While I certainly appreciate the intent, the way this is being done is both anti scientific and,
possibly, raci
st. 
I, like a very large part of America, including our President, do not fit any of these categories so end up calling myself "other." I regard "other" as a racist term in an era where we have a President of mixed African and European origin.
I also think the term "white" is bad science. In the era where we can define folks genetically, tell me which of these is "white" .. a Finn, a Soma, a Frenchman, a Basque, a Turk, a Sephardic Jew, a Swede, a Pakistani, a Russian? BTW .. is president Obama "white?"
My Korean and Filipino friends have no idea what "Asian" is and one supposes that people from Persian, Indian, and Arab ancestries might find no categories at all.
Does someone who made this list NOT understand that Inuit and Athabasca are not of the same ethnic group or that many Hispanics are very much Native American? Are Caribbeans Hispanic? Black? French? Hindu?
As a director of a training grant I have had to deal with the bizarre idea that Filipinos, who certainly are not "Asian" but are definitely a minority that has suffered at American hands, are not an official minority while Hispanic immigrants from Spain are considered a minority.
In my own case I am a Sephardi, what category does that make me?
I think we all understand that the intent here is to account for racism. But the way this is being done, especially in the multicultural community of science is ... well racist on its face.
I do bleieve people should have the right to designate their own ethnicity and I know you allow folks to opt out. But then why do we ask about this racially motivated list? At a minimum, I suggest offering people a fill in the blanks option.
--
Stephen M. Schwartz
Pathology
* accepted categories
Alaskan native
Black
Hispanic
American Indian
Pacific Islander
Asian
White
other
'
No comments:
Post a Comment