The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Is an American of Indian Descent Raised in Iran and Who Held Iranian Citizenship Indian or Iranian for Affirmative Action Purposes?
When I started researching my book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, the law review literature asserted that racial classification, in practice, was almost entirely a matter of self-identification. While federal law specified the classifications and their definitions, in practice people could check whatever box they wanted, and no one ever checked. In fact, according to the relevant literature, there was only one case, ever, in which an individual's self-identification was questioned. This was an infamous case involving two Irish-American firefighters in Boston who claimed to be African American to take advantage of the fire department's affirmative action policies.
I was confident that there were more such cases, in part because Eugene Volokh once blogged about such a case involving whether New York State could constitutionally decide that a contractor of Spanish descent was not Hispanic for state purposes, even though he was Hispanic for federal purposes. In the end, I found a couple of dozen such cases, mostly involving minority business enterprise preferences, and mostly involving the Hispanic classification, though also others involving claims of American Indian, African American, and Asian American identity. Many of those cases wound up being cited in Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in SFSA v. Harvard.
I assumed that these were just the tip of the iceberg, as I relied on publicly available judicial or administrative rulings, or media coverage. Most disputes, I figured, were decided within the bowels of government bureaucracies, and the only way to find them would be to comb through thousands of unpublished records, if you could first figure out where those records were located. It wasn't sufficiently important to my book to undertake such an efforts.
That said, I did just happen upon another such dispute over identity, discussed briefly in a 1989 GAO report on fraud in disadvantaged business enterprise programs. As background, at the time Iranian Americans were classified as white, and thus not "minorities" eligible for DBE preferences, while Indian Americans were classified as Asian American and therefore were eligible.
An anonymous letter alleged that the president of an engineering DBE did not oversee the firm's day-to-day management and that the firm was controlled by the vice president, who was a white male. It was also alleged that the president was Iranian-born and thus not eligible to participate in the program. The investigation disclosed that there was no apparent problem with control since the president drew the largest sal- ary, signed all company checks, and was the only person in the firm with an engineering degree. It was also determined that the DBE president was raised in Iran and held Iranian citizenship, but that his parents were of Indian descent. During the reassessment process, the state transportation agency requested an advisory opinion from DOT concerning whether a person born in Iran to Indian parents is Iranian or Indian for purposes of DBE program participation. The state agency eventually recertified the DBE based on the DOT ruling that the controlling factor was a person's heritage not citizenship.
This decision seems correct, as Asian American is defined under federal law as someone descended from one of the original peoples of Asia. But it does raise the question of how far one can take that principal. Are Parsi Indians, descendants of Zoroastrians who fled Iran hundreds of years ago to escape Muslim persecution Indian, or Iranian? How about Baghdadi Jews from India whose ancestors moved to India from Iraq in the 19th century? Is there any statute of limitations here? In practice, though, I suspect that so long as an individual's ancestors had Indian citizenship, it's very unlikely anyone will question whether they are "really" Indian and thus Asian American.
Anyway, the existence of this case reinforces my suspicion that there are many more such cases reported somewhere in bowels of government archives.
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
Iranians are the original Whites, it’s where the word “Aryan” comes from. So much simpler if you follow (Dr.) MLK Jr’s (you may have heard of him, Atlanta Minister, has a Holiday, and thousands of dangerous streets named after him) teaching to judge people by the content of their character and not if they’re a Dot-Head or Towel-Head. Clarence Thomas isn’t my favorite Surpreme because of his Good Looks or Charming Personality.
Frank
Pre-emptive response to the H8-ers
The term Iran 'the land of the Aryans' derives from Middle Persian Ērān, first attested in a 3rd-century inscription at Naqsh-e Rostam, with the accompanying Parthian inscription using Aryān, in reference to the Iranians. Ērān and Aryān are oblique plural forms of gentilic nouns ēr- (Middle Persian) and ary- (Parthian), deriving from Proto-Iranian language *arya- (meaning 'Aryan', i.e. of the Iranians), recognised as a derivative of Proto-Indo-European language *ar-yo-, meaning 'one who assembles (skilfully)'. According to Iranian mythology, the name comes from Iraj, a legendary king.
Ok, but the subject of the discussion has Indian parents who resided in Iran. They weren't "Aryan" by any definition.
Yes, but it's history, related to the Iranian classification as White, and interesting.
Either way, "affirmative action" is unconstitutionally racist.
Yes it is, and just another in the string, from institutional slavery, to institutional segregation, to institutional integration, and recently back to institutional racism. Funny how it's always the lefties. One of the Confederate political heroes (Fitzhugh?) favored Marx and socialism over the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Slavery was not lefty but righty, as well you know. There used to be right-wing Democrats in the South, or had you forgotten that?
Who tried to retain statues of Southern Democrat slavers, the GOP or the Democrats?
Right Wing Southern DemoKKKrats? You mean like West VA Senator/Grand Wizard Robert KKK Bird? Who Barry Hussein Osama even did the Eulogy for? Bird was such a Klanner he voted against both Thouroughly Bad Marshall, and Clarence "Frog Man" Thomas. Who’s the party who’s supported the killing of over 50,000,000 unborn Afro-Amuricans since 1973? No wonder nobody picks Cotton anymore. Which party has the POTUS who brags about threatening "Corn Pop" (that's such a ridiculous story I think it might have actually happened, Joe's a ridiculous guy)
Frank
In the last bolded sentence, "the nor ruling" is a mistranscription of some small caps, and should read "the DOT ruling" instead.
Further shows the stupidity and arbitrariness of such programs. Even if they're lawful (they're not), that doesn't mean they're good policy. Treating everyone the same under the law and not drawing arbitrary racial and ethnic distinctions between us to give government largesse to favored groups is the best policy.
"Treating everyone the same under the law ..."
Damn. It's almost as if that were a founding principle of this country(1st sentence of Declaration), which was subsequently expounded upon in the 14th amendment.
Crazy, right?
Isn't all this stuff supposed to be tied to need for amelioration of discrimination, past or present?
And you'd hope this was some systemic, legal discrimination.
But if conquistadors get the same protections as the people they fucked, the whole thing seems farcical.
Likewise, why should a Nigerian immigrant get the same consideration as a descendant of slaves?
OTOH, I am a supporter of "Reparations Payments" for Afro-Amurican descendants of Slaves.
Only question is how much they're going to pay Whites for freeing them.
Frank
I dated a woman in college from Spain who checked the "hispanic" box on everything. I also knew a white guy from South Africa who at least once claimed to be "african American".
and if he became a US Citizen he'd be correct.
There appears to be precisely one classification Prof. Bernstein recognizes and favors (to the point of can do no wrong.".
Well, two, if you count affirmative action for right-wing law professors and judicial clerk candidates.
There are going to be questionable calls in most regulatory systems. These gotcha games (to the degree they are) can be played regularly. The question is if the system as a whole is good in most cases. This includes various diversity programs.
Diversity is regularly used in a variety of contexts, private and public. It is accepted as a good thing. Have a variety of views, people from a variety of faiths, places of origin, and so on.
There will be some reliance on self-reporting & some people will try to game the margins.
Does any of this matter the slightest bit after Bostock? One might as well comb through old files to find cases where transgender people were outed as frauds and similarly punished by transphobic bigots. What does any of this have to do with the state of the law post-Bostock? Bostock stands for the proposition that self-identification with a category is the essential test, the only test, for whether one is a member of the category. It completely sweeps these old so-called “fraud” cases brought on by transphobes into the dustbin of history.
A transphobia case from 1989? One might as well bring a segregation case from 1889 for all the light it sheds on the subject today.