I was somewhat confused when I opened my mailbox this Monday. The census form therein, incidentally addressed to me, asked that I fill in my address. Hmm.

They must not know what that is. I wonder how they were able to send me a form. Another question asked: "How well do you speak English?" One of the options was "not at all." The government’s stupidity is a never-ending source of amusement for me.

Census 2000, however, is not a roundly amusing affair. There are some serious questions about the methodology behind the system. What struck me in particular about the census form was the race section.

First, why is it there at all? I do not see any practical purpose for the government to keep statistics on "race," whatever that may be. Might these numbers simply be a tool for politicians to target their advertising campaigns?

Perhaps the only people really concerned about the race balance are those (in power) who are afraid of losing their majority status. Second, why is "white" the first option listed? The order starts out with "White" and "Black," then proceeds in some random listing.

It is interesting that the two groups with the most power in government are listed first. Usually lists are formatted alphabetically.

Third, why are there check boxes? This form element has twelve such boxes and three write-in spaces. This is a pretty clear indication that our government (and our culture) has a very difficult time defining race. The category seems to be a mishmash of culturally created and medicalized classifications.

For example, Chinese is a different race than Vietnamese, whereas African Americans are just Black. In both cases, racial identity is defined based on cultural group identity rather than a pseudo-scientific medical (Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid) conception.

Outdated medicalized notions still persist, though, in the way that the census form groups "races." White and Black are discrete categories and all Asian "races" are listed in one column.

The form’s odd layout makes one think that its designers conceptualized race as a geographical characteristic.

The title of the last write-in box, "Some other race," is telling. From the looks of things, it was only those groups deemed politically identifiable (read important) that got their own check boxes. All other "races" are literally that, others.

It is my view that the ubiquitous form element "other" is a particularly subversive sort of cultural hegemony. Those who do not fit into traditional categories are constantly reminded of their outsider status.

The arbitrary nature of these categories compounds the problem in that only particular cultural identities are racialized. Why is there a separate form element that asks if one is Hispanic? Is it a race or isn’t it?

The category of other not only places individuals outside of the social norm, it isolates them entirely. In other words, creating your own category entails the risk that you are the only one who inhabits it. This sort of othering can be psychologically disempowering.

Just think of the way that people respond to a typewritten document as opposed to a handwritten one. The indelible, official nature of the typeset form enshrines certain racialized categories that inevitably appear more legitimate when compared to the "other’s" handwritten category. In fact, the presence of check boxes may actually encourage reporting errors. Racial identities can be varied and mixed.

I posit that many people will simply choose one or two check-boxes instead of having to categorize themselves as "other." It is naïve to expect people to identify themselves as not belonging.

So, why doesn’t everyone have to write in what they call themselves? Since race is clearly not a static set of classifications, it makes the most sense to let people self-categorize. Changing definitions of race would thus be accommodated. Some might say that this would create an unnecessary sorting burden on the census-takers. I disagree.

There are plenty of other handwritten elements on the form, adding one more would not be a major change. Furthermore, statisticians could still classify people any way they wanted; I am only arguing that those filling out the forms should be insulated from the insensitivity of those choices.

As with many large-scale projects, the Census 2000 entrenches majority conceptions of cultural identity. At the same time it highlights the inconsistencies in a system that attempts to classify everyone and simultaneously claims that some people are not classifiable.