As the U.S. presidential and congressional elections approach, a number of key political races are shaping up across the country. One of the most intriguing competitions pits Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., against Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren. This campaign for Ted Kennedy’s old seat has already turned out to be the most expensive Senate race in the nation. But a recent distraction has refocused the attention from the rivals’ political views to Warren’s ancestry.

The Democratic challenger to Brown has recently come under fire for allegedly claiming minority status at various institutions to advance her career, despite being only 1/32nd Native American. Both Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania listed Warren as a minority faculty member in official publications during her tenure at the respective institutions in the 1980s and 1990s. The Brown campaign and the Native American Rights Fund have publicly questioned Warren’s ability to list herself as a minority employee. Although the extent to which Warren benefited from her great, great, great-grandmother’s Native American descent benefited her when she was being considered for teaching jobs at elite universities, there are a few lessons to learn from this ongoing fiasco.

First and foremost, this incident should serve as an opportunity for us to consider the state of affirmative action policies in the United States. Ethnic and racial identity is more complex than can be reflected by simply checking off a box. According to the latest Census data, the multiracial population among American children has increased by almost 50 percent to 4.2 million people over 10 years. This vast increase makes children identifying as multiracial the fastest growing racial group among youths in the country.

But this changing demographic also raises important questions about the wisdom of continuing policies that emphasize race as the main determining factor in affirmative action programs that attempt to assess a lack of opportunity for certain groups of people. Opponents and supporters of affirmative action alike ought to come together to acknowledge the shifting makeup of our population and the implications of such changes. We must ask ourselves what the standard for allowing prospective students and educators to claim membership in a minority group should be. This is an important question, and it is one that will only grow in importance as the country’s racial demographics continue to become more loosely defined.

This episode also should push each of us to consider the major cultural influences in our lives and what makes these influences an integral part of who we are and how we are treated. Warren claims that she feels closely tied to Native American traditions and lore. As the topic has been thrust into the spotlight, she has explained that she is “very proud of [her] heritage.” For the moment, let’s assume that Warren’s Native American ancestry has had a significant impact on her life. If so, maybe she should be granted special consideration for employment under affirmative action programs.

But even if we agree with Warren’s claims that she associates with Native American culture, and if we believe that she should receive benefits that are meant to remedy the historical mistreatment of Native Americans, where do we draw the cutoff between who is and who is not a member of a racial or ethnic group? If a person is 1/64th or even 1/132nd Native American, can they identify as being a part of the Native American population and claim the benefits that may come with that identification? There’s a hazy line when it comes to determining whether or not individuals should be considered members of an ethnic or racial group that constitutes only a small percentage of their heritage. Consequently, it remains unclear what benefits should be afforded to these individuals.

In light of the recent controversy surrounding Warren, we need to reflect on the role our affirmative action policies are having on employment opportunities and society as a whole. If it was okay at one time to give preference to narrowly defined racial groups, is it still appropriate given our country’s changing demographics? We should not be placing the burden of defending their pedigree as a member of a specific race onto people like Warren. This is the very problem that affirmative action was originally created to end.