The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Chief Justice Roberts in SFFA: "Hispanic" Is an "Arbitrary or Undefined" Classification
In the SFFA affirmative action case, Chief Justice Roberts for the majority, Justice Thomas, concurring, and especially Justice Gorsuch, concurring, argued that in addition to other legal defects in the defendants' affirmative action programs, the classifications used they used for "diversity" purposes were not properly tailored to serve the schools' interest in diversity.
Some of this discussion, especially in Gorsuch's opinion, came directly from the amicus brief filed on my behalf by Cory Liu. Undoubtedly, I'll have more to say about this in the future.
For now, though, I wanted to note Roberts' language. He wrote:
It is far from evident … how assigning students to these racial categories and making admissions decisions based on them furthers the educational benefits that the universities claim to pursue.
For starters, the categories are themselves imprecise in many ways. Some of them are plainly overbroad: by grouping together all Asian students, for instance, respondents are apparently uninterested in whether South Asian or East Asian students are adequately represented, so long as there is enough of one to compensate for a lack of the other. Meanwhile other racial categories, such as "Hispanic," are arbitrary or undefined. [citation omitted] And still other categories are underinclusive. When asked at oral argument "how are applicants from Middle Eastern countries classified, [such as] Jordan, Iraq, Iran, [and] Egypt," UNC's counsel responded, "[I] do not know the answer to that question."
Note the bolded language. I don't know whether Roberts thinks "Hispanic" is an arbitrary classification, an undefined classification, or both. But it strikes me that this language isn't getting the attention it deserves. The Supreme Court essentially held that "Hispanic" is a presumptively illegitimate classification, yet it's used all the time. I would have thought that would be big news.
UPDATE: It's irritating that the Justices continue to refer to the Hispanic classification as a "racial" one, even though it's been an ethnic, not racial classification, since it's creation in 1978. I've explained how this error came about, but in the interests of the sort of precision that Supreme Court opinions are known for, Hispanics are legally defined as an ethnicity who can be of any race. It's especially surprising that Roberts didn't get this right, because the fact that "Hispanic" is the only ethnic classification that is deemed a minority for diversity (and other) purposes strengthens the case for arbitrariness.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I look forward to the gymnastics in which some people will engage in an effort to demonstrate that "religion" is less "arbitrary or undefined" than is "Hispanic," and to the sudden embrace of certain classifications with respect to eligibility for citizenship or other rights in the context of occupied territories.
Carry on, clingers.
How is "religion" arbitrary? It means a belief system based on the dictates of an alleged god or gods.
Is superstition -- belief in supernatural nonsense -- an essential element of religion?
Artie: "Is... belief in supernatural nonsense [] an essential element of religion?"
That's certainly why we consider you to be religious, Reverend.
The beliefs of you and your ilk in the Church of Woke are entirely irrational.
Look at you and your essentialism, AIDS! I’d have thought you’d be more progressive, more in accord with science, and the ‘modern’ America than that!
Just kidding, AIDS: your cultish ethico-political dogmas are equally irrational, and they will most probably die off within your lifetime. (It must be hard for you to live with the fact that everything you've ever deeply cared about, everything you thought was going to drive a better world, is not only going to crash and burn, but also seen as foolish and inferior by future generations.)
AIDS, are you also claiming, here and now, that you believe that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the last prophet of the true god, either believed in supernatural nonsense, or at least claimed to do so knowing it was nonsense?
Are you calling the Prophet either delusional or a liar?
NO, it NEVER meant that. A theist is not a religious person, just someone who knows there is a Creator, or that there is ONE GOD .
So you are doubly wrong.
There's no gymnastics necessary. The constitution protects the right of people to worship as they see fit. As in free *exercise.* It doesn't purport to validate their beliefs.
I’m writing about my experiences growing up as a trans Muslim of Afroeurasian descent.
I'd think crypto-Judaism would be more fitting...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Judaism
Bernie Sanders might be a crypto-Jew. Speaking of Bernie, the only way MMT would work would be for it to be done secretly by a cabal of people holding themselves out as orthodox Keynesians. So I would hope everyone would agree now that overt MMT would result in out of control inflation and so the only way it would work is to do it covertly by focusing on one issue at a time. And the first issue to solve with MMT would be reparations to descendants of American slaves. Btw, Bush Republicans are pretty obviously secret MMTers and broke it out for the GWOT and tax cuts and Medicare prescription benefit.
Nah. He'd never be able to pass himself off as anything other than a grumpy old Jewish grandpa.
He’s a fake Jew.
Which beliefs?
Is belief that fairy tales are true required?
What about old-timey bigotry?
Silly dogma?
Not sure what you’re going on about exactly, but the court ruled unanimously https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-948.ZO.html that
“The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions…
Our review confirms that the laws in question were enacted by officials who did not understand, failed to perceive, or chose to ignore the fact that their official actions violated the Nation’s essential commitment to religious freedom.”
That case involved:
“practices of the Santeria religion, which originated in the nineteenth century…. The Cuban Yoruba express their devotion to spirits, called orishas….
The Santeria faith teaches that every individual has a destiny from God, a destiny fulfilled with the aid and energy of the orishas. The basis of the Santeria religion is the nurture of a personal relation with the orishas, and one of the principal forms of devotion is an animal sacrifice.
According to Santeria teaching, the orishas are powerful but not immortal. They depend for survival on the sacrifice. Sacrifices are performed at birth, marriage, and death rites, for the cure of the sick, for the initiation of new members and priests, and during an annual celebration. Animals sacrificed in Santeria rituals include chickens, pigeons, doves, ducks, guinea pigs, goats, sheep, and turtles.”
Gandy shows the mental defect (for lack of a better word) in making his views not religious and everybody else's religious. Look at the SCOTUS ruling that an atheist can have a conscientous objector status, something that irritates Gandy because it equates conscience to religion, which of course is the Jewish and Christian view and the view of mainstream Western Thought in the LOGOS
Boys, boys! You're both right. Cultural anthropologists have noted the decline in religiosity in Europe tracks the rise in government doing the things religion does, sick, poor, hospitals, orphans, etc.
And perhaps the very first known reference to Christianity outside the Bible was a guy noting how glowingly the masses looked on Christians, helping the sick, not caring for themselves, and how seductive that was to growing.
It's ironic that outlawing religion from having the brass ring of power to enforce its will is leading to tbe exact same thing developing, just swapping "for God" with "for The People".
As if that isn't enough, hold onto your pants!
Modern "woke" has now adopted the shittiest aspects of religion in seeking dominance.
1. If you aren't with us, you are against us -- no one sits on the sidelines
2. Social ostracism for people of different beliefs...because they get in the way of your good works!
3. Taking legal control over everyone to enforce your religious points. Live and let live? How little we knew ye.
There's others I cannot recall at the moment, but the point is both sides suck. Whoever thought of applying these ancient techniques of religion to a modern political movement was a genius. And, because the evil of religion was doing this, an evil genius.
Fortunately, the Constitution forbids the government to classify people by their religion and then distribute benefits on that basis.
Snowflake-class privileges -- to discriminate against others, to avoid discrimination by others -- are most certainly distributed by classification with respect to religion.
False. But congrats: you hijacked yet another thread with your pathetic trolling.
Some believers are more equal than others.
So far, anyway.
As old-timey religion continues to diminish (with its sidecar, bigotry) as a factor in modern American life, that seems destined to change. Moral beliefs that are not rooted in nonsense and superstition will receive increasing respect, I sense, as America continues to improve.
THe rev's lack of knowledge is always what first grabs my eye
He takes a-theist to be a rational position and doesn't realize that means theism must be too !!! If reason can pass on 'Not X' it must be able to pass on X, most basically because Rev refuses to define that X, for he knows it sinks his argument.
‘Some believers are more equal than others’.
That is, indeed, what so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ have always believed about themselves. This is, in part, because they’ve never had the courage or intellectual ability to scrutinize their own norms, let alone come to grips with those norms' REAL grounds. After all, you keep espousing them even though you yourself have been demonstrably shown to not actually believe their entailments yourself.
Your ethico-political ideologu will also fade from the earth, given the immanent loss of Western and American hegemony.
Your (version of the) cult of equality will die to. It’s not rational, irrefutable common sense, or some ‘biological fact’ that equality (a socially constructed norm) is true or rational. (Indeed, ‘improvement’ by which metrics, AIDS? Your socially constructed, contingent moral dogmas? Choose reason, AIDS; your moral norms aren’t self-validating or self-grounding.
As you nonetheless continue to push your totalitarian agenda to try to re-engineer America’s social and moral norms (blindly, without any credible, empirically-grounded knowledge or skill set), you will be made to realize the cost when it comes to your loved ones’ own safety and security. For there’s very little doubt that your American betters will Breivik them.
On the other hand, AIDS, it’s you who wishes to import countless millions of Muslims into the United States -- despite being 'Islamophobic' yourself. Their belief system and culture is much stronger than yours, however, and they have many more children than your American domestics. So, what reason do you have to think that ‘old-time religion’ will continue to diminish? You think the Muslims are all dumb and aren't fully aware that YOU aim to both ‘nudge’ their children towards secularism and to destroy Islam? That portion of your lot which isn’t going to be Breiviked by your American betters, is merely going to be outbred and replaced by people with a stronger, more successful value system than yours.
Carry on, AIDS. Your irrational, hypocritical cult is dying, even if you're too obtuse to see it.
Prof. Bernstein, can you tell the IRS that?
Mucho thanks!
Oh?
Can you list any benefit the IRS gives to religions, but not to anyone else?
And no, non-profit status is neither restricted to religions nor is religion sufficient to get it.
Not Gentle or Kind, of course with the "Reverend" Jerry Sandusky what would you expect??
One refers to a belief system. The other is regularly employed to a race, an ethnicity, AND/OR a linguistic group. For example, under some (regular) usages, two Spanish speakers are categorized as ‘Hispanic’ when one person is of wholly Iberian descent, whilst the other is Aztec.
The mental gymnastics involved in pointing out the obvious are, of course, awesome to AIDS, because he has the mental acuity of an chicken with its head cut off.
Carry on, Breiviked-to-be.
Is "White-Hispanic" ala George Zimmerman still a classification?
It is for FBI most wanted data.
Wijkipedia: "Classification of Hispanics
The UCR classifies most Hispanics into the "white" category. The NCVS classifies some Hispanic criminals as "white" and some as "other race". ...
The FBI did not include a "Latino" or "Hispanic" category until the Uniform Crime Report for 2013,[43] and 93% of Hispanics are classified as "white" by law enforcement officers (irrespective of their ancestry), often inflating the amount of crimes attributed to whites.[44]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Small (funny) typo.
Justice Thomas, concussing
Probably mean: concurring.
(On the other hand, reading his opinions and following his legal reasoning does injure my brain. So . . . .) 🙂
Ah the signature leftist racism creeping out when minorities don't stay on the plantation like they're supposed to.
Did you intend to respond to me? Or, to some other poster???
He did.
Amos thinks the only reason someone could dislike Thomas is racism.
Amos plays the race card as profligately as any social justice warrior, if somehow with even more ham handedness.
Not "someone". He noted that it was a leftist tic.
David, although you forgot to say it.
"You're welcome." 🙂
Nothing wrong with being needy.
That is odd. I wonder if Roberts has a colleague who can educate him on this matter.
Roberts does not need an education on this point, since Bernstein is getting it wrong and you were simply not perceptive enough to notice that.
Roberts does NOT say that "Hispanic" is an illegitimate classification. He says that the category "Hispanic" AS USED BY HARVARD AND UNC when "measur[ing] the racial composition of their classes " is "arbitrary or undefined".
If you check your census data and the CFPB guidelines on mortgage processing, Hispanic is optional and totally up to the person claiming it.
"The Supreme Court essentially held that "Hispanic" is a presumptively illegitimate classification, yet it's used all the time. I would have thought that would be big news."
Nah, it didn't hold that. It's dicta. And probably not even that. It will disappear completely once Roberts decides in some future case that the voting rights act mandates creation of majority-Hispanic districts because he finally figured out that computer models something something.
Your second paragraph is snarky garbage, but you are absolutely right that this is dictum. It isn't in any way necessary to Roberts' ultimate resolution of the case.
I only wrote one paragraph.
Rather hilariously, Roberts *himself* used the term in an opinion he wrote 2 weeks (!) earlier. Page 20-21 here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
"In Bush v. Vera, a plurality of the Court again explained how traditional districting criteria limited any tendency of the VRA to compel proportionality. The case concerned Texas’s creation of three additional majority-minority districts. 517 U. S., at 957. Though the districts brought the State closer to proportional representation, we nevertheless held that they constituted racial gerrymanders in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. That was because the districts had “no integrity in terms of traditional, neutral redistricting criteria.” Id., at 960. One of the majority-black districts consisted “of narrow and bizarrely shaped tentacles.” Id., at 965. The proposed majority-Hispanic district resembled “a sacred Mayan bird” with “[s]pindly legs reach[ing] south” and a “plumed head ris[ing] northward.” Id., at 974.
The point of all this is a simple one. Forcing proportional representation is unlawful and inconsistent with this Court’s approach to implementing §2. The numbers bear the point out well. At the congressional level, the fraction of districts in which black-preferred candidates are likely to win “is currently below the Black share of the eligible voter population in every state but three.” Brief for Professors Jowei Chen et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (Chen Brief ). Only one State in the country, meanwhile, “has attained a proportional share” of districts in which Hispanic-preferred candidates are likely to prevail. Id., at 3–4. That is because as residential segregation decreases—as it has “sharply” done since the 1970s—satisfying traditional districting criteria such as the compactness requirement “becomes more difficult.” T. Crum, Reconstructing Racially Polarized Voting, 70 Duke L. J. 261, 279, and n. 105 (2020)."
"Rather hilariously, Roberts *himself* used the term in an opinion he wrote 2 weeks (!) earlier."
He uses the term repeatedly in SFFA v Harvard, so there's no need to go back two weeks, but it's not in the slightest bit hilarious if you don't make the same mistake Bernstein does.
E.g., "... the use of these opaque racial categories undermines, instead of promotes, respondents’ goals. By focusing on underrepresentation, respondents would apparently prefer a class with 15% of students from Mexico over a class with 10% of students from several Latin American countries, simply because the former contains more Hispanic students than the latter."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/20-1199/
What Roberts actually says is, "...THE UNIVERSITIES measure the RACIAL composition of their classes using the following categories: (1) Asian; (2) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; (3) Hispanic; (4) White; (5) African-American; and (6) Native American." It is this usage, BY THE UNIVERSITIES, that Roberts declares " arbitrary or undefined", not any use of the term at all.
It’s the exact same classification used in other affirmative action contexts, in the Census, etc. one can argue that it’s les arbitrary in, say, lending discrimination law,” but it’s no more or less “undefined.”
That's not how he used it in Milligan.
It's not dicta. Roberts' criticism of this one of the universities' "racial" categories as ”arbitrary or undefined” is very much part of why he concludes that their process is illegal. Any similarly defined "Hispanic" category sought to be considered ”arbitrary or undefined” by any lower court.
The entire racial classification system we use is pretty arbitrary. Yeah it roughly corresponds to geography but on what other basis let alone job and educational preferences should Chinese be classed with Indonesian and French be classed with Romanian? A lot of these subgroups have more in common with subgroups from other races than they do with subgroups in their own race.
You mean you don't see the fundamental distinction between pacific Islanders and non-Pacific Islanders which pervades the entire cosmos?
But seriously, this from Gorsuch was probably the most epic throwdown of the entire decision. Between that and his opinion in Elenis, he seems to have lost patience with her lecturing.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1199#CONCUR_6-2
"These classifications rest on incoherent stereotypes. Take the “Asian” category. It sweeps into one pile East Asians (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) and South Asians (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), even though together they constitute about 60% of the world’s population. Bernstein Amicus Brief 2, 5. This agglomeration of so many peoples paves over countless differences in “language,” “culture,” and historical experience. Id., at 5–6. It does so even though few would suggest that all such persons share “similar backgrounds and similar ideas and experiences.” Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 579 U. S. 365, 414 (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting). Consider, as well, the development of a separate category for “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.” It seems federal officials disaggregated these groups from the “Asian” category only in the 1990s and only “in response to political lobbying.” Bernstein Amicus Brief 9–10. And even that category contains its curiosities. It appears, for example, that Filipino Americans remain classified as “Asian” rather than “Other Pacific Islander.” See 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 1732.
The remaining classifications depend just as much on irrational stereotypes. The “Hispanic” category covers those whose ancestral language is Spanish, Basque, or Catalan—but it also covers individuals of Mayan, Mixtec, or Zapotec descent who do not speak any of those languages and whose ancestry does not trace to the Iberian Peninsula but bears deep ties to the Americas. See Bernstein Amicus Brief 10– 11. The “White” category sweeps in anyone from “Europe, Asia west of India, and North Africa.” Id., at 14. That includes those of Welsh, Norwegian, Greek, Italian, Moroccan, Lebanese, Turkish, or Iranian descent. It embraces an Iraqi or Ukrainian refugee as much as a member of the British royal family. Meanwhile, “Black or African American” covers everyone from a descendant of enslaved persons who grew up poor in the rural South, to a first-generation child of wealthy Nigerian immigrants, to a Black-identifying applicant with multiracial ancestry whose family lives in a typical American suburb. See id., at 15–16.
If anything, attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time. American families have become increasingly multicultural, a fact that has led to unseemly disputes about whether someone is really a member of a certain racial or ethnic group. There are decisions denying Hispanic status to someone of Italian-Argentine descent, Marinelli Constr. Corp. v. New York, 200 App. Div. 2d 294, 296–297, 613 N. Y. S. 2d 1000, 1002 (1994), as well as someone with one Mexican grandparent, Major Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Erie County, 134 App. Div. 2d 872, 873, 521 N. Y. S. 2d 959, 960 (1987). Yet there are also decisions granting Hispanic status to a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors fled Spain centuries ago, In re Rothschild-Lynn Legal & Fin. Servs., SBA No. 499, 1995 WL 542398, *2–*4 (Apr. 12, 1995), and bestowing a “sort of Hispanic” status on a person with one Cuban grandparent, Bernstein, 94 S. Cal. L. Rev., at 232 (discussing In re Kist Corp., 99 F. C. C. 2d 173, 193 (1984)).
Given all this, is it any surprise that members of certain groups sometimes try to conceal their race or ethnicity? Or that a cottage industry has sprung up to help college applicants do so? We are told, for example, that one effect of lumping so many people of so many disparate backgrounds into the “Asian” category is that many colleges consider “Asians” to be “overrepresented” in their admission pools. Brief for Asian American Coalition for Education et al. as Amici Curiae 12–14, 18–19. Paid advisors, in turn, tell high school students of Asian descent to downplay their heritage to maximize their odds of admission. “ ‘We will make them appear less Asian when they apply,’ ” one promises. Id., at 16. “ ‘If you’re given an option, don’t attach a photograph to your application,’ ” another instructs. Ibid.1 It is difficult to imagine those who receive this advice would find comfort in a bald (and mistaken) assurance that “race-conscious admissions benefit . . . the Asian American community,” post, at 60 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). See 397 F. Supp. 3d, at 178 (district court finding that “overall” Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy “results in fewer Asian American[s]” being admitted). And it is hard not to wonder whether those left paying the steepest price are those least able to afford it—children of families with no chance of hiring the kind of consultants who know how to play this game."
Someone should write a book about it.
Oh it's all fun and games now, but wait until the NYTimes, or worse Vox or the HuffPost writes an explainer on the Zionist professor behind the end of Affirmative Action as we know it.
I'm sure they'll lay it out how you have the same paymasters, someone who once contributed to George Mason also provided funding for some symposium that some supreme court justice got an honorarium for speaking at.
And of course nobody writes books that disagree with fundamental parts of the social consensus unless it's for the money.
"For now, though, I waned to note Roberts' language. He wrote:"
Typo: wanted.
Since you can't say it, "Thanks Jason."
You're welcome, David.
In the abstract, David's views are easily defended, but where I live, there are Spanish speakers and English speakers, and they live in different housing, come from very different places, and are mostly headed for different places, even the children.
You don't need to speak a word of Spanish to classify as Hispanic. So if anything, your observation proves the very point David has been making for a while.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/14/how-well-do-you-know-americas-racial-classification-system-first-of-a-series/
My point is that some classification is appropriate. Perhaps it should be "households where the adults mostly speak Spanish".
Some federal agencies used to use "Spanish-language households." It was one of a dozen or so ways federal agencies described people with spanish-speaking ancestry, all of which got consolidated into the new Hispanic classification in 1977-78, the underlying purpose of which was to make the classifications uniform for data collection (rather than precise for policy-making).
thanks
My wife grew up in a Khmer speaking household, and her mother spent her teenage years as a slave laborer in a Khmer Rouge death camp.
But if my wife had been Harvard material that would have given her negative points in Harvard's admissions scheme.
Now as it happens my wife has dropped out of school in middle school to help her mother sell street food, so she wasn't able to assume the life of privilege her asian heritage entitled her too.
According to the Wokeists she has ineradicable Yellow Privilege just the same.
No question, the odds are "Slanted" against the Asians.
I have heard the same pilpul in terms of Judaism being a religion and not a race. I disagree. My E - M-34 Y haplogroup has been an endogamous and distinctly Jewish clan for approximately 19 thousand years. J1 and J 2 appear in similar frequencies as distinctly Jewish. There is a major ashkenazi frequency as U8 or K on the mitochondrial or maternal MtDNA side.
A story as an aside. I used to be a homebuilder that sold VA and FHA mortgages and so I had to be part of the National HOW (Home Owners Warranty) program. I got called in one day to an office at the County building to ask how I would insure a healthy ethnic mix in my subdivision. Now understand I was carrying heavy bank loans back then and was under a lot of stress. I told the woman, who happened to be an older black lady , that my plan was to sell the houses to the first person who gave me the money, regardless of their color. Black, brown, yellow, white, it didn't matter as long as the money was green. "No, no, no she said, you have to hold houses back and ensure a proper mixture." I looked at her and asked her what the current black population was in California. She said something like 14%. I asked her what the Jewish percentage was? She said 3%. I then asked her then why we didn't qualify as a minority and her answer floored me and was something I will never forget - "because you got all the money."
"I disagree. My E – M-34 Y haplogroup has been an endogamous and distinctly Jewish clan for approximately 19 thousand years."
Are you just stupid, or are you a fiction-writing bot?
No, whatever the fuck you're even trying to talk about has not been a Jewish anything for 19 thousand years.
^^^^^ Jason is just stupid. Don't use words he doesn't understand. It makes him angry.
19,000 years.
Do you know what year it is currently?
Jews existed more than 17,000 years before Judaism? No, they did not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
Every time I un-mute you to see if you've said anything intelligent, I'm reminded of your inability to do so.
JFC you're dangerously moronic.
H. sapiens originated in Africa more than 315,000 years ago. MY answer to the religion vs race question is “both”, and I take no position on whether there was any detectable seed of the specified haplogroup 19k years ago since historic genetic fluidity is not an area in which I have any knowledge. But I doubt you have any either. The choleric nature of your reaction is very much in evidence, however, and not just on this occasion. Jesus fucking Christ, you’re a jackass.
You have a filthy mouth, which doesn't 'speak' well for your mind
You're all wrong, since Jay-Hey created the Universe some 5,000 years ago, no way Jews are older than that...
Except that Jay-Hey is Jewish, so he's a "Legacy Jew"
Frank
Hmmm... Let's see:
We are in the year 2023 after the birth of Jesus. You seem to date Jewish existence from the birth of Jesus. You're badly confused.
What number is right next to 7, that would have been supported by the link provided?
Did you consider the possibility of a typo?
That is pretty stupid Jason to date the Jews from Christ. And then get so indignant to call him dangerously moronic.
Try reading, then think a little, before reacting.
"My E – M-34 Y haplogroup has been an endogamous and distinctly Jewish clan for approximately 19 thousand years."
By genetic analysis they can say that has been a specific sub-population for 19,000 years whatever their clan religious tradition was before the 6000 years Bishop Usher ascribed to Jewish written history.
As I explained to Ed, immediately above your comment, I meant to type 16,000. See the link I provided above regarding the history of ancient Israel and Judah.
"...an office at the County building..."
"...a healthy ethnic mix..."
"[Y]ou have to hold houses back and ensure a proper mixture."
Government social engineering is inappropriate. It is not the government's job to ensure "a healthy ethnic mix," "a proper mixture," or anything of the sort.
"...an older black lady..."
“[B]ecause you got all the money.”
What ends up happening is: people in charge of "ensuring a healthy ethnic mix" arbitrarily award special benefits to their favored groups, while discriminating against their disfavored groups.
cf. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
"To accomplish both of those goals, in turn, the universities measure the racial composition of their classes using the following categories: (1) Asian; (2) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; (3) Hispanic; (4) White; (5) African-American; and (6) Native American."
Homer didn't nod; Ulysses did.
Incidentally, κατα-γορειν -- the latter from αγορα (agora), marketplace, common place. How the commons would describe the thing in question. From a primitive PIE root for common sheepfold, I think.
/procrastination
Mr. D.
I thought David's book "Classified" was a devastating critique of our current program of racial classification, but let's look deeper.
What purpose are we trying to achieve with our "racial classifications" for college admissions? Do we (as a political community) care about how many Chinese Americans vs. Pakistani Americans are admitted to Harvard or UNC? No. What we care about -- and what we should care about -- is how many Black Americans are admitted.
Why? The ancestors of Black Americans were taken prisoner (by other Africans in most cases) centuries ago, sold to White traders, and brought to America in chains, where they were sold into bondage.
Eventually, we fought a civil war to free their descendants from slavery (we should be PROUD of that), but then we allowed the freed slaves to be subjected to oppression and denial of human rights for another century (we should be ASHAMED of that).
Do we White, Black, and Other Americans owe something to the descendants of those slaves? I say Yes. And we can debate what and how we should pay that debt.
Do we owe the same debt to the descendants of others who came here voluntarily? Or do we owe a different debt to different people?
I say: Let's decide what we owe to the descendants of the African slaves. And then deal with other groups as appropriate.