So as to not hijack WillFarnaby’s GD thread, since he declared it not relevant
The US government (and others) sometimes give preferential treatment to minority*-owned businesses when awarding contracts. There doesn’t seem to be a completely uniform standard, and I see that some agencies/departments rely on some sort of external certification. But in general, the company must be 51% (or more) owned, operated, and controlled by members of a disadvantaged group. With membership (where race or ethnicity is concerned) being defined as having 25% or more of your heritage from some groups.
There’s a lot of fraud here, IME usual around the company not actually being operated by figurehead owners, or acting as a front for subcontractors. But my question is around that 25% heritage requirement.
Who makes that call?
Race and ethnicity are fuzzy social constructs that not everyone agrees on. For government statistics purposes, AFAIK race and ethnicity are entirely self-defined. And I’m guessing that most people would agree about most other people’s race or ethnicity, but there are sometimes cases of disagreement. And when that comes to preferential treatment when awarding government contracts, that disagreement involves money on the table.
That looks pretty self-defined, but I’m wondering if there are any disagreements (“You’re not black/hispanic/whatever”, “yes I am”, “no you’re not”, “am too”, “nuh uh”), and how, if ever, that gets resolved.
*Minority-owned business, women-owned business, Minority Business Enterprise, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise…there are lots of terms used, all complicating searches.