The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Biden Administration Considers Whether Hispanic/Latino Should Be A Racial, Not Ethnic, Classification
The AP reports that the Biden administration is considering changes to official OMB racial and ethnic classifications. The most prominent proposals are to change the Hispanic/Latino category from an ethnic to a racial category, and to add a new MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) category. I will write about the latter in a later blog post, but here I will focus on the Hispanic/Latino classification.
As discussed in my forthcoming book, when the federal Office of Management and Budget invented the Hispanic category-- Latino was not added until twenty years later--in the late 1970s, it was subject to several controversies. First, there was the question of what to name this novel classification--previously, what we now call "Hispanics" were generally either considered generically white by the federal government, or listed separately as Mexican, Puerto Rican, and sometimes Cuban. In the early 1970s, the government started to use classifications like "Spanish-speaking" or "Spanish-surnamed," but these were ultimately deemed inadequate and imprecise for rather obvious reasons. Hispanic was chosen even though at the time few people thought of themselvse as "Hispanic."
Second, there was controversy over how to define the category. Should it include white people of Spanish descent? (Yes!) Should the American Indian category instead be "Original Peoples of the Western Hemisphere" to include Latinos of indigenous origin? (No!) Should the Hispanic classification be considered a race or an ethnicity? (Ethnicity!) And should forms asking about race and ethnicity include "Hispanic" as an alternative to white, black, Asian, or American Indian, or should Hispanic identity be asked about separately from the racial classifications? (At first, institutions were given the option of doing either, but in 1997 they were ordered to ask about Hispanic ethnicity separately; it took the Department of Education and the EEOC another decade to comply. The SBA's guidance on disadvantaged business enterprises still depicts Hispanic as a racial category.)
This did not end the controversy. As I explain in the book:
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Census Bureau proposed making "Hispanic" a racial category akin to "Black" or "White." Most major Latino organizations aggressively opposed the change.
Census Bureau employees specializing in racial demography also strongly opposed categorizing Hispanic as a racial identity. Their opposition reflected deference to civil rights and ethnic identity organizations. These groups worried that creating a Hispanic racial category would reduce their groups' reported populations and therefore their political clout.
African American groups feared that Afro-Latinos would identify as Hispanic, not Black; American Indian organizations were concerned that some individuals of indigenous heritage would identify as Hispanic, not Native American; and Asian American activists worried that some Filipinos would identify as Hispanic and not Asian. The bureau ultimately shelved the proposal.
In 1997, the OMB rejected a request from the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group, to combine the race and Hispanic origin questions into a single Race/Ethnicity category. In 2018, the Census Bureau recommended that "Hispanic or Latino" be changed from an ethnicity to a race category. The Trump administration, however, declined to adopt this recommendation.
The move to change Hispanic to a racial category reflects a problem with American racial classifications. Approximately fifty percent of American Hispanics have consistently considered themselves to be white in private surveys and on census forms (I understand the percentage was lower in 2020, but I haven't yet seen a good analysis of the data), and a small percentage identify as black. The rest don't find any of the racial categories congenial because they are of mixed European/indigenous (and sometimes others) ancestry. This is reflected in the following anecdote in my book:
I recently helped a native of Peru of mixed Spanish and indigenous origin apply for a green card. She was mystified by the form asking her to classify herself by one of the standard American racial categories. None of the racial options fit how she perceived herself. The American Indian category on the form, which might otherwise have covered her Inca ancestry, is limited to North American Indians.
Trying to be helpful, I asked, "Eres blanca?" ("Are you white?")
She replied, "No, no soy blanca." ("No, I am not white.")
"Pero tú no eres negra." ("But you are not black.")
"No, no soy negra. Soy mestiza." ("No, I am not black. I am a mestiza [Spanish-Indian].")
One possible solution, suggested by some scholars and activists, would be to replace the Hispanic classification with an Indigenous Latino/Mestizo classification for those who so identify, while white and black (and Asian) Hispanics could identify by those racial classifications.
However, "there is little appetite for such change in the government. Hispanic groups that have built their political power based on their diverse, multiracial constituents being perceived as having a common Hispanic identity are even less likely to pursue such a reform."
So we are left with a choice between the status quo and a Hispanic racial category. A Hispanic racial category creates an obvious problem: to the extent that one thinks that "race" is a salient way of dividing people, it's hard to come up with a good definition of race that applies to Hispanics, whose ancestry can be any combination of European, Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and Indigenous. It's dubious to even consider "Hispanic or Latino" classification an ethnicity, given the cultural heterogeneity within the category. Michael Lind argued in Salon back in 2012 that the category is "artificial" and "preposterous." It "include[s] blond, blue-eyed South Americans of German descent as well as Mexican-American mestizos and Puerto Ricans of predominantly African descent."
Artificial and preposterous does not necessarily stop government bean counters, as shown by the "Asian American" classification, which includes everyone from Pakistanis to Filipinos. But the AP also reports that Asian American groups are asking the government to rethink this problematic, overbroad "racial" category. It would be ironic if the government did so, while creating a new one.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
One issue you don't address here (perhaps you do in your book) is the implementation of the check-as-many-as-apply (or, alternatively, "multiracial") option, and how that affects these questions.
True. Most “Hispanics” or “Latinos” are a mixture of Spanish or Portuguese and Native American, with, I’m guessing, a preponderance of Native American.
Strange that the Native Americans in the US and Canada want to be identified as Native Americans, but those from Mexico south want to be identified as Hispanic, although they’re mostly Native American as well.
Depends from where. Most Cubans and Argentinians are entirely European. Most Mexicans and Central Americans are mostly Aztec and Mayan.
One of my high school classmates had a get together (in Albuquerque, NM) that included parents. She was from on old line "Hispanic" family. One of the parents asked her mom, "when did your people come over from Mexico". Her answer, "my people came her before there was such a thing as Mexico".
Portuguese heritage, language, etc (including anything to do with Brazil) has NOTHING to do with the governments hispanic rules.
Categorizing Americans into racial tranches is immoral and unethical and it should be illegal.
Bingo! At this point the only real purpose of doing it IS deliberate discrimination by the government, and encouraging it in the private sector.
How would Republicans remain electorally relevant in many jurisdictions without their strenuous, long-standing, race-targeting voter suppression project?
Racial classifications are racist.
The only possible use is for discrimination.
It's funny that now you think discrimination sucks.
I wonder why....
What "now"?
I suspect you wonder about a lot of things - - - - -
It's funny that you find creating discrimination to be a good thing.
Sixty per cent of Latinos identify as white. Probably Filipe VI, King of Spain does. Go to Chile and, if you are a white American, you will disappear into the crowd.
The main reason there is any attempt to 'help' Latinos is because recent immigrants from Central America arrive with an average of six years education from a system that is even more broken than in the US. No matter haw smart or hard working, they start out with disadvantages in the job market.
No, their disadvantage is the 80 IQ that is endemic of the Mayan and Aztec population.
IQ measures educational performance and potential. Japanese IQ was survey after WWII. It was around 100. Today is 110. Perhaps, the genes changed, but the more likely reason is they study 12 hours a day, until they drop asleep.
The various classifications don't apply to me, either: Jewish, Spanish origin (13th century, at least), parents born in Panama, Grandparents born in Curacao and Costa Rica.
And likely due to my ancestors on the inquisition travel plan, I look Dutch (tall, blonde, blue eyes). Hispanic? Nope. Hispanx? Oh, HELL NO. So what do I have in common with (say) an indigenous tribe member from Columbia?
And why is an indigenous tribe member from Columbia so different than an indigenous tribe member from Brazil (Portuguese, not Spanish-speaking country so it doesn't count)?
The more the government flogs this nonsense the more blatant the stupidity of it.
AMEN !
I thought that "mestizo" had gone out of fashion with "mulatto". It's so hard to keep up with the rules today.
"Hispanics" are, of course, the result of Europeans, mostly Spanish and Portuguese, crossing with Native Americans beginning some 500 years ago, and "Native Americans" are really just the descendants of Asians who crossed the now-submerged land bridge between Asia and North America thousands of years ago.
Well, we’re all African, if you go back far enough.
Well, my mother-in-law called our kids "mongrels."
Have a good friend who was diagnosed with a very rare and fatal blood disease that previously had only shown up in the Asian population. It was guessed that her 1/4 Native American heritage must have given her the necessary genes to provide the doorway.
Is that the ones where the red blood cells are slanted???
The one where the White Blood Cells all look the same???
The one where you get 2 units of packed cells and you're anemic again in an hour?
Frank "Got a million of em"
If Hispanic is defined as coming from a Spanish speaking country, why wouldn't Hispanic be considered a "national origin" instead of an "ethnicity/race"?
That would not justify Equity, the transfer of money from the productive to the tax sucking parasites of the Democrat Party. I am not referring to the working poor and striving. I am referring to the lawyers and the federal thugs.
So what "race" is Obama?
He has as much call on being the 44th White President, as the 1st Black one.
For the morons who think it matters. I've looked inside a lot of different people: They're all the same color.
Exactly. We're all basically mutts.
Bloody, bony, icky mutts.
"Colors", in my experience. Unless you got blood all over everything when you peeked. 😉
When I look inside them, there pretty much is blood all over the place. Often still squirting.
Human????
When they insist on "classifying" you, just remember that their intent is to divide your country, not to bring it together. When you think of yourself as being "an American" (or any other nation for that matter), then you have enormous collective power. You are part of an entire country -- in the case of the US, you are joined with 320 million people strong across a country the size of a continent. If they can get you to think of yourself as a category, it greatly diminishes your influence and sense of belonging.
The content of the classification scheme itself is utterly irrelevant. As long as there are enough categories in the scheme to properly reduce the population into small groups, then anything will do.
Of course they will tell you that it's for your own good and the good of others, and their young people may even have been indoctrinated enough to say they believe it. But it is not for our good. No house divided against itself can stand. No one who wants to see a powerful country stay strong can be in favor of intentionally disunifying itself.
"change the Hispanic/Latino category from an ethnic to a racial category"
This is the stupidity that I have learned to expect from the Biden team.
As Obama said, never underestimate #FJB's ability to Fk things up!
Ironic that this racist ploy is being done just when a sizable number of Latinos are switching political voting patterns.
This won't help the Democrats in Nevada or the Rio Grande Valley or Miami.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first we practice to racialize the population.
Nothing like arbitrary classification.
I do not want the government using racial classifications. Yet there are worthwhile scholarly uses of that and other demographic data.
So I propose the census form just have a blank labeled "race or ethnic group", long enough for a one or two word answer, and let the individual fill it in as he/she/xir pleases.
This would be liberating for those of many groups. If you are white but think of yourself as French you could write French. If you are from Latin America you could write Brazilian, or Peruvian, or Hispanic, or mestizo/Spanish, or whatever floats your boat. Those of us who don't think it's any of the government's business could fill in "human."
Then we can get started on re-legalizing private discrimination, AKA freedom of association, and thus put a stop to the identity politics and gaming of the system that the present woketard establishment is using to destroy people's livelihoods for dissent.
Given that the purpose of the census is to reapportion congress, the only valid question is "how many live here?
All the rest is just free marketing research for corporations.
Is "high yellow" one of the classifications?
Who cares? it's still the "One Drop" rule when it comes to Afro-Amuricans (HT Colon Powell) 1/2 Caucasian Barry Obama (Peace be upon Him) is just as Magic a Knee-grow as the Dark Hearted Anti-Semite from Georgia, "Reverend" (Jim Jones, Al Sharpton, The Conspiracy's own Jerry Sandusky-ish Arthur Kirtland, Oral (and Anal) Roberts, Jim Baker, Pat Robinson? Geez, Jerry Sandusky's probably the least bad of the list) Rafael Warlock (Herschell Walker? I'll vote for Mike Tyson over that antisemitic son of bitch Warlock)
Frank "It's all pink on the inside"
A better, and far more sensible option is to end all racial classification across the board.
I recall some guy in 1968 having a dream where people are judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin.
What a RACIST!
But he was given a national holiday bearing his name and on of the ugliest monuments in Washington, DC.
It looks like one of th Moai on Easter Island.
.
I've been trying to convince my wife we need one of those to complement the tropical part of her garden. So far she ain't buying it.
Black Guy in Carbonite.
I live with this everyday.
My mestizo son's co-workers think he is everything from Hispanic to Italian, with a few correct guesses of half-Asian thrown in. BTW, when he was two I was asked by a stranger, in front of him, if he was adopted because "he doesn't look anything like you."
My oldest daughter is a librarian in a small liberal arts college where she is somehow expected to represent the entire Asian community whenever a question comes up that even tangentially touches on the subject.
Our youngest, who is pretty white skinned and looks much more like me than her mother, wears a small pin on her nurse's nametag in the shape of a halo-halo drink so that those in the "know" will spot her as actually being, kinda, a Filipina.
Our teen-age granddaughter, who is whiter than milk with bright red hair, claims to everyone that she is really a Filipina. Our middle school grandson, with his Greek grandfather on the paternal side, has a dusky Filipino/Greek skin tone that is certainly unique from anyone I've ever seen before. Our youngest granddaughter could be dropped into the midst of her cousins on Luzon and no one would be able to tell her apart from them.
It's all crazy. Trust me.
You should have asked that person if it's kids look like a penis then...
There are 3 races - Caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. There are uncountable blends of those 3 as well.
Then there are ethnicities which portend more to the geographic area you are from as well as the relevant culture (Jewish, Arab, Persian etc).
So at the end of the day, all this government focus on splitting race/ethnicity is in the service of dividing the public, not uniting the people...
Hi, Rhoid. You do not get to define me. I will identify as whatever will get me a job, admission, scholarship.
Naturally, this is all Democrat false propaganda. Here, in the USA USA USA, you do not get classified by any superficial feature like race. You get classified by what you can do for me. The ethos of the US is selfishness. So Cubans are rich people. African immigrants are the new Koreans, chased by employers and by admissions people waving wads of cash. All disparities come from performance of the individual. We are sick of this lying lawyer profession and their fictitious rules. The purpose of these rules is to redistribute income from the productive and striving to the tax sucking parasites of the Democrat Party, the party of the vile, toxic lawyer. USA USA USA.
and the chief reason to create new groups is when the existing group no longer as a whole proves useful or compliant. Hence, segregating the population until you can create enough disparity to claim action is needed.
if they spent more time helping everyone instead of segregating people we might be in a better place overall
The disparities rarely indicate discrimination. They indicate different interests and abilities.
Hi, Rhoid. Brilliant remark, just a little out of touch. All disparities come from the performance of the individual. Equity is a code word for redistribution and rent seeking, mostly to lawyers and federal tyrants.
How would they know?
Like they need to know? Why?
If person is harmed by discriminatory practices, they have their own remedies. A consumer can change to an alternate provider, e.g.
This idea that it is the government’s job to know everything is a perversion of the concept of limited government when you seek to use government to remedy any and all harms caused in the human condition. It means there is in fact no limit on government because there is no end to the problems faced by the human condition.
The only sort of discrimination that's constitutionally significant is discrimination by state actors. (Take a look at the 14th amendment's text: "No State shall... nor shall any State".) Not 'measuring' race actually helps prevent that sort of discrimination.
As it is, the government's ham handed attempts to prevent private discrimination, (Where they haven't devolved into governmental discrimination!) end up compromising actual constitutional rights.
Thomas Sowell has thoroughly debunked the idea that "disparities = discrimination."
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1541645634/reasonmagazinea-20/
When I say, tax sucking parasites, I am not referring to poor working people. They get the tiny crumbs falling from the table. I am referring to lawyers and federal workers.
"Currently our government has legal duties to combat discrimination."
Only in the sense that they enacted laws to that effect. So "decided to" would probably be a more accurate way to phrase it.
Hi, Rhoid. What a thoughtful and brilliant reply. Really addressed the issues raised.
They only have a "duty" in that "disparate impact" is improperly considered actionable.
Only intentional discrimination should be illegal.
"chief statistician, who was named to the position by the Biden administration earlier this year."
Political appointee's actions are always about political power.
Professional standards and expertise in politics are similar to the Emperor's New Clothes. People say they exist but they don't.
Professional standards and arbitrary classifications have nothing to do with each other.
No. It's not. Disparity is an indicator of different abilities.
"disparity is a reasonable indicator "
Its not, it sweeps in perfectly innocent conduct.
Its use is also counterproductive, lots of non-racist people recognize its unfair so it reduces support for laws/actions against real intentional discrimination. For instance, court ordered busing.
Or a disparity in interests. For example, the firefighting profession is not 50/50 men and women...
"why it’s not dispositive"
But it is in fact. Plenty of money paid to claimants by innocent employers to avoid further expense.
There is a cost to lawsuit and EEOC defense.
"Yeah, there’s no history of discrimination and social dissuading of women to do that type of thing! That’s pure expression of unshaped interest! Lol"
Wait. You're going to argue, or at least imply, that the sex disparity between dangerous jobs that require a lot of physical strength, and safe jobs that don't, isn't primarily due to men generally being stronger and less risk averse than women? Seriously?
Keep in mind these research numbers were for athletes, not average people, and so were presumably not a result of the women avoiding exercise. With a strength disparity like this, how can you NOT expect disparate numbers of men and women in any profession that requires significant physical effort? Even female athletes as a group are physically weaker than your average man!
Similar studies have demonstrated that women are, on average, significantly more risk averse than men. So you would naturally expect to find more men than women in any profession which was known to be dangerous.
Yeah, sure, there are doubtless a very few outlier women who would be attracted to, and capable of, dangerous and physically demanding jobs. Not nearly enough of them to prevent the statistical disparity from being large and inevitable.
It's actually kind of silly to even have to point this out.
No, in reality, you're a statist. Bugger off, slaver.
The legal reality caused by letting mental inferiors and women vote. Put white men in charge again, and see what the legal and moral realities are.
Only by unreaonable court decisions. There is no "right" to bloc vote and elect your preferred candidate.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
See, this is an example where having racial categories and recording them actually facilitates constitutional violations. In order to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color, you have to know somebody's race or color. Or else you lack the ability to act on account of it.
"some colors are to color blind people"
Such colors actually exist, some men just can't see them.
Professional standards in governmental actors don't exist, some people just imagine they do.
Yes, government/politics is about power.
Look, it's true that I don't think the government should have decided to make racial discrimination by private actors illegal. I don't think it was even legitimately within the reach of the federal government, though it could be for states; The 14th amendment clearly applies only to private actors, and that limitation naturally has bearing on the reach of implementing legislation. The states, OTOH, would only be limited to the extent anti-discrimination laws interfered with the exercise of actual civil liberties, which is quite often. But it's still a bad idea.
But let's say that private discrimination were legitimately a crime, like assault or robbery.
When does the government start collecting information to prove a crime has happened? After they have probable cause to believe a crime has already occurred. They don't get to collect information preemptively to make proving a crime after the fact easier.
So, no, I don't think the government should go around categorizing everybody on the basis of some really stupid constructed system of racial/ethnic categories, they shouldn't NEED such a thing to prosecute a real case of discrimination.
Yeah, it really is about identifying disparate impact, which is NEVER actual proof of discrimination, and is often inevitable unless you actively engage in racial quotas, which ARE actual discrimination.
They chose to discriminate against different people -- and don't act like they give a damn if men were disparately impacted.
Your obsession with "fairness" is no more rational than a 2 year old's screaming "it's not fair!" ... but with government guns.
"But racial data would show who was denied disproportionately."
And simply standing in the polling place you could have witnessed it happening, because they weren't just statistically discriminating, they were visibly discriminating against individual people.
If your supposed discrimination only shows up in statistics, and is never provable in any specific instance, there's an excellent chance you're NOT looking at something that's being done on account of race or color, but just on account of people not being identically situated on a statistical basis.
Got some bad news for you Brett.
You mean like the Black Congressional Caucus?
What do you find wrong with the ability of individuals to associate, or to not associate with whomever they please?
There was a time when calling someone a "person of discriminating tastes" was a high compliment.
They are arbitrary when assignment of individuals to this or that race is arbitrary.
On a personal note, when I was in the Naval Reserve in late 80’s or early 90’s we were required to formally disclose our race for classification purposes. Not wanting to be misclassified, I asked what was the criteria for choosing one race or another,
The executive officer checked out the policy and the policy was:
You are whatever race you say you are!
That’s a pretty good example of “arbitrary.”
In the mid-70s the Navy attempted to do a racial census of the entire force. As you noted oh, the people could choose whatever race they wanted to be, without question. Working in personnel I saw all the surveys as they passed through my desk. It was absolutely amazing that at least a quarter of our Command was made up Eskimos.
I would never joke about indoctrinating young people. If you are being intellectually honest, you cannot help but see how rampant the practice is.
But what would a black White Supremacist like him even know about discrimination? Sorry, couldn't resist the too stupid to be true response I see all too often by progs.
White hats love to mess with the ridiculous.