Race, Ethnicity and Public Policy

The intersection of race, ethnicity, and public policy is a critical area of study in the United States, exploring how these social constructs influence governmental decisions and societal outcomes. Public policy is a framework developed by the government to address perceived social needs and problems, which has historically been shaped by racial and ethnic considerations. Since the first census in 1790, race-based statistics have informed various policies, including civil rights laws and affirmative action initiatives aimed at rectifying historical discrimination faced by specific racial groups.

Affirmative action policies, introduced in the 1960s, were designed to foster equal opportunities for historically marginalized populations, prompting ongoing debates about their effectiveness and ethics. The categorization of race and ethnicity within public policy is complex, with ongoing discussions about the appropriateness of fixed classifications in an increasingly diverse society. Critics argue that these classifications can perpetuate social divisions and do not adequately reflect the fluid nature of identity. As public policy continues to evolve, the relationship between race, ethnicity, and governmental action remains a pivotal issue in addressing social equity and justice in America.

Published in: 2021

By: Flynn, Simone I.

Subject Terms

Race, Ethnicity and Public Policy

Abstract

This article will focus on the relationship between race, ethnicity, and public policy and will provide an overview of the ways in which the federal government conceptualizes and measures race and ethnicity. This discussion of race-based statistics will serve as a foundation for the subsequent discussion of public policies targeted at racial and ethnic groups. Examples of race-based public policies such as affirmative action will be introduced. Discussions of race-based statistics and race-based public policies will be situated within the context of the modern debates over race-based public policy responses to social problems.

Overview

The US government creates public policy for its citizens in order to meet a perceived social need or solve a perceived social problem. Public policy, which refers to the basic policy or set of policies that serve as the foundation for public laws, is often characterized as a social goal that enables objective or social solution. Public policy is often requested explicitly and implicitly by society and enacted by government and unites and mediates the relationship between society and government. Public policy, which encompasses and regulates nearly all areas of human and social behavior, is created within a specific historical context, socio-cultural context, and political system.

The categories of race and ethnicity have influenced American public policy decisions since the founding of the modern federal government. The federal government has collected and based policy upon race-based statistics since the first population census in 1790. In the first census (conducted in 1790), African-American slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person and American Indians were not counted. During the eighteenth-century, race was believed to influence character, moral, intellect, and ultimately rights and was viewed as relevant and important for analysis of social, political, and economic variables. Since 1900, twenty-six different racial terms have been used by the US Census Bureau to identify populations.

Race and ethnicity influenced voting, housing, education, and civil rights policy in the United States throughout the twentieth century. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Civil Rights movement raised public consciousness about discrimination encountered by minority groups in public and private institutions. The Affirmative Action program and public policies were created in the 1960s to remedy the economic and social discrimination faced by racial and ethnic minorities in America. These policies have undergone scrutiny, debate, and change since their inception five decades ago. Society's many stakeholders debate the proper and desirable relationship between race, ethnicity, and public policy.

In the twenty-first century, race remains significant in relation to government census taking and policy making (Chiswick, 1984). Race-based public policies (such as the Civil Rights Act and affirmative action) were developed during the twentieth-century to address and remediate the problem of racial discrimination. The federal government developed race-based affirmative action policies and programs to create equal opportunity for people of all races and ethnicities. Affirmative action, as a contested strategy and policy within American society, encompasses and raises the moral, political, and social issues of values, diversity, equality, and discrimination. The modern federal government supports and promotes affirmative action policies and programs that create compensatory education, training, and job counseling, and intensive recruitment for racial populations that have historically experienced discrimination and repression.

The focus of this essay will be on the evolving relationship between race, ethnicity, and public policy. The following section will provide an overview of the way in which the federal government conceptualizes and measures race and ethnicity. This discussion of race-based statistics will serve as a foundation for the subsequent discussion of affirmative action public policies. Discussions of race-based statistics and race-based public policies will be situated within the context of the modern controversies over race-based public policy responses to social problems in America.

Race-Based Statistics & Public Policy. The US government collects and uses statistics about society to direct and shape public policy. Examples of important and influential statistics include:

Social indicator statistics: social statistics gathered to assess the impact of social policy as well as continued or emerging social needs.
Poverty threshold statistics: poverty statistics measured annually by the US Census Bureau to determine eligibility criteria for social welfare programs and public assistance.
Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity: standards intended to provide consistent and comparable data on race and ethnicity throughout the federal government for an array of statistical and administrative programs.

The use of race-based statistics and of racial and ethnic classifications by the federal government raises numerous ethical and policy issues. The federal government's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for establishing the standards and categories used to measure and assess race and ethnicity in America. The OMB defines the category of race as a self-identified data item in which residents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify. “Ethnicity” refers to the identification with population groups characterized by common ancestry, language, and custom. In 1977, the OMB developed Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, entitled Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. It was revised in 1997. The federal race and ethnicity data standards and categories were developed initially in 1977 for multiple reasons:

The data standards are intended to serve as a common language to promote uniformity and comparability for data on race and ethnicity.
The data standards are intended to provide consistent data on race and ethnicity throughout the federal government.
The data standards are intended to aid the government in efforts to enforce civil rights laws in areas such as equal access in housing, education, and employment for populations that historically had experienced discrimination and differential treatment because of their race or ethnicity.
The data standards are intended for use in the decennial census, household surveys, administrative forms such as school registration and mortgage lending applications, and in medical research.

The Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 includes five race and two ethnicity categories. The categories, which are used for federal statistics, program administration, and civil rights enforcement, include the following:

Race.

American Indian or Alaska Native refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American refers to a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American."
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
White refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Ethnicity.

Hispanic or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, "Spanish origin," can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."
Not Hispanic or Latino refers to a person with no Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin.

The standards, as described above, are the product of the 1997 revisions that made the following changes. First, the Asian or Pacific Islander category was separated into two the categories of "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander." Second, the term “Hispanic” was changed to "Hispanic or Latino." The 1997 revisions were undertaken in an effort to represent the demographic diversity created by the growth in immigration and in interracial marriages. As a result of the 1997 revisions, respondents on federal forms have the option of selecting one or more racial designations. The newly revised standards acknowledge interracial and multiracial identities.

The Office of Management and Budget maintains that the current standards, as revised in 1997, are intended for reporting purposes rather than policy-making purposes. The OMB describes the purpose and purported parameters of the updated race and ethnicity categories:

The data standards provide a minimum set of categories for data on race and ethnicity.
The data standards permit the collection of more detailed information on population groups provided that any additional categories can be aggregated into the minimum standard set of categories.
The data standards underscore that self-identification is the preferred means of obtaining information about an individual's race and ethnicity except in instances where observer identification is more practical.
The data standards do not identify or designate certain population groups as "minority groups."
The data standards continue the policy that the categories are not to be used for determining the eligibility of population groups for participation in any federal programs.
The data standards do not establish criteria or qualifications that are to be used in determining an individual's racial or ethnic classification.
The data standards do not attempt to inform an individual of who he or she is or to specify how an individual should classify himself or herself.

The Office of Management and Budget standards are criticized for two main reasons. First, the standards have had far wider influence than intended or explicitly allowed. While the OMB asserts that the data standards will not be used to determine policy or eligibility, the data standards have far-reaching influence on and implications for public policy. The data standards were developed to support and enable the civil rights legislations of the 1960s that were designed to combat the legacy of racial and ethnic discrimination. The OMB classification system influences federal funding allocations as well as congressional districts and enforcement of equal access provisions. In addition, the OMB classification system influences public health research and practice (Bennett, 1997).

Second, the continued use of the word race as a classification tool is questioned because it is an evolving and self-identified label. Racial analyses, understood to be a socially constructed category, is a somewhat illusory and shifting category. Multiracial heritage or identity is a growing reality and experience for many in American society but is a challenge to a census taking process that requires fixed categories. Racial and ethnic categories are chosen to correspond to previous incarnations of the census, to reduce chances for racial tensions and fragmentation, and to reduce the creation of overly small and specialized samples. There is no reporting option for all racial combinations nor is there a multiracial category. The reporting categories are limited and fixed while the experience of race is expansive and fluid. While the Office of Management and Budget recognizes that, "The categories represent a social-political construct designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based," fixed race-based categories continue to characterize US census data.

The continued use of race and ethnicity classification by the federal government is challenged by social scientists. In 1997, for example, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) challenged and opposed the racial and ethnic classifications used in US statistics. In their Response to OMB Directive No. 15, the association recommended that race and ethnicity be combined in both Directive 15 and in the 2000 census to form “race/ethnicity,” and by the 2010 census that the term race be eliminated altogether, arguing that more specific social categories such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" were better suited for scientific purposes and have fewer negative connotations than does "race."

In 2010, in the US Census Bureau mailed experimental questionnaires to over 488,000 households and conducted over 60 focus groups in order to test the combined questions on race and Hispanic origin. The majority of US households received a census form with separate questions about race and Hispanic origin. The experimental group, however, received a form that combined race and Hispanic origin. The goal was to determine whether different census questions would improve the reporting rates in the race and ethnic categories, would decrease participant non-response in those categories, and would increase the reliability of the results. The results found that a greater percentage responded to the combined question of race and Hispanic origin than to separate questions. Fewer people also left the combined question blank than did people who left the separate questions blank.

Applications

Affirmative Action. Following World War II, American society was characterized by deindustrialization, suburbanization, political and racial tensions, and governmental restructuring of urban jobs and housing. Race and ethnicity were the focus of American society and American public policy from the 1950s through the 1970s. The Civil Rights movement inspired and necessitated new anti-discriminatory civil rights policies and laws. Examples of race-based laws and policies include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII of the United States Code) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin and provides the federal government with the power to enforce desegregation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlaws literacy tests, poll taxes, and other requirements that were previously used to restrict black voting (Trotter, 1998).

Affirmative action policies were first developed in the early 1960s to support, reinforce, and implement the requirements of Title VII. In 1961, the Kennedy administration introduced the idea of affirmative action as a means to implement Title VII goals. Kennedy passed Executive Order 10925, which empowered the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity to "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. In 1965, the Johnson administration proclaimed that the Civil Rights law was an insufficient remedy to discrimination and passed Executive Order 11246 to enact affirmative action into law. The new policy required government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment (Brunner, 2006). In addition, the Office of Management and Budget's Directive No. 15 was developed in response to the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. Explicit and implicit race-based public policies of the last four decades have been influenced and defined by the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and Office of Management and Budget's Directive No. 15.

The years since Kennedy and Johnson introduced affirmative action have been characterized by both increased opportunities in all facets of society for racial minority groups and by problems with reverse discrimination, which have been characterized by lawsuits challenging the legality and ethicality of affirmative action. Several states, including California and Washington, have passed legislation prohibiting state or local agencies from granting preferential treatment of individuals based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin. Affirmative action was viewed as a temporary measure when it was developed, but it has become deeply enmeshed in educational and employment public policy making process.

Up until the mid-1990s, state governments were divided over the proper role race could or should play in government. Prior to the Supreme Court's decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger, federal courts were split over the proper role race could play in government affirmative action plans, policies, and programs. The Supreme Court resolved the issue of how and when governments may consider race in their decisions in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger lawsuit. While the lawsuit concerned academic admission issues, the Court's ruling about the scope of race-based decisions applies generally to private and public sector actors. The Supreme Court (5–4) upheld the University of Michigan Law School's policy of using race as an admission factor or variable and ruled that race can be one of many factors considered by admissions departments because consideration of race has the potential for creating educational benefits such as a diverse student body (Brennen, 2003).

Issues

Implementation of Affirmative Action. Public policy is created within or through a policy cycle involving agenda setting, policy formation, implementation, and evaluation. The policy cycle process involves both politics and administration. There are numerous people involved in each stage of the policy cycle, and there is little agreement on the essences of these roles. The major players in the policy process are referred to as policy entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, issue initiators, policy brokers, strategists, fixers, brokers, or caretakers. While public policy is created by politicians and legislative representatives, public administrators are responsible for policy implementation. In policy implementation, administrators are granted varying degrees of discretion in details, range, and scope of the policy. Public policy administrators are allowed to fill in the details of legislation, define appropriate levels of program performance, and exercise other kinds of program judgment as needed.

Examples of discretionary choices made by public policy administrators include rule making, adjudication, law enforcement, and program operations. In addition to the influence provided by implementation discretion, policy administrators may provide advice and counsel to political officials through reports, testimony, recommendations, monthly economic indices, and legislative proposals. Public administrators in some instances work in collaboration with judges and interest groups to force politicians to strengthen or create new public policies and services. Policy implementation and public administrative actions in general are watched over by the legislature, the chief executive's staff, and agency political appointees (Skok, 1995).

The implementation and interpretation of the affirmative action policy transformed the meaning and scope of the policy. The implementation process changed the implicit range and scope of the 1960s affirmative action from a policy that was intended to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications (not race or religion) to a policy interpreted in the 1990s as a tool to facilitate the incorporation of race and gender in governmental decision-making.

This transformative process that occurs during policy implementation is known as the phenomenon of co-optation of policy. Administrative implementation of public policy changes public policy during the time from the statement of legislative intent to the actualization of the policy. Administrators implement policy as they understand and interpret it. The large number of policy administrators and implementers create ample room and time for co-optation of affirmative action policy. For example, the following list of agencies comprises the many government actors who have had the responsibility for implementation of non-discrimination employment policies:

The US Civil Service Commission (CSC) establishes employment policies and maintains merit principles within the federal work force.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) applies non-discrimination policies to both government and private employment.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC), within the Department of Labor, monitors compliance among companies doing business with the federal government.
The US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) serves as an overall advisor and watchdog.
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces federal non-discrimination statutes.

The agencies listed above while all having very different agendas, rights, and responsibilities have implemented non-discrimination policies to separate segments of the US economy. The implementation of non-discrimination employment policies by different agencies has created numerous disputes, new precedents, and an evolving set of anti-discrimination policy standards (Lee, 1999).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, American public policies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been deeply influenced by racial and ethnic categories, goals, and parameters provided in the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action initiatives, and Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. Ultimately, race, as the basis for and variable within much of the public policy created today, may simultaneously provide opportunity for racial groups historically oppressed by economic and social discrimination and perpetuate the idea of fundamental social differences based on race (Chiswick, 1984).

Terms & Concepts

Affirmative action: Policies and programs developed to support and reinforce the goals of the 1964 Civil Rights law.

Civil Rights Act: The 1964 law that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin and provides the federal government with the powers to enforce desegregation.

Ethnicity: The identification with population groups characterized by common ancestry, language, and custom.

Policy cycle: The stages of the policy-making process involving agenda setting, policy formation, implementation, and evaluation.

Poverty threshold statistics: Poverty statistics measured annually by the US Census Bureau to determine eligibility criteria for social welfare programs and public assistance.

Public policy: The basic policy or set of policies that serve as the foundation for public laws.

Race: A self-identified data item in which residents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify.

Race-based statistics: Data intended to provide consistent and comparable data on race and ethnicity throughout the federal government for an array of statistical and administrative programs.

Social indicator statistics: Social statistics gathered to assess the impact of social policy as well as continued or emerging social needs

Voting Rights Act: The 1965 law that outlaws literacy tests, poll taxes, and other requirements that were used to restrict black voting.

Bibliography

American Anthropological Association. (1997). Response to OMB Directive 15. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm.

Bennett, R. (1997). "Racial" and ethnic classification: Two steps forward and one step back? Public Health Reports, 112, 477-481.

Brennen, D. (2003). Race-conscious affirmative action by tax-exempt 501(C) corporations after Grutter and Gratz. St. John's Law Review, 77, 711-733. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12115697&site=ehost-live

Brown, H. E. (2013). Race, legality, and the social policy consequences of anti-immigration mobilization. American Sociological Review, 78, 290–314. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=86418599

Brunner, B. (2006). Timeline of affirmative action milestones. Infoplease Database. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html

Chiswick, B., & Chiswick, C. (1984). Race and public policy: The statistical connection. Challenge, 27, 51. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6145343&site=ehost-live

Clark, R. C., Jr., Ochs, H., & Frazier, M. (2013). Representative bureaucracy: The politics of access to policy-making positions in the federal executive service. Public Personnel Management, 42, 75–89. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=88958596

Craig, G. (2013). Invisibilizing ‘race’ in public policy. Critical Social Policy, 33, 712–720. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90161122

Lee, R. (1999). The evolution of affirmative action. Public Personnel Management, 28, 393. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=2362252&site=ehost-live

Manville, M. (2012). People, race and place: American support for person- and place-based urban policy, 1973–2008. Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 49, 3101–3119. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=82380275

Ortiz, S. E., & Zimmerman, F. J. (2013). Race/ethnicity and the relationship between homeownership and health. American Journal of Public Health, 103, e122–e129. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=85585889

Response to OMB Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. (1997). American Anthropological Association. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm

Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. (1997). Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/1997standards.html

Skok, J. (1995). Policy issue networks and the public policy cycle: A structural-functional framework for public administration. Public Administration Review, 55, 325-333. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9507281722&site=ehost-live

Trotter, J. (1998). Race, public policy, and history: The question of priorities. Labor History, 39, 57-60. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=581872&site=ehost-live

Weiner, R. (2005). Lake effects: A history of urban policy making in Cleveland, 1825-1929. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Race, Ethnicity and Public Policy

On this Page

Subject Terms

Race, Ethnicity and Public Policy

Abstract

Overview

Race.

Ethnicity.

Applications

Issues

Conclusion

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading