Proposed Census Changes Prompt Concerns of Counting Students

The planned changes to the 2030 Census could lead to an undercounting of undocumented and international faculty and students, among other ramifications, higher ed advocates warned in public comments submitted to the Trump administration.

They are also worried about the implications of eliminating key datasets related to race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, as the administration has proposed. Over all, the changes won’t necessarily affect the way colleges—including minority-serving institutions—are funded, but advocates worry that they could affect the way college towns are counted and jeopardize funding for key social services that help ensure students from historically underserved backgrounds are ready for college.

“The Decennial Census must remain a fair, accurate, inclusive, and trusted count of the people living in the United States. Any rule governing residence criteria or demographic questions should strengthen that mission, not weaken it,” wrote the American Council on Education in its comment, which was one of the more than 143,000 submitted on the proposed rule.

The Census Bureau will have to review and respond to the comments before finalizing its plan for the 2030 count.

The proposed changes to the Census are in line with the Trump administration’s broader agenda to curb illegal immigration and end any program or policy that gives distinct treatment based on race. The Census Bureau argues that the changes would help ensure every citizen is counted and noncitizens are not, and limiting demographic questions would prevent the data from being “distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” officials said in the proposal.

If the administration sticks with its plans, experts say it could lead to serious higher education implications related to how students are counted, whether they’re counted in their hometowns or where they go to college, and the resources that are doled out based on Census-generated population figures. That’s in part because the Census Bureau plans to count people based on where they reside most between Jan. 3 and April 1 (rather than based on their April 1 residence alone). And their residence should be consistent with tax records.

danah boyd, an economics professor at Cornell University, wrote in a recent op-ed for Inside Higher Ed that students have traditionally been counted in their college towns because all people are supposed to be counted based on where they live on April 1. She wrote that some Republicans have previously argued that this method gives college towns disproportionate political power.

In its public comment, ACE noted that the proposed changes would have a negative impact on colleges because Census data is often “used by institutions, governments, researchers and communities to understand population change and make evidence-based decisions.” Specifically, colleges often use Census data to understand workforce needs and disparities among racial groups.

ACE also wrote that the changes would result in faculty and scholars on H-1B visas and international students going uncounted. “That, in turn, could result in a negative and unrealistic count of the true population of our communities, especially for those institutions with on-campus housing and large international student enrollments,” ACE wrote.

In a letter to the Census Bureau, Washington State University and the City of Pullman, Wash., said that the proposed change to counting people based on where they live between Jan. 3 and April 1 makes it more likely that some people—including college students—are excluded from the count. They said excluding international students would “degrade data accuracy, compromise federal funding, and undermine the university’s global academic mission.”

Mixed Opinions

While many of the comments expressed concern about what the changes would mean, others were supportive of the proposed changes.

One commenter argued that the proposed changes should have been made in 2020.

“The racial questions in particular are irrelevant to modern society as the courts have finally moved to mandate race-neutral behaviors by governments and their agents,” the commenter wrote. “Similarly, as noncitizens are disqualified from most aspects of social duties and benefits, they should not be an element to increase the voting/benefits powers of any jurisdiction.”

But many of those who oppose the proposal aren’t concerned about increasing voting powers, they’re worried about the accuracy of data that determines funding for social services.

“Without that information, it is much harder to show where needs are the greatest, enforce civil rights laws, check whether voting maps are fair or catch health problems that hit some communities harder,” wrote Jeffry Roush, a commenter from California. “When the count is wrong, [federal grant dollars go] to the wrong places for at least 10 years, and schools, clinics, roads and emergency plans are built for a population that does not match reality … Lower response rates also mean more costly follow-up work, paid for by tax payers.”

Roush wrote that the Census should withdraw its proposed changes, acknowledge that “we are the melting pot” and remember that a “bad count” couldn’t be corrected for another decade.

The Census would still be able to collect information about racial and ethnic identity on the American Community Survey, according to the proposal, but the short-form questionnaire and the long-form American Community Survey serve different purposes. The Census’s short-form questionnaire, conducted once every 10 years, counts every living person to determine congressional representation and provide lawmakers with data used to provide support services for their communities. The American Community Survey is an ongoing collection of data from a random subset of households meant “to measure the changing social and economic characteristics of the U.S. population,” according to the 2020 Census handbook.

Advocates are particularly concerned about how the changes could affect the accuracy and federal accountability in establishing where Native people live and receive services.

Robert Maxim, a fellow at the Brookings Institute, previously told Inside Higher Ed that at least a dozen federal programs for Native Americans are funded based on a formula that relies on Census data. Maxim said the programs are “whole-person investments that are needed in order to establish conditions that people really need to have success in school but also have access and opportunity in higher education,” including housing, career training, food and transportation support.

Racial equity advocates from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Legal Defense Fund and American Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group, argued that excluding noncitizens may violate the 14th Amendment (which designates congressional representation based on “the whole number of persons in each state) and limiting demographic questions would eliminate the “only source of complete, block-level data on race and ethnicity.”

Together, they recently filed expedited records requests to better understand “how the proposal was developed, what the agencies understood about its consequences and what role White House officials and outside political groups played in shaping it,” according to a news release.

“The census is supposed to count everyone. It is the foundation of fair representation and of how communities get the resources they need,” Chioma Chukwu, executive director of the nonprofit American Oversight, said in a statement. “President Trump tried unsuccessfully to manipulate the census count during his first term. Now, his administration wants to stop collecting the data used to enforce civil rights laws and to strip millions of residents from the count that determines political power. The public deserves to know who is driving these changes, what officials knew about their consequences, and whether partisan operatives had a hand in them.”