← Introduction to Ethnic Studies outline

Week 14 · Chapter

Chapter 14 — Intersections: Gender, Class, Language, Religion, and Multiracial Identity

Introduction to Ethnic Studies Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~35–45 minutes · Objective 9 (apply intersectionality across gender, class, language, religion, and multiracial identity, compare movements and coalitions across groups, and synthesize the course through a community history that sets oral accounts beside the documented record), Objective 2 (define and distinguish the course's core concepts: race, ethnicity, and nationality; racialization and racial formation; ethnocentrism; prejudice, individual and institutional discrimination, and structural inequality; and intersectionality as distinct from adding identities together) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This chapter asks what happens when a person belongs to several categories at once, as nearly everyone does. You will put to work intersectionality (the idea that overlapping categories, such as race and sex, produce experiences that neither category alone describes) on gender, class, language, religion, and citizenship. You will read a 1967 Supreme Court case about marriage, a census option that lets you check more than one race, and a kind of unfairness called colorism (unequal treatment by skin tone, even inside one group). You will also go back to the lending table and to one woman's account from the course archive and read each of them through more than one lens. At the end you will be able to say, in one plain sentence, what a rule that reads one category at a time can miss.

Why you already care about this

Picture two siblings (an illustrative family) filling in the same school form at the same kitchen table. They share the same mother and the same father. The older one checks two race boxes. The younger one checks one. They argue for a minute, and then they both laugh, because neither of them is wrong.

The form counts what each person reports about themselves. That rule is called self-identification. It means a form can describe one family in two different ways, and both descriptions are honest. It also means a box on a form is never the whole story of a person.

Now picture a third person in the same house. A parent speaks one language at home and another at work. The parent grew up in a town with a different economy from the one the family lives in now. No single box on any form catches all of that. This week is about the places where categories meet, and about the laws and rules that see only one category at a time.

A word on names, said once. Multiracial is the Census Bureau's word for people who report more than one race. People who do so name themselves in many ways, often by naming each part of their family's heritage, and this course follows the words people choose for themselves.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

apply intersectionality to a rule or a record and explain why it differs from adding identities together;
explain what Loving v. Virginia (1967) decided and whom it reached;
read the "one or more races" option and the 2020 Multiracial count without mistaking a change in measurement for growth alone;
define colorism and tell it apart from racism between groups;
read a language rule, a dress code, and a religious difference for the categories each one touches at once;
rework the lending table for class and place, and read the archive's E2 excerpt through several lenses in one plain sentence.

Carry this sentence with you: Overlap, not addition — the meeting point has its own story.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 2 defined race, ethnicity, nationality, and intersectionality, and first met the federal categories. Week 7 built the lending table and read E2's line about the bank. Week 10 read Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the federal term "Hispanic or Latino". Week 13 traced the federal categories from 1977 to 2024 and met Arab American communities of many faiths.
This week: intersectionality applied to gender, class, language, religion, and citizenship; Loving v. Virginia (1967); multiracial identity and the census; colorism; and E2 read again.
How they connect: every earlier week read one group or one law at a time; this week reads the places where those lines cross.
Where we're going next: Week 15, Movements, Solidarity, and the Course Synthesis, asks how groups worked together across those lines and closes the course by reading the whole archive.

Here is what this chapter leans on most. In Week 2 you met Crenshaw (1989), "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex", University of Chicago Legal Forum. Crenshaw argued that antidiscrimination law that looks at race alone or at sex alone fails people, such as Black women, whose experience is shaped by both at once. You also met institutional discrimination, unequal treatment produced by an organization's rules or routine practices whether or not anyone intends it, and structural inequality, unequal outcomes built up across many institutions over time. Week 7 put both to work on the lending table. This week you carry all three tools into new places.

1. Apply intersectionality: overlap across many lenses

Think about a workplace's break room (an illustrative scene). A new rule goes up on the wall. It looks fair, because it says the same thing to everyone. But a rule that reads people one category at a time can still land hardest on the people where two categories meet. A schedule rule might fall hardest on workers who are both parents and night-shift employees, for example.

The law has its own version of that problem. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment and in places of public accommodation. Read that list slowly. It names each category on its own.

Intersectionality, from Crenshaw (1989), is the idea that overlapping categories produce experiences that neither category alone describes. It is not the adding together of identities.

Worked example — counting the list and dating the idea. Use the law-and-case timeline (Dataset B) and Crenshaw's date.

The list. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 names race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, so it lists 5 separate categories.
The 1964 law. It came in 1964.
The idea. Crenshaw named intersectionality in 1989.
The gap. 1989 − 1964 = 25 years.

In words: Crenshaw wrote 25 years after the 1964 law that a law reading its 5 categories one at a time can miss a person standing where two of them meet.

Week 2 tested intersectionality on race and sex. This week you widen the lens. Gender, class, language, religion, and citizenship all overlap with race and ethnicity, and each overlap can make its own experience.

Gender is the set of social roles, expectations, and identities a society attaches to being a woman, a man, or another identity.
Class is a person's or family's position in the economy, shaped by work, income, property, and wealth.

Here is the test you will use all week. Ask what a one-category check would see. Then ask what it would miss. If the person's experience disappears in every one-category check, you are looking at an intersection.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of a rule at a school or job you know. Which two categories would you need to read together to see who it affects most?
(b) Explain in your own words why "and" is a better word than "plus" for how categories meet in one person.

Misconception check. Students often think intersectionality means adding identities together, so that a person with three categories carries three separate problems stacked up. That is tempting, because lists of identities look like sums. But Crenshaw's point is that the overlap makes its own experience, one that no single-category check can see. The cure: ask what each one-category check would miss, not how many categories a person has.

2. Read Loving v. Virginia: a 1967 ruling for every couple across a racial line

Think about a wedding you have been to, or one you have seen in a film. Two families sit on two sides of the room. They may differ in religion, language, home town, or race. For most of the country's history, in many states, one of those differences could stop the wedding by law.

Loving v. Virginia is the 1967 Supreme Court decision that unanimously struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Read the holding carefully. The Court did not carve out one pair of groups. It struck down the laws themselves. So the ruling reaches every couple whose marriage crosses a racial line.

Worked example — placing Loving v. Virginia (1967) on the timeline. Use the law-and-case timeline (Dataset B).

Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The Court held that "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
The gap to Loving. 1967 − 1954 = 13 years.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964. It came in 1964.
The gap to Loving. 1967 − 1964 = 3 years.

In words: Loving v. Virginia (1967) came 13 years after Brown v. Board of Education (1954) held that separate schools are inherently unequal and 3 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so laws against marriage across racial lines outlasted both.

Now connect the case to this week's question. A marriage law that reads race is also a law about family. Families formed across racial lines are one place where a child may grow up naming more than one heritage. That link runs straight into the next section, where a federal form finally let a person report more than one race.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Why might a law about marriage matter to people who never marry across a racial line?
(b) What does it tell you that laws against interracial marriage lasted 3 years past the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Misconception check. Students often think Loving v. Virginia (1967) was a case only about Black and white couples. That is tempting, because the case is often told through the one couple who brought it. But the Court struck down the laws prohibiting interracial marriage, not one pairing within them. The cure: say the ruling reaches every couple whose marriage crosses a racial line.

3. Read the census form: one or more races and the Multiracial count

Go back to the two siblings at the kitchen table. Before 2000, a federal form would have asked each of them to choose one race. The older sibling's two-box answer had nowhere to go.

One or more races is the option in the 1997 federal standards that lets a respondent select more than one race on a federal form, used from the 2000 census on.
Multiracial is the Census Bureau's word for people who report more than one race.
Self-identification is the rule that a census or survey records the categories a person chooses for themselves.

Worked example — dating the option. Use the federal-categories timeline (Dataset C).

The standards. The option came in the 1997 standards.
The first census to use it. The 2000 census, so 2000 − 1997 = 3 years later.
The link to Loving. Loving v. Virginia came in 1967, so 2000 − 1967 = 33 years before the first census with the option.

In words: the first census that let you report more than one race came 33 years after Loving v. Virginia (1967) and 3 years after the 1997 standards.

Now read the counts (Dataset G), each year-stamped and from its issuing body. The Census Bureau counted 33.8 million Multiracial people in 2020, against 9 million measured in 2010.

Worked example — reading the change without overreading it. Use the Census Bureau's 2010 and 2020 counts.

The 2020 count. 33.8 million.
The 2010 count. 9 million.
The change. 33.8 − 9 = 24.8 million more.
The span. 2020 − 2010 = 10 years.
The Bureau's own reading. The Census Bureau expects the change was largely due to improvements in the questions' design, data processing, and coding.

In words: the Multiracial count rose by 24.8 million in 10 years, and the Bureau itself says most of that change came from better measurement, so the rise is not population growth alone.

Here is a caveat worth carrying. A count is a fact about people and about the form at the same time. When the form changes, the count can change even if the people do not. You saw that in Week 13 with the federal categories, and you see it again here.

The same form shows a second meeting point. The Census Bureau counted 62.1 million Hispanic or Latino people in 2020, 18.7 percent of the population. They may be of any race. In 2020 the form asked about Hispanic or Latino origin in one question and about race in another, so each of those 62.1 million people also answered the race question. On that form, an ethnicity category and the race categories meet in one person's answers.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) If you were designing a form, how would you let a person describe a family that crosses several lines?
(b) Why might two siblings with the same parents answer a race question differently? What does that tell you about what the form measures?

Misconception check. Students often think the rise in the Multiracial count from 9 million in 2010 to 33.8 million in 2020 shows that the multiracial population grew that much. That is tempting, because a bigger number looks like more people. But the Census Bureau expects the change was largely due to improvements in the questions' design, data processing, and coding. The cure: before you read a change in a count as growth, ask whether the question changed.

4. Name colorism: unequal treatment inside one group

Think about a family photo album (an illustrative scene) where an aunt remembers a relative being praised, or teased, for being lighter or darker than a cousin. Nobody in that story belongs to a different group. They share grandparents. Yet skin tone was still being used to rank people.

Colorism is unequal treatment based on skin tone, including within a single racial or ethnic group, which makes it different from racism between groups.

Worked example — sorting two hiring scenarios. Both scenarios are illustrative.

Scenario one. A manager turns away every applicant from one racial group, whatever their skin tone. The line the manager draws runs between groups. That is racial discrimination between groups, an individual act by one manager.
Scenario two. A manager hires applicants from the manager's own group but favors the lighter-skinned ones among them. The line runs inside one group, by skin tone. That is colorism.
What each one-lens check sees. A check that asks only "Did the manager hire people of this group?" finds the second manager hiring people of the group and sees nothing wrong. Only a check that also asks about skin tone finds the pattern.

In words: colorism can hide inside a group's own numbers, so a check that reads only race between groups will miss it.

Notice how this connects to section 1. Colorism is one more overlap: race and skin tone are related but not the same, and the meeting point has its own experience. It also connects to Week 2's line between prejudice, an attitude, and discrimination, an action. A private preference about skin tone is a prejudice. A hiring decision built on it is discrimination.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Why might colorism be harder to notice than discrimination between groups?
(b) Describe a place, such as a team, a workplace, or a casting call, where a rule about "the right look" could work as colorism.

Misconception check. Students often think colorism is the same thing as racism between groups. That is tempting, because both involve skin and both are unfair. But colorism can work inside one group, even inside one family, where everyone shares the same racial category. The cure: ask where the line is drawn, between groups or inside one.

5. Read language and religion: rules that touch several lenses at once

Picture a warehouse (an illustrative workplace) that posts a rule: no languages other than English on break. The rule names no race, no ethnicity, and no country. Read it the way this course reads every rule: what it says, who made it, whom it affects, and what it leaves out.

Worked example — reading a language rule for the categories it touches. Walk the field's questions.

What it says. Workers may speak only English, even on their own time at break.
Who made it. The employer, as a workplace rule.
Whom it affects. Workers whose first or home language is not English. Language often runs with ethnicity and national origin, and it can run with citizenship too.
What it leaves out. It does not say why break-time talk needs a language rule, and it does not name the groups it lands on. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 lists national origin but does not list language by name, which is one reason a language rule has to be read through more than one category at once.

In words: the break-room rule names one thing, language, but it touches ethnicity, national origin, and sometimes citizenship together, so a reader who checks only one of those would miss whom it affects most.

The law has met that overlap before. Linguistic rights are protections for people's use of their own languages in public life, such as voting, schooling, and work. Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one example: it protected citizens educated in American-flag schools taught in a language other than English from English-literacy requirements. There, language and citizenship met in one voter.

Religion needs the same care, and the course treats it descriptively, never as a verdict on anyone's belief. One ethnic group can hold many faiths. Week 13 noted that Arab American communities are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and of other faiths. One faith also gathers people of many ethnic groups. So you cannot read a person's religion off their ethnicity, or their ethnicity off their religion. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 lists religion as its own category, and an intersectional reading asks what happens where religion meets race, gender, or national origin.

Now recall one of the borderline cases from Week 2's concept-sorting set (Dataset E, illustrative): a workplace dress code that bans a hairstyle common in one group. The course discusses it and never keys it. Is it institutional discrimination, because it is a written rule, or the choice of the person who wrote it? Read it intersectionally and a new question appears: a hairstyle rule may land on people at the meeting point of a racial group and a gender, which a check for race alone or for sex alone could miss.

Writers in the field have explored these meeting points for decades. Anzaldúa (1987), Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, is a primary work of Chicana writing that describes identity formed at the borders of nations, languages, cultures, and genders. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza is named here as a work of the field, not as a source of this chapter's facts.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of a rule about language, dress, or holidays at a school or job you know. Which categories does it touch at once?
(b) Why is it a mistake to guess a person's religion from their ethnicity? Give one reason from this section.

Misconception check. Students often think a language rule is only about language, so it cannot affect any group more than another. That is tempting, because the rule names no group. But language often runs with ethnicity and national origin, and sometimes with citizenship, so the rule lands on the people where those categories meet. The cure: read a rule for every category it touches, not only the one it names.

6. Read class and place: the lending table again

Think about two families (an illustrative pair) with the same jobs and the same savings. One lives on a street the lender's map rates highly. The other lives across a highway, on a street the map rates poorly. They walk into the same bank on the same day. Their own records match, but their addresses do not.

Week 7 named that rule. Redlining is refusing loans or other credit to people because of the neighborhood they live in, whatever their own creditworthiness. In the 1930s the Home Owners' Loan Corporation drew maps that graded city neighborhoods A through D by the racial, ethnic, and economic characteristics of residents, with the lowest grade outlined in red. Read that phrase through this week's lens: race, ethnicity, and class were bundled together into one grade for a place.

The course's lending table (Dataset D) is an illustrative model in the style of those maps, not a reconstruction of any real city or lender.

Illustrative lending table: applications and approved loans in A-rated and D-rated neighborhoods, with approval rates in percent
Rating	Neighborhoods	Applications	Approved	Approval rate
A	10	200	180	90 percent
D	10	200	20	10 percent

Worked example — reworking the table for class and place. Use the two rows above.

Rating A approval rate. 180 ÷ 200 × 100 = 90 percent.
Rating D approval rate. 20 ÷ 200 × 100 = 10 percent.
The gap. 90 − 10 = 80 percentage points. It is a difference between two percentages, so it is in percentage points.
Approved loans per neighborhood. Rating A: 180 ÷ 10 = 18. Rating D: 20 ÷ 10 = 2.
The ratio. 18 ÷ 2 = 9, so A-rated neighborhoods receive approved loans at 9 to 1 against D-rated ones.

In words: one rule about place carried race and class together, so a family in a D-rated neighborhood was approved 10 percent of the time, versus 90 percent in A-rated ones, a 9-fold difference, whatever its own record.

Here is a limitation to keep in mind. The table is a model of how a rating rule produces unequal outcomes. It is not a measure of any group's income or wealth, and this course gives no figure about any group's present-day income, health, or wealth. What the table shows is the mechanism: when a grade bundles race and class into an address, a check for either one alone misses how the rule works.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Why would a check that asked only "Did the lender treat people of the same income the same?" miss what the map did?
(b) Describe one way a rule about place could still shape a family's chances long after the rule ended.

Misconception check. Students often think a gap like this one is about class alone, so it has nothing to do with race. That is tempting, because loans are about money. But the 1930s maps graded neighborhoods by the racial, ethnic, and economic characteristics of residents together, so race and class were bundled into one grade. The cure: read the grade as an overlap, and say which categories it bundled.

7. Read E2 again: one family, several lenses at once

Think of a story your own family tells about a move. It may be about a job, a school, or a house. If you listen closely, you can usually hear more than one thing going on at once: who went first, who stayed behind, what it cost, and who decided.

The course's running archive (Dataset A) is an illustrative, unnamed public library's collection. Its excerpts are constructed for this course, identified by role and decade, and never presented as a real person's words. Here is E2: a woman whose family moved north in the Great Migration in the 1940s, interviewed in the 1990s.

"We left in 1943. My father went first, to work in a shipyard, and sent for us that spring. On the train we had to sit in the car set aside for Black passengers until we were out of the South. In the new city nobody told us where to sit, but there were neighborhoods where the bank would not lend to us. My mother said it was different, not finished." (E2, illustrative)

You read E2 in Week 7 for the bank. This week you read it through several lenses at once.

Worked example — reading E2 in the field's order, through intersectionality. Walk the five questions every reading asks.

What it says. The family left in 1943. The father went first, to work in a shipyard, and sent for the family that spring. On the train they sat in the car set aside for Black passengers until they were out of the South. In the new city nobody told them where to sit, but there were neighborhoods where the bank would not lend to them. The mother said it was different, not finished.
Who made it. It is a first-person account recorded decades later. It tells how one family met a rule about race on the train and a rule about place at the bank.
Whom it affected. The narrator, her mother, her father, and the rest of the family. Several lenses meet in them. Race shows in the train car and the bank's map. Gender shows in who went first: the father took the shipyard job and sent for the family. Class and place show in where the family could borrow and buy. All of them press on one family at once.
What it leaves out. It does not say what work the mother or the narrator did, where the narrator went to school, or whether being women shaped their chances. An intersectional reading asks those questions instead of inventing answers. Its 1943 date is checked against the Great Migration's span, roughly the 1910s to the 1970s, when about six million Black people moved from the South, a figure the course says in words.
What a comparison adds. Set E2 beside Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which protected citizens educated in American-flag schools taught in a language other than English. E2 shows a rule about race and place, while Section 4(e) answered a rule where language and citizenship met. In both, a single-category reading misses the people at the overlap.

Worked example — placing E2 on the timeline. Use the law-and-case timeline (Dataset B).

The move. E2's family moved north in 1943.
The Fair Housing Act. It came in 1968 and made it unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing or in real estate loans on account of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The gap. 1968 − 1943 = 25 years.

In words: E2 is an illustrative account of the Great Migration in which race, gender, class, and place shaped one family at once, so an intersectional reading sees the bank's map and the train car together, where a single-category reading would see only one.

Here is an honesty note about E2. The excerpt is evidence of experience and meaning, not a record of the bank's rules or of anyone's wages. Its silences are part of the reading. When you notice what it does not say about the women in the family, you have found a question, not an answer.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) What do you think the mother meant by "different, not finished"? Use at least two lenses from this chapter.
(b) What is one question you would ask the narrator about the women in her family, and why?

Misconception check. Students often think an intersectional reading means filling in what an account leaves out, for example by assuming what the mother's job must have been. That is tempting, because the overlap seems to call for a fuller story. But the course never invents a detail for an excerpt; it names the silence and turns it into a question. The cure: read what E2 says through several lenses, and ask about what it leaves out.

Key terms

Intersectionality — Crenshaw's (1989) term for the way overlapping categories, such as race and sex, produce experiences that neither category alone describes; it is not the adding together of identities. (first used: 1. Apply intersectionality: overlap across many lenses)
Gender — The social roles, expectations, and identities a society attaches to being a woman, a man, or another identity; it is one of the categories intersectionality reads together with race. (first used: 1. Apply intersectionality: overlap across many lenses)
Class — A person's or family's position in the economy, shaped by work, income, property, and wealth, which can overlap with race, gender, and place in how people are treated. (first used: 1. Apply intersectionality: overlap across many lenses)
Loving v. Virginia — The 1967 Supreme Court decision that unanimously struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, so that the ruling reaches every couple whose marriage crosses a racial line. (first used: 2. Read Loving v. Virginia: a 1967 ruling for every couple across a racial line)
One or more races — The option in the 1997 federal standards that lets a respondent select more than one race on a federal form, used from the 2000 census on. (first used: 3. Read the census form: one or more races and the Multiracial count)
Multiracial — The Census Bureau's word for people who report more than one race; the Bureau counted 33.8 million Multiracial people in 2020, against 9 million measured in 2010, a change it expects was largely due to improved question design, processing, and coding. (first used: 3. Read the census form: one or more races and the Multiracial count)
Self-identification — The rule that a census or survey records the categories a person chooses for themselves, so two siblings with the same parents can answer the same question differently and both be counted as they report. (first used: 3. Read the census form: one or more races and the Multiracial count)
Colorism — Unequal treatment based on skin tone, including within a single racial or ethnic group, which makes it different from racism between groups. (first used: 4. Name colorism: unequal treatment inside one group)
Linguistic rights — Protections for people's use of their own languages in public life, such as voting, schooling, and work; Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one example. (first used: 5. Read language and religion: rules that touch several lenses at once)
Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza — Gloria Anzaldúa's 1987 book, a primary work of Chicana writing that describes identity formed at the borders of nations, languages, cultures, and genders. (first used: 5. Read language and religion: rules that touch several lenses at once)

Summary

Intersectionality is overlap, not addition: the meeting point of two categories has its own experience.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 lists 5 categories one by one; Crenshaw (1989) showed what a one-at-a-time reading misses.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, for every couple across a racial line.
From the 2000 census on, you can report one or more races; the Multiracial count was 33.8 million in 2020.
The rise from 9 million in 2010 is mostly better measurement, not growth alone.
Colorism is unequal treatment by skin tone, and it can work inside one group.
A language rule, a dress code, or a religious difference can touch several categories at once.
The lending rating bundled race and class into place: A-rated applicants were approved 90 percent of the time, D-rated ones 10 percent, a gap of 80 percentage points.
E2, read through several lenses, shows race, gender, class, and place in one family, and its silences become questions.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

An illustrative community center (not a real one) used a sign-up form that allowed only one race box. On the old form, 5 people wrote "mixed" on an "other" line. The next year the center switched to "select all that apply", and 14 people checked more than one box. Work the change and explain why it cannot be read as growth alone.
A classmate writes, "A worker who is a woman, an immigrant, and a speaker of a language other than English has three separate problems, so add them up to see her situation." Explain what an intersectional reading would say instead.
Sort each illustrative case as colorism or discrimination between groups, and say where the line is drawn. (a) A club admits members of every group but picks only lighter-skinned members of one group for its photos; (b) a landlord refuses every renter from one group.
An illustrative credit union in a model town (not a real one) approves 42 of 60 applications from one zone and 12 of 60 from another. Work both approval rates, the gap, and how many times as often the first zone is approved.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

The change is 14 − 5 = 9 more people. It cannot be read as growth alone, because the question changed: the old form gave a multiracial person nowhere to check two boxes, so many of them likely picked one box and were never counted as multiracial at all. A better form found people who were already there. That is the same caution the Census Bureau gives about its own 2010 and 2020 counts.
The sentence treats each category as a separate weight on a scale. An intersectional reading says her experience at the meeting point of gender, immigration, and language can be its own thing. Picture a rule that targets women who speak a particular language at work: a check for sex alone or for language alone would miss it. The question is not how many categories she has, but what each one-category check would fail to see.
Case (a) is colorism: the club draws its line inside one group, by skin tone, while admitting members of every group. Case (b) is discrimination between groups: the landlord draws the line between one group and everyone else, an individual act. The cure from section 4 applies: ask where the line is drawn.
First zone: 42 ÷ 60 × 100 = 70 percent. Second zone: 12 ÷ 60 × 100 = 20 percent. Gap: 70 − 20 = 50 percentage points, because it is a difference between two percentages. How many times as often: 70 ÷ 20 = 3.5, so the first zone is approved 3.5 times as often. These are fresh, illustrative numbers, separate from the course's lending table.

Next up in this module: the lecture, the slide deck, the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz — and next week, the coalition model shows how groups worked across these lines.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com