The One-Drop Rule Revisited
The One-Drop Rule Revisited
By Michael Bertolone
In the post-Reconstruction era of the late 19th century, a disgusting and disgraceful practice was put into place in the American South as a key component of the Jim Crow anti-black laws. The practice was “The One-Drop Rule”. In other words, if a person's genetic heritage contained just a trace of black ancestry (“one drop of black blood”), the person would be considered black under the law, and subject to the harshly restrictive “Jim Crow” discriminatory laws.
Recent developments in technology and the availability of DNA testing for the general public have thrown a wrench into racial and ethnic classifications, which presents a quandary for professional diversity/affirmative action advocates, government organizations, and employers. The argument could and should be made that since the One-Drop rule penalized and oppressed individuals with trace amounts of minority ancestry, it should now work in favor of those who discover they have even trace amounts of such ancestry.
DNA technology provides a high-tech strategy for civil disobedience. For example, if a person’s DNA results indicate even a trace of ancestry from the “Iberian peninsula” (Spain), they could check the ‘Latino/Hispanic” box under application of the one-drop rule. The federal government defines Hispanic or Latino as “A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.”
The ‘white’ racial category was solidified as in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the implementation of affirmative action practices which followed. ‘White’ was therefore defined as: (Not Hispanic or Latino) A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa. Strangely, ethnic groups that were considered other than white or not fully white (and were routinely discriminated against and sometimes lynched) were now included in this catch-all definition of “whiteness”. These groups included Jews, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans and others not of Northern European or Protestant stock. What an amazing metamorphosis! These groups immediately had their historical status changed from the oppressed to “oppressors of people of color” with the stroke of a pen.
To make matters worse, it was now legal to deny these ethnic ‘whites’ opportunities through the operation of affirmative action policies. After all, a ‘white’ hiring manager can’t discriminate against another ‘white’, as defined by the EEOC.
I submit that the inclusion of ethnic ‘whites’ under the aggregate ‘white’ category was a deliberate calculation, rather than purely circumstantial. Just as the insurance industry expands risks pools in order to reduce liability, the old-money designers of affirmative action sought to limit the legal exposure of families that actually owned slaves. The descendants of these powerbrokers would never have to stand aside for college admission or job opportunities. That would be the burden of newly-minted (1964) ‘white’ ethnics, who lack family connections to universities and the prestigious white-collar positions i the corporate world.
If DNA testing provides a justification for ethnic whites to claim minority status, I say go for it. Any trace of ‘Iberian peninsula’ DNA ancestry, for example, provides justification under the one-drop rule to ‘check the Hispanic box’ on college and employment applications. And that one act of civil disobedience may eventually lead to the collapse of the discriminatory policy of affirmative action under under its own weight. Perhaps at that point, we will finally evaluate individuals based solely on the content of their character and the qualifications they bring to the table.
Originally published by American Thinker on February 14, 2018