The New York Times reports that elite colleges are wondering if being black is enough to satisfy affirmative action goals. In "Top Colleges Take More Blacks, But Which Ones?", one reads that Harvard and other prestige universities worry that too much of their student diversity is due to "West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples." Reparations looms large, here.
Harvard sociologist (and West Indian native) Orlando Patterson remarks: "The doors are wide open--as wide open as they ever will be--for native-born black middle-class kids to enter elite colleges." But echoing Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, Lani Guinier counters that "colleges and universities are defaulting on their obligation to train and educate a representative group of future leaders." Representative of what? I ask.
To avoid slipping down this rabbit hole of racial representation, take a look at Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man.
Stories like this one reveal the idiocy of the civil-rights ideology, which depends on neat definitions of who is black, who is white, who is properly and deservingly black, etc.
The more people realize how blurred these categories often are, the more the "civil rights" agenda is revealed as unworkable, corrupt, and unreal.