Recent work in algorithmic fairness has highlighted the challenge of defining racial categories for the purposes of anti-discrimination. These challenges are not new but have previously fallen to the state, which enacts race through government statistics, policies, and evidentiary standards in anti-discrimination law. Drawing on the history of state race-making, we examine how longstanding questions about the nature of race and discrimination appear within the algorithmic fairness literature. Through a content analysis of 60 papers published at FAccT between 2018 and 2020, we analyze how race is conceptualized and formalized in algorithmic fairness frameworks. We note that differing notions of race are adopted inconsistently, at times even within a single analysis. We also explore the institutional influences and values associated with these choices. While we find that categories used in algorithmic fairness work often echo legal frameworks, we demonstrate that values from academic computer science play an equally important role in the construction of racial categories. Finally, we examine the reasoning behind different operationalizations of race, finding that few papers explicitly describe their choices and even fewer justify them. We argue that the construction of racial categories is a value-laden process with significant social and political consequences for the project of algorithmic fairness. The widespread lack of justification around the operationalization of race reflects institutional norms that allow these political decisions to remain obscured within the backstage of knowledge production.

翻译：近期算法公平领域的相关研究凸显了在反歧视目标下界定种族范畴面临的挑战。这些难题并非新问题，此前主要由国家通过政府统计、政策制定及反歧视法律中的证据标准来执行种族划分。本文借鉴国家建构种族范畴的历史经验，探讨关于种族与歧视本质的长期争议如何在算法公平文献中重现。通过对2018至2020年间FAccT会议60篇论文的内容分析，我们系统梳理了算法公平框架中种族概念的界定与形式化过程。研究发现，不同论文对种族概念的理解存在不一致性，甚至在单一分析中亦会出现内部矛盾。我们进一步探究影响这些选择的制度因素与价值取向，指出算法公平研究中使用的种族范畴虽常与法律框架相呼应，但计算机科学学术领域的价值判断同样在范畴建构中具有关键作用。最后，我们检视种族操作化定义背后的逻辑基础，发现仅少数论文明确阐述其选择依据，而提供充分论证的论文更为罕见。本研究论证表明，种族范畴的建构本质上是充满价值判断的过程，对算法公平事业具有深远的社会政治影响。当前学界普遍缺乏对种族操作化定义的充分论证，这折射出特定的制度规范——使得这些本应公开的政治决策得以隐蔽在知识生产的幕后领域。