whitening and the Changing American Racial Hierarchy. Du Bois
Review: Social Science Research on Race 9(02):267279.
Gay, C. 2004. Putting Race in Context: Identifying the Environmental Determinants of Black
Racial Attitudes. American Political Science Review 98(04):547562.
Gay, Claudine and Katherine Tate. 1998. Doubly Bound: The Impact of Gender and Race on
the Politics of Black Women. Political Psychology 19(1):169184.
Haney-Lopez, Ian. 2006. White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: NYU Press.
40
Harris, David R. and Jeremiah Joseph. Sim. 2002. Who is Multiracial? Assessing the Complexity
of Lived Race. American Sociological Review 67(4):614627.
Harris-Lacewell, Melissa V. 2006. Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Polit-
ical Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hartman, Harriet and Debra Kaufman. 2006. Decentering the Study of Jewish Identity: Opening
the Dialogue With Other Religious Groups. Sociology of Religion 67(4):365385.
Herman, Melissa. 2004. Forced to Choose: Some Determinants of Racial Identication in Mul-
tiracial Adolescents. Child Development 75(3):730748.
Hitlin, Scott, J. Scott Brown and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2006. Racial Self-Categorization in Adoles-
cence: Multiracial Development and Social Pathways. Child Development 77(5):12981308.
Ho, Arnold K, Jim Sidanius, Daniel T Levin and Mahzarin R Banaji. 2011. Evidence for Hy-
podescent and Racial Hierarchy in the Categorization and Perception of Biracial Individuals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(3):492.
Hochschild, Jennifer L. and Vesla Weaver. 2007. The Skin Color Paradox and the American
Racial Order. Social Forces 86:643.
Hochschild, Jennifer L. and Vesla. Weaver. 2010. Theres No One as Irish as Barack OBama:The
Politics and Policy of Multiracialism in the United States. Perspectives on Politics 8(3).
hooks, bell. 1981. Aint I a Woman?: Black Women and Feminism. Boston: South End Press.
Howard, Judith A. 2000. Social Psychology of Identities. Annual Review of Sociology pp. 367
393.
Hutchings, Vincent L and Nicholas A Valentino. 2004. The Centrality of Race in American
Politics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 7:383408.
Jones, Nicholas A. and Jungmiwha Bullock. 2012. The Two or More Races Population: 2010.
Census 2010 Brief .
41
Junn, Jane and Natalie Masuoka. 2008. Asian American Identity: Shared Racial Status and
Political Context. Perspectives on Politics 6(4):729740.
Khanna, Nikki. 2004. The Role of Reected Appraisals in Racial Identity: The Case of Multiracial
Asians. Social Psychology Quarterly 67(2):115131.
Lee, Taeku. 2008. Race, Immigration, and the Identity-to-Politics Link..
Masuoka, Natalie. 2008. Political Attitudes and Ideologies of Multiracial Americans The Impli-
cations of Mixed Race in the United States. Political Research Quarterly 61(2):253267.
McClain, Paula D, Jessica D Johnson Carew, Eugene Walton Jr and Candis S Watts. 2009.
Group Membership, Group Identity, and Group Consciousness: Measures of Racial Identity in
American Politics? Annual Review of Political Science 12:471485.
McDaniel, Eric L. 2008. Politics in the Pews: The Political Mobilization of Black Churches. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Nobles, Melissa. 2000. Shades of Citizenship: Race and the Census in Modern Politics. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Univ Press.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s
to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
Panter, A.T., Charles E. Daye, Walter R. Allen, Linda F. Wightman and Meera E. Deo. 2009. It
Matters How and When You Ask: Self-Reported Race/Ethnicity of Incoming Law Students.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 15(1):51.
Park, Robert E. 1928. Human Migration and the Marginal Man. American Journal of Sociology
33(6):881893.
Park, Robert E. 1931. Mentality of Racial Hybrids. American Journal of Sociology 36(4):534
551.
Penner, Andrew M and Aliya Saperstein. 2013. Engendering Racial Perceptions: An Intersec-
tional Analysis of How Social Status Shapes Race. Gender & Society 27(3):319344.
42
Pew. 2007a. Changing Faiths: Latinos and the Transformation of American Religion. The Pew
Forum on Religion and Public Life .
Pew. 2007b. Religious Composition of the U.S. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life .
Pew. 2013. A Portrait of Jewish Americans. Pew Research Center Religion and Life Project .
Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second
Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Qian, Zhenchao. 2004. Options: Racial/Ethnic Identication of Children of Intermarried Cou-
ples. Social Science Quarterly 85(3):746766.
Renn, Kristen A. 2004. Mixed Race Students in College: The Ecology of Race, Identity, and
Community on Campus. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rockquemore, Kerry A. 2002. Negotiating the Color Line: The Gendered Process of Racial
Identity Construction Among Black/White Biracial Women. Gender & Society 16(4):485.
Rockquemore, Kerry and David L. Brunsma. 2008. Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America,
2nd. edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld Pub Inc.
Rogers, Reuel R. 2006. Afro-Caribbean Immigrants and the Politics of Incorporation: Ethnicity,
Exception, or Exit. Cambridge University Press.
Roth, Wendy D. 2005. The End of the One-Drop Rule? Labeling of Multiracial Children in
Black Intermarriages. Sociological Forum 20(1):3567.
Saperstein, Aliya and Andrew M Penner. 2012. Racial Fluidity and Inequality in the United
States1. American Journal of Sociology 118(3):676727.
Schildkraut, Deborah J. 2012. Which Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Assessing Attitudes
About Descriptive Representation Among Latinos and Asian Americans. American Politics
Research .
Schwartzman, Luisa Farah. 2007. Does Money Whiten? Intergenerational Changes in Racial
Classication in Brazil. American Sociological Review 72(6):940.
43
Shapiro, Thomas. 2004. The Hidden Cost of Being African American. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Shelby, Tommie. 2005. We Who are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity.
Cambridge: Harvard Belknap Press.
Stonequist, Everett V. 1935. The Problem of the Marginal Man. American Journal of Sociology
41(1):112.
Swanson, Christopher B. and Sterling C. Lloyd. 2013. NGraduation Rate Approaching Mile-
stone. Education Week .
URL: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/06/06/34analysis.h32.html
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner. 1986. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Relations. Psy-
chology of Intergroup Relations pp. 724.
Tate, Katherine. 1993. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Telles, Edward E. 2002. Racial Ambiguity Among the Brazilian Population. Ethnic and Racial
Studies 25(3):415441.
Telles, Edward E. 2004. Race in Another America: The Signicance of Skin Color in Brazil.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Telles, Edward E and Christina A Sue. 2009. Race Mixture: Boundary Crossing in Comparative
Perspective. Sociology 35(1):129.
Twine, France Winddance. 1996. Brown Skinned White Girls: Class, Culture and the Construc-
tion of White Identity in Suburban Communities. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of
Feminist Geography 3(2):205224.
Villarreal, Andres. 2010. Stratication by Skin Color in Contemporary Mexico. American So-
ciological Review 75(5):652678.
44
Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Waters, Mary C. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
White, Walter. 1948. A Man Called White: The Autobiography of Walter White. New York:
Viking.
Williams, Kim M. 2006. Mark One or More: Civil Rights in Multiracial America. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Signicance of Race. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Xie, Yu and Kimberly Goyette. 1997. The Racial Identication of Biracial Children With One
Asian Parent: Evidence From the 1990 Census. Social Forces 76(2):547570.
45

Identity Politics in The 21st Century

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Identity Politics in The 21st Century

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Identity Politics in the 21st Century:

The Racial Labeling Decisions of Multiracial

May 12, 2014

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Stanford University. E-mail: ldd@stanford.edu.

S-ar putea să vă placă și