Who Would Claim to Be That, Who Was Not? Evaluations of an Ethnic Validation Procedure

Authors


Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David B. Oxendine, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, P.O. Box 1510, Pembroke, NC 28372. E-mail: david.oxendine@uncp.edu or to Rupert W. Nacoste, Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, 640 Poe Hall, Box 7801, Raleigh, NC 27695-7801. E-mail: rupert_nacoste@ncsu.edu

Abstract

We investigated the fairness implications of a procedure designed to validate ethnic membership. In addition, procedural justifications, or justifications before the procedure were tested as the rationale for the procedure introduced. Of 2 procedural justifications—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the NSF justification was hypothesized as being perceived as more fair. Results showed that procedures designed to validate ethnic membership were evaluated as unfair under most conditions. Additionally, results indicated that procedural justifications influenced evaluations of the degree of fairness of the procedure. Implications for Lumbee American Indian Federal recognition are discussed.

Ancillary