Describing people in terms of their race or ethnicity can be touchy. When we do, we must be sure that there's a defensible reason.

Crime stories are particularly sensitive. Descriptions of people by race or ethnicity generally are unnecessary, but may be germane when: * Police are looking for a suspect of a certain description, which includes race. But race alone should not be used as an identifier in such cases. It is of little value to write, "Police are seeking a white man in connection with the robbery." It may be useful, however, when other details are available: "Police are looking for a heavy-set, bearded white man who was wearing a red sweatshirt and white shorts." * The crime was a racial component. Hate crimes, for example.

Race may or may not be germane to non-crime stories involving minorities. For example, it's not necessarily pertinent that "Josephine Peters, a black judge, has been named to the state's Supreme Court." But if Josephine Peters in the first woman or first African American to hold that office, it may be worth noting it somewhere in the story. Probably not in the lead.

Similarly, if a speaker in a story is discussing race relations, the reader probably deserves to know the race of the speaker. The problem with "Hispanic": The word means of Spanish or Latin American extraction. It refers not to race but to ethnicity: Hispanics can be black or pale, blond or dark-haired. This limits the usefulness of the word as a way to describe physical characteristics.

When police say a suspect was Hispanic, what they likely mean is that the person was not tall; had dark, straight hair; dark skin; brown eyes. Millions of people live in the Western Hemisphere who are Hispanic and do not match that description. Millions of people live in Mexico who match that description but who have no Spanish heritage, speak no Spanish and are not Hispanic. They're native Americans.

So when we pick up the "Hispanic" shorthand in a story, we promulgate a misunderstanding of a word, at best, or risk engendering destructive stereotyping, at worst.

Suggestion: Push police to tell us what they mean by Hispanic. Were they describing the characteristics listed above? How did they know? When possible, report not that a suspect was Hispanic, but what he or she reported looked like. If no specific description was available, we might have to write, "Police said witnesses described the man as Hispanic."

In non-crime stories relating to ethnicities, "Hispanic" is still an acceptable term. Hispanic school enrollment, Hispanic business owners, etc. But when possible, let's be more specific.

"Latino," with its somewhat narrower connotation that does not include roots in Spain, likely will be the preferred term in a few years, much as "African American" is steadily replacing "black." Feel free to use Latino for variety, when pertinent. Ask sources how they prefer to be described.

When contrasting Hispanic to the current majority culture, Anglo is preferable to white, since white can also describe Hispanics. In other contexts, "white" may be preferable.

Other racial identifiers: AP style prefers "American Indian to "Native American." People those terms describe may have their own views. If your source has a preference, let it override AP. When possible, identify by membership in a particular tribe - again, only if it's pertinent.

Remember that many people of Asian extraction find "Oriental" offensive, though it still may apply to food. While preferable to Oriental, "Asian" itself presents some of the same problems as "Hispanic," referring as it does to people and things from Indonesia to the Arctic, from Japan to India. When possible and pertinent, be more specific.