Checking the race box is the fault in our systems

Whether it’s on the US Census or the SAT, many Americans have come across the process of identifying their race and/or ethnic group on a list of boxes with ethnic categories attached to them. For many, checking this box is a black-or-white decision. And that’s what the government and other institutions of the sort claim it to be. However, checking the box can be much more problematic on socioeconomic and individual platforms. One of the most problematic ethnic terms used is the Hispanic/Latino umbrella, for a multitude of reasons ranging from racial profiling to socioeconomic conditions.

In terms of physique, it is very difficult to visually categorize someone who is Hispanic/Latino. Those who identify as such can display any skin color and set of distinctive features.

Culturally, there are many gray areas that question someone’s Hispanic/Latino identity, such as country of birth, cultural upbringing, ancestry, and language.

Socioeconomically, the Hispanic/Latino population in the United States is correlated to having lower incomes and less resources to climb the social ladder.

The usage of the Hispanic and Latino/a terms themselves are problematic. The term “Hispanic” is used to define people of Spanish-speaking origins, while “Latino” (or its gender-neutral form “Latinx”) defines people of Latin American origin. Recently, in the United States, the latter have become more accurate terms for the purpose of including non-Spanish-speaking Latinos, such as Brazilians, and excluding Spaniard immigrants, primarily for similarities in socioeconomic backgrounds.

In my prior experience, there are many conflicts that arise in classifying the Hispanic/Latino umbrella. There are people who are of Latin American ancestry but do not speak Spanish, and thus would be classified as “Latino/a” rather than “Hispanic.” There are also people who grow up in socioeconomic conditions that deviate greatly from the mainstream in the United States, and feel to not have lived the so-called “struggle.” In the United States, I’ve noticed, the definitions of Latino/a and Hispanic are problematic to the point where other Americans become ignorant about all these issues.

Now, it’s easy to see how people can check the Hispanic/Latino box with such facility, even coming from grey areas. A Spaniard can technically identify as Hispanic, and a Brazilian can identify as Latino. From this standpoint, it becomes natural to question the government’s purpose in sending out the Census. Does the government really care about how we self-identify or how we socioeconomically identify? If the answer is the latter, should high-income members identify as well? Nonetheless, isn’t it easy to cheat this system?

In a candid conversation, Dorothy Villarreal, Harvard College ’15, noted: “The key point is the context that is being used in the United States for these categories. Of course people can identify as such for scholarships or other benefits, but are they doing so because it has been their lived experience? Are the check-the-box minorities necessarily minorities in a socioeconomic lens? And how does that play out in the complex world that is so filled with intersecting identities?”

These moral hazards can arise from the categories our government has set out for us. In the end, these classifications come down to subjective opinions, which together form objective definitions of ethnic groups. Over time, as we begin to understand the government’s motives for creating this classifications, which are mostly socioeconomic, we’ll be able to check the box with less faults in the system.