Self-Identification or Self-Advancement? Warren’s Controversy Highlights The Long-Standing Debate Over Race Claims

Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the long-standing debate over self-identification of race — an issue brought again to the forefront by the Elizabeth Warren controversy. There is a broader issue here that impacts universities and businesses on how race should be confirmed when used professionally or academically or financially. There is an ongoing debate over self-identification of race and whether such questions are simply cultural rather than genetic.

For Warren, the desire to focus on her race announced this weekend may be overshadowed by the other race issue.

Here is the column:

For Senator Elizabeth Warren, the promise of Ancestry.com to use DNA to “celebrate how we all came to be” must have had a distinctly loathsome meaning this week. On the day of her highly anticipated announcement as a Democratic candidate for president, Warren is facing new questions in her long standing controversy over claims of Native American ancestry.

New allegations concern the discovery of a Texas legal bar registration form from 1986, on which Warren listed herself as “American Indian.” This claim of race, in her own handwriting, showed an unsolicited invocation by Warren that she is a person of color. However, her ancestry story has highlighted an even larger controversy over what actually constitutes minority status and how such claims of race can or should be confirmed.

Politicians and celebrities often seek compelling personal narratives of overcoming adversities or challenges. Warren has been dogged by other past claims. She once declared herself the first “nursing mother” to take the New Jersey bar exam, which seems not only unprovable but unlikely, since the first female lawyer in the state received a license back in 1895.

I have long had mixed feelings about the ancestry story told by Warren. Suggestions that Warren used her claimed status to secure academic positions is unproven. Her claim that she is a minority was not the reason for her considerable success as an academic. Warren has not only won teaching awards as a law professor but her writings on bankruptcy and financial markets made her a sharp intellectual with global reach. That does not mean such claims do not raise ethical or professional issues.

The Coalition of Bar Associations of Color passed a resolution several years ago calling on law schools to treat the practice of “box checking” minority status as academic “ethnic fraud.” Warren listed herself as a minority on the Association of American Law Schools directory and had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania. She was listed as a minority at Harvard, which publicly highlighted her as a “Native American” law professor. The Fordham Law Review identified her as the “first woman of color” at Harvard, and she identified herself as “Cherokee” in a cookbook called “Pow Wow Chow.”

Warren rekindled the controversy over her minority status after making public a DNA test that showed a possible fraction of Native American heritage. Stanford University Professor Carlos Bustamante found that Warren may be 0.09 percent to 1.5 percent Native American. That is quite common and would place any of her possible ancestors between six to 10 generations back. If her great-great-great-grandmother were full Native American, Warren would be 1/32 Native American, but it could date back further to 10 generations, thus making her only 1/1,024 Native American.

The response from Native American groups who denounced Warren for using DNA to show ancestry was interesting. Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin insisted that “using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” Warren privately apologized to the tribe for using a DNA test to establish status as a Native American.

The suggestion here is that actual DNA is not the measure of ancestry for Native Americans. Hoskin said that the tribe uses DNA to resolve issues of “paternity to an individual” but that “it is not evidence for tribal affiliation.” Notably, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Bill John Baker is 1/32 Cherokee by blood. Yet, such ancestry is key to claiming not just minority status but also eligibility to share in revenues and benefits from tribal accounts and enterprises. The standards differ from tribe to tribe. Michael Woestehoff of the National Indian Gaming Association has explained that membership in the Navajo Nation requires that a person have 1/4 or more Navajo blood.

The same controversy rages on at universities, which do little to confirm minority status, making such “box checking” on college applications a self identification process. The Census Bureau approach is based solely on self identification. Since 2000, it has allowed people to check multiple boxes for races and ethnicities. Brown University attracted attention for proposing a pure self identification system for “people of color.” A host of programs can hinge on minority status, from government contracts to academic admissions to employment opportunities to financial benefits. Yet, the basis for claiming minority status remains fluid and uncertain.

When George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, the shooting was portrayed as a white man who killed an African American youth, even though Zimmerman is half Hispanic. Jefferson Fish, author of “Myth of Race,” suggested that Zimmerman could be defined as black because he is 1/32 black from family on the side of his mother. Nonetheless, Fish insisted that “Zimmerman’s race is a matter of cultural, not biological information. So different American subcultures classify him differently.”

That, however, does not answer how race should be legally confirmed when substantial financial, academic, and professional benefits are at stake. It seems clear to most of us that Warren should not have claimed minority status, but there is little agreement on why. The criticism of her use of a DNA test to establish her ancestry begs the question of how to objectively answer such questions. Can anyone be “culturally” part of a race or ethnicity, or is that the ultimate form of cultural appropriation?

On the one side, there is the repugnance of accepting the notion of the “one drop rule” in some states that any African blood makes someone black. On the other side, there is the understandable resistance to those people like Warren claiming to be a person of color due to having as little as 0.09 percent DNA from an ancestor who has Native American blood.

It is far from clear that her claim of being a person of color is the story of “how she came to be” a leading academic. However, it is clear how this came to be the primary subject for Warren in her bid for the presidency. Voters will decide the extent to which they view the earlier claims to be disqualifying. Yet, that is just one job dispute. We still have to decide how to deal with such claims for thousands of other applications or positions.

That may prove to be what is most discomforting for many. This question has been carefully avoided for years at universities and other institutions. Schools want to boost minority enrollment and agencies want to benefit marginalized groups. What they are not eager to do is face the difficult question on how such claims should be confirmed. While hardly her intention, Warren may have now forced that long delayed discussion.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

57 thoughts on “Self-Identification or Self-Advancement? Warren’s Controversy Highlights The Long-Standing Debate Over Race Claims”

  1. I ran an electronics business in the 80’s with some sales to the military. I investigated being an “SDB” as there were rumors in my family of an Indian heritage and preferential treatment was given to companies with minority status. . The federal gvt had very specific requirements to claim minority status, & these requirements were flowed down to all subcontractors, & their subcontractors. To qualify as an SDB business, the business had to be owned & operated by someone with 1/16 (or 1/32, its been a long time) percentage minority. One didn’t have to prove this to make the claim , you could “self certify”; but you had to be able to prove it if called upon. There were penalties for misrepresenting yourself. I would think Universities, taking Federal $, would be bound by the same regulations.

  2. If the multi-talented actor/singer Hugh Laurie can be denounced for “misappropriating” blues standards he sang (really well), then it’s time for the same people to denounce Elizabeth Warren for stealing preferential treatment intended to compensate Native Americans for the many crimes committed against them since Europeans settled North America.

    1. Oh not so fast.They danced, cheered, cried and now burn cars, threaten to kill Trump supporters and destroy peoples reputations, all for the most unpopular American, and most vapid, wretched, beat up female dog kicked out of every other American home: Shillary

      Heck, they will kill newborn babies shortly after being delivered

      These lunatics can only be driven out by one method: Michael Pence as President

      😁

      1. uh Mike Pence was a decent governor and a fine fellow, but he is no Trump.
        No um let’s not have Pence as president. Keep Trump.

        1. “Trump’s approval rating among likely voters soars to his best in 23 MONTHS at 52 per cent after State of the Union address as border-wall shutdown talks intensify”

          Rasmussen Reports poll as Trump at 52 per cent approval, his best showing in 23 months and a higher number than his winning edge in 2016

          Significant up-swing since government-shutdown low of 43 per cent

          New numbers were collected in the three days immediately following State of the Union address

          Asked what Monday’s numbers mean, a senior Democratic House aide confided on background: ‘I don’t know yet if it’s horrible, but it sure isn’t good’

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6691891/Trumps-approval-rating-likely-voters-soars-best-23-MONTHS-52-cent.html

  3. Also apropos is A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Human Story Retold Through our Genes by the English geneticist Adam Rutherford. The book is an engaging description of human evolution and history as told through genetics, archeology and social history. It was written quite independently of the recent Native American scandals engulfing Senator Warren.

    Among other tidbits is that humans are “horny and mobile,” which means that over the years we have interbred across many different groups. We all share genes from all kind of different groups across both geography and time. We shouldn’t think of human evolution as a tree, but rather as a web or shrub with many different interconnects. Contrary to popular myth, Neanderthals weren’t a different species in the common sense of the word. Through interbreeding, study of the human genome has demonstrated that we all received a substantial part of our genome as a result of our ancestors’ lust for Neanderthals (or was it the other way around? We may never know.).

    Dr. Rutherford devotes considerable energy discussing the colonization of the Americas by the original “Native Americans.” Genetic studies demonstrate that they migrated across dry land that is now covered by the Bering Sea. In genetic terms, this happened in the relatively recent past, so that we can’t say much other than the original human inhabitants of the America’s are all closely related to our ancestors who crossed over from Asia. Dr. Rutherford is unequivocal in stating that there is no genetic basis for distinguishing between different Native American groups or tribes. Through the miracles of horny mobility and the genetic web, we as a population share a portion of Native American ancestry, much in the same way that we are all part Neanderthal. The point being that Ms. Warren’s genetics isn’t markedly different than that of the average American.

    Dr. Rutherford also points out that Native American tribes gauge membership through social affiliations, not through genetics (which as Dr. Rutherford points out don’t tell us much at all other than proving paternity). Of course, this is a well thought out position that allows Native Americans to control access to the programs available to the various tribes free from outside influence. With respect to Mrs. Warren, the Cherokee tribe has made their views on this point abundantly clear.

    Then again, as we have learned, the standards used by the equal opportunity apparatus in the Texas Bar, the Ivy League and the progressive community are a different story entirely when applied to one of their own. Not coincidentally, they are also conveniently malleable in the hands of ambitious people (and groups) focused on their own advancement.

    If you’re interested in the genetics and the tribal affiliation claims, read the book. Dr. Rutherford explains it a whole lot better than I do.

Leave a Reply