Editor:

I am writing to take issue with many of Scott Laboda’s assertions regarding the 2000 Census.

He begins his piece by lamenting the "government stupidity" in asking his address when it had sent the form to his mailbox and allowing him to indicate that he could not speak English "at all." A little bit of research would have revealed that these two incidents do not reveal any government stupidity at all. Census forms are generally sent to addresses not individuals. The Office of Campus Life printed labels with our names to expedite the delivery of the forms. Until someone assigns a name to an address Census has no knowledge of who lives where.

As far as the English question, the Census Bureau has established a program to provide assistance in completing their forms to those who primarily function in any one of nearly 50 languages so it is perfectly plausible that a person could not read or speak a word of English and yet still return the survey. And who knows a person could read English perfectly and speak it "not at all, not probable but possible. In any event, it seems odd that someone who later in his piece finds the Census form so stifling and confining should laugh at other attempts by Census to be as thorough as possible.

Scott goes on to write, " 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?"

This may be the most senseless, unenlightened statement that I have read in the four years I have followed The Student Life. Guess what Scott, race still matters in this country. When Census collects data on race, it quantifies how it matters. The data can be and is manipulated for the most noble purposes, the most sinister purposes and everything in between, and may very well include the targeting of political advertising campaigns.

If race cannot be justified as a variable worth tracking then it is not clear that any variable could be included. The only task remaining would be the Constitutionally-mandated basic enumeration(apparently this stripped-down Census has become more popular than I thought).

The Census form like any other survey will always inspire some amount of bias simply by including some question and answer choices and excluding others. But I don’t believe that the bias "showcases national racism." Rather, I believe it reveals a nation still grappling with the difficult task of defining race and its implications as well as a Census Bureau faced with practical constraints. The race question is not perfect but it goes a long way towards better quantifying the diversity in this country than it has in Censuses past and that represents at least some progress.

(Speaking of bias, I should disclose that I have worked for the Census Bureau in the past but the views expressed in this letter are strictly my own. Census surely does a better job of defending themselves than I do.)

Sincerely,

Sujeet Indap ’00