Request for Question Clarification by
sublime1-ga
on
26 Jan 2006 21:34 PST
rsb762...
I'm not sure what you mean by "legal" purposes, so I'll
hold off on posting a formal answer, but I'm personally
not aware of any situation in which this categorization
would come under legal scrutiny.
Whether someone is of hispanic origin is something that
is preferred to be self-reported, when at all possible,
and falls under the realm of "ethnicity" rather than
"race".
A very thorough discussion of the evolution of the term
and its usage is given in the article 'Legally Hispanic'
by Richard L Vázquez on LasCulturas.com:
http://www.lasculturas.com/aa/aa051701a.htm
"They were legally white but also legally and socially
discriminated against. They were marked white without
ever receiving the benefits of the label. When the
Civil Rights Act came along in 1964, it addressed
discriminated [SIC] based on race and color. Hispanic
groups were still outside of the discussion. In 1976,
Latino civil rights groups (NCLR, LULAC, MALDEF) lobbied
together with various Spanish-speaking groups and got
Public Law 94-311 passed by Congress. This created an
umbrella for 'Americans of Spanish origin or descent'
and mandated that the progress and welfare for this
group be monitored. In 1977, the Office Of Management
And Budget issued Directive 15 - 'Race and Ethnic
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative
Reporting'. This issued in the governmental use of the
word Hispanic and defined it as 'A person of Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other
Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.'"
Much more on the page:
http://www.lasculturas.com/aa/aa051701a.htm
Directive 15, to which he refers, can be found on this
page of the site:
http://www.lasculturas.com/lib/lawOMB15.htm
It notes:
"The category which most closely reflects the individual's
recognition in his community should be used for purposes
of reporting on persons who are of mixed racial and/or
ethnic origins."
[...]
"Self-identification is the preferred means of obtaining
information about an individual's race and ethnicity,
except in instances where observer identification is
more practical (e .g., completing a death certificate)."
[...]
"Definitions
The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics
and program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
a. American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins
in any of the original peoples of North America, and who
maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation
or community recognition.
b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any
of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia,
the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area
includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the
Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial
groups of Africa.
d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
Central or South American or other Spanish culture or
origin, regardless of race.
e. White. A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
[...]
"Utilization for Record keeping and Reporting
To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data
on race and ethnicity separately. If separate race and
ethnic categories are used, the minimum designations are:
a. Race:
-- American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
b. Ethnicity:
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin"
And much, much more.
http://www.lasculturas.com/lib/lawOMB15.htm
If this satisfies your interests in asking the question,
post a Clarification letting me know, and I'll post a
formal answer. If there's more you need to understand,
let me know that, as well.
A user's guide on Clarifications is on skermit-ga's site:
http://www.christopherwu.net/google_answers/answer_guide.html#how_clarify
sublime1-ga