First, the use of racial comparison as the explanation for criminal behavior has immensely deviated from the academic traditions of American criminological research. Starting in the 1930s, most researchers focused their attention on how the social environments and learning experiences influence criminal behavior. The sources of crime were found in social process, social structure, and/or individual variables. These studies have generated significant findings on the basis of testing such theories as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, social control theory, among others. However, in stead of following the tradition by building up the knowledge and theories, the race-based research appears to be more interested in politics than science.

Some may argue that the races in America represent social groups, therefore the research is examining social factors. However, the "social" here involves some arbitrary, physically-based, fixed and immutable attributes of people rather than their plastic and malleable social conditions or psychological characteristics. In other words, the "social race" is neither earned, learned, nor chosen but assigned. The purpose of scientific discovery involves discovering new theories and variables by falsifying old hypotheses and variables. The addiction on "race" comparison does disservice to the scientific purpose. For my discussion on why race is category but not "group," click here.

I should also point out that the term "non-white" is inheritably biased and pejorative. "Non-white" is not a race, not an ethnicity, not a culture, and not a social class. Do you like yourself to be defined as non-Native Americans, non-Russians, non-Chinese, etc? If not, don't use the term.

Second, term "race" is ill defined and poorly operationalized as it is used cross politics and criminology (and other social sciences), with an inconsistency in both the conceptualization and operationalization of the term.

One of the problems involves the discrepancy between the researchers in criminology and the government agencies (e.g., U.S. Census and FBI) in their categorization of Hispanic Americans. The researchers in general put them in the "nonwhite" category, whereas the agencies assume that they can be any race. Unfortunately, race criminologists use their own data and race data from the government agencies as exchangeable. Additionally, the census bureau's definition of race is also problematic. For example, the bureau has the following racial definitions (U.S. Census Bureau's website):

"White--A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa..." Black or African American--A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa..." "American Indian and Alaska Native--A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment..." "Asian-- A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent...""People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino or Spanish may be of any race..."

The Census Bureau continues to emphasize that the racial categories included in the census form generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country, and are not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically or genetically. In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include racial and national origin or socio-cultural groups. However, the emphasis on the social, cultural, and/or political aspects of ‘race" does not make the demarcation of racial categories more meaningful and clear.

For example, it is hard to believe that peoples originated from Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa are grouped as "Whites' because they are socially, culturally, or politically more similar, but not because of "look more similar." Besides, it is difficult to understand that why people from Central Asia, Afghanistan or Iran are not defined as "Asians" by the bureau when they have more cultural, historical and political connections with East Asians both in history (e.g., the Silk Road) and at present than do South Asian Indians. The Asians also have little social, cultural, or political interaction with the Pacific Islanders but the government agencies typically put them into the same "racial" category for the sake of convenience.

In short, I think that there is a disarray regarding how people define the meanings of "race" in criminological research (and that of other social sciences). The root of the problem can be found in part in the misperception and ignorance about human beings associated with the colonial period, and in part in the dominance of political motivation over scientific motivation.