I Solemnly Swear...

I solemnly swear the testimony I gave on May 22, 1997, before the House of Representatives' Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee, was the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. But when it comes to the veracity of those testifying that day against the multiracial category, well, let's just say their ability to discern the truth might have been hampered by their special interests and a shared inability to think logically.

For instance, Harold McDougall, Director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP, declared that "the NAACP has great sensitivity on the issue of multiracial categories...(and) we support the right of individual self-identification and support self-determination in defining one's racial makeup." Then he turned around and stabbed every multiracial in the back by saying, "But the census may not be the correct place to make such a personal statement." How can an honest, accurate response to the question of race be misconstrued as merely a "personal statement"?

McDougall went on to plea that "the creation of a multiracial classification might disaggregate the apparent numbers of members of discrete minority groups, diluting benefits to which they are entitled as a protected class under civil rights laws and under the Constitution itself." Of course, what he really meant is the NAACP wants to protect the status quo prestige, power, and economic benefits enjoyed by it and other so-called civil rights organizations, as well as their corresponding constituencies. He concluded his testimony with this: "...Any effort that threatens to complicate, retard or thwart further progress toward erasing the vestiges of slavery, segregation, and discrimination must be resisted. The proposed multiracial category poses such risks...."

McDougall had the chutzpah to say the above after Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO of the NAACP, appearing just a couple of days prior on MS-NBC News, had said: "Who are we, any of us, to tell somebody how they should be defined and whether or not they should hold true to parts of their heritage? That is an individual decision." The NAACP seems guilty of duplicity in their public pronouncements, to say the least.

On a more bizarre note, McDougall included two tangential stories to bolster his argument. He cited the recent incident in New York City, involving a Danish actress and her African-American boyfriend who left their multiracial child unattended outside an East Village restaurant for over an hour. McDougall concluded the alleged unequal treatment of the two parties involved was an example of lingering racism. Why this had anything to do with the multiracial category was left to our imaginations.

McDougall also described some arcane device he said had been used to measure the "kinkiness" of hair, I believe in South Africa. I guess he wanted us to think the multiracial category would lead to some sort of race testing here which could incorporate such devices. It was sad and disappointing to see a representative of the NAACP stooping this low.

Nowhere was a prevailing tendency toward institutional indulgence clearer than in the testimony of Eric Rodriquez, who spoke on behalf of the National Council of La Raza. Rodriquez conceded that "the proposed addition of a multiracial response box on the decennial questionnaire resonates with Latinos, a multiracial population with origins in Europe, Africa, and Asian countries." But then he spoke out of the other side of his mouth, saying that "the proposed addition of a multiracial category among the current racial categories threatens the accuracy, quality, and utility of all federal race/ethnic data-collection efforts...." How can anyone claim federal data on race is accurate, when the Feds count multiracials as monoracials? (This recurring theme -- that current data is accurate and reliable, and that the addition of a multiracial category would somehow make it less so -- was straight from an Orwellian nightmare.)

Even Asian-Americans began unceremoniusly piling on. Ms. Jacinta S. Ma, representing the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, proclaimed that "the Consortium is very sympathetic to the strong emotional interest of individuals who wish to identify themselves as multiracial," Then she echoed the resounding party line: "However, the issue of whether to add 'multiracial' to the existing categories is more than a personal issue." Our opponents systemically portrayed all multiracial activists as irrational, emotional zealots out for personal gratification. I don't know about the rest of you, but I resent and reject this categorization.

Well, as if the above were not enough, JoAnn K. Chase, Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians, climbed on the ever-growing pile with all her political weight. She said, "NCAI understands the concern of the growing number of individuals who can claim multiple race and ethnicity or who can identify themselves with a race or ethnicity not included in these basic categories." (Does anyone NOT see a pattern forming here?) Then Ms. Chase revealed what she really thought: "NCAI, however, opposes the inclusion of a multiracial category in Directive 15 because it would inaccurately count the number of American Indians and Alaska Natives who are members of Tribal governments."

Our opponents began to sound like pre-programmed robots incapable of rational discourse. How identifying oneself accurately could result in inaccurate data has to be one of the greatest examples of doublespeak extant. Obviously, current data is inaccurate, and they want to keep it that way. And lest my readers think that only civil rights organizations were spinning away from reason, let me give you a couple of excerpts from some members of Congress who were present.

Representative Danny K. Davis (D-7th District, Illinois) chanted our opponent's mantra when he said, "I realize the personal nature of today's topic and also acknowledge the desire of those of multiracial heritage to be able to fully express themselves." (Get ready for the "one-two" -- feign sympathy; stab 'em in the back.) Then Davis followed with that inevitable "but" statement: "But I also need to convey my worries about the adverse effects that the multiracial category may imbue. Since census information is used for civil rights enforcement and policy purposes; and given that we, the federal government, do not currently have a method for ensuring accurate collection and analysis of results in a multiracial category, I am generally opposed to this issue being addressed in the Census 2000."

Amazingly, Rep. Davis also asserted this: "See, our approach to this argument is not on a biological level, per-say. Rather, it is on a level of social construct, given that race in this country is really defined in socioeconomic terms." Well, all multiracials out there, it's time to redo your family trees. Forget about your ancestors' races; begin gathering information on their socioeconomic status, in order to determine their real race, and yours, under the newly developed "Davis System of Racial Classification." (And by the way, tell Michael Jordan he isn't "Black" anymore -- Danny Davis has apparently declared him "White.")

Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-14th District, New York) was equally perplexing when she reached way down and far back for her opening volley: "We are here today because 200 years ago, Black slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. We are here today because 100 years ago a Black male in Mississippi could not buy a one way train ticket, and could not buy a round trip ticket without a note from his employer. We are here today because last weekend a church in Northeast Washington was painted with swastikas." Funny, I thought we were there because multiracials want the right to identify truthfully and accurately.

Ms. Maloney, like all of our opponents, assured everyone that she was sensitive to our situation. She said, "The pain caused by forcing the children of an interracial couple to choose between the mother's race and the father's race is very real." True to form, however, next she flashed her verbal knife: "So is the pain caused by discrimination. A solution that eases one pain, while making the other worse is no solution at all." Ms. Maloney finished her short thrusts and left thereafter, never to return again.

Eleanor Holmes-Norton used similar tactics. Her opening statement (not among the handouts available to this writer) started out innocently enough, but soon became a disjointed diatribe which stunned us all. She went off the deep, dark end, conjuring up images of slavery and injustice, as if multiracial activists were proponents of racism. Ms. Holmes also made a hasty exit, shortly after her weird comments.

So in the end, there were four of us left to argue in favor of multiracials: Susan Graham, President of Project Race; Ryan Graham, Susan's European/African-American son; Ramona Douglass, the multiracial president of the Association of MultiEthnic Americans; and me, Nathan Douglas, Caucasian-at-large.

Susan spoke eloquently about the reality of multiracial recognition, as opposed to the myth being promulgated by our opponents. She listed the 7 states now officially recognizing multiracial individuals: Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina. Then she gave a statistical analysis of the impact of the multiracial category, using data from Fulton County, Georgia, which basically proves the "chamber of horrors" scenario coming from our opponents is bad fiction.

In replying to the often-used argument that multiracials are trying to separate themselves from others, Susan coolly stated: "The multiracial community is sensitive to the concerns of all communities. After all, we belong to all communities. The question of a multiracial category has been studied for over 20 years -- most extensively in the past four years. Much time and money has been put into research. If it is not done now, it will be brought up again for every Census. We will not go away." Right on, Sister!

Ramona Douglass, a seasoned, passionate proponent of multiracial recognition, had a lot to say about the actual proposed changes versus the misinformed models being used by our opponents in their arguments. She clarified that among the questionnaire prototypes offered to the Census Bureau is a multiracial category which includes sub-identifiers to preserve the consistency of the data. Ramona's written testimony also addressed various legal consequences and medical issues.

12 year-old Ryan Graham delivered his short, but very impressive statement with great aplomb. He had testified before, when he was only 8, so he was ready, Freddy. One of the more touching parts of his testimony went like this:

"One day a kid asked me, 'Are you mixed?'

I said, 'No, I'm multiracial, big difference.'

He said, "What's the difference?'

I said, 'Puppies are mixed, people are multiracial!"

Finally, yours truly hastily edited his 8 minutes of testimony down to 5, in deference to a request made by the chair of the sub-committee because the hearing was running late. Several highlights follow.

"Regardless of what some would have you believe, race remains essentially a biological construct in our society. When my son was born and the Vital Statistics people wanted to know what race he was, the issue of culture was never mentioned. It did not matter how he was to be raised, or with which social group he might identify in the future, or even what type of music, literature, dance, folklore, etc., he might prefer. It was just about my wife's genes and my genes. So we should keep this debate honest and focused on biological reality, rather than cultural diversions."

"Ironically, among those still supporting the 'One Drop Myth,' and opposing the new multiracial category, are many in the civil rights establishment. I say to these folks, brothers and sisters, this is a civil rights issue, and you are clearly on the wrong side of it. How can you suggest that a group of your fellow human beings, no matter how large or small, must be denied their right to identify accurately, in order to accommodate the status quo? How hypocritical! The violation of multiracials' right to self-determination should ring loud warning bells for every believer in civil rights.

Furthermore, no organization or individual has the moral authority to impose racial patriotism over others. Some of our opponents appear to have commissioned themselves as members of a 'racial border patrol.' They dutifully stand guard over America's imaginary borders between the races, scanning the horizons for 'illegal racial immigrants.' And when they see one, they swoop down with all their might and unrighteous indignation. Well, it is sometimes said that, 'the truth shall set you free.' If our opponents are truly interested in freedom, then why are they afraid of the truth?"

"We deserve the right to identify accurately. And whatever the consequences of this change, we as a society will just have to cope with them. Yes, it may mean other legislation will have to be created and passed. Yes, there will probably be many test cases before the courts. And, yes, the whole process will be inconvenient to many. So be it. Multiracials and their supporters have no reason to be ashamed of demanding their true identity. They deserve respect, support, and accommodation in their efforts."

Well, that's the way it went. And if you weren't there, you could have been. It's time to get active, folks! The next hearing is scheduled for July, 1997. For more information, contact Susan Graham at "projrace@aol.com" or Ramona Douglass at "AMEAPRES@aol.com."

Solidarity, y'all!