.

.


Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission

:: Netmarcos' Notes ::

Musings and rambling commentary on current events, politics, music, and other cultural issues mixed with a few personal references.
:: welcome to Netmarcos' Notes :: bloghome | contact ::
[:: (re)search ::]
:: google ::
:: Dog Pile::
:: Charters of Freedom ::
:: ThomasPaine.org ::
[:: news and opinion ::]
:: Opinion Journal ::
:: National Review Online ::
:: FOX ::
:: MSNBC ::
:: World Net Daily ::
:: The Drudge Report::
:: InstaPundit ::
[:: blogosphere ::]
:: Day by Day Cartoon ::
:: James Lileks ::
:: ScrappleFace ::
:: Moxie ::
:: The Dissident Frogman::
:: Insignificant Thoughts::
:: Dave Barry ::
[:: España ::]
:: Atlas of Spain ::
:: EL MUNDO ::
:: DIALNET::Búsqueda de articulos científicos en español
:: Prestige: exigimos responsabilidades
[:: archive ::]

:: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 ::

This Peter Kirsanow article concerning the recent Supreme Court decision on Racial Preferences in college admissions in the National Review Online brings up some obvious, but often ignored by products of such a policy.
Yes, we know that the Supreme Court permits selective colleges to award a 'plus' to black, Hispanic, and Native-American applicants. But just who, exactly, qualifies as black, Hispanic, or Native American?
Absurd Supreme Court decisions can produce seemingly absurd questions. But as silly as the above query sounds, it's one courts have wrestled with for much of our history, particularly during the Jim Crow era. Fortunately, those days are gone. But now the Grutter case has once again revived the distasteful relevance of racial identification.


:: Mark 5:50 PM [+] ::
...
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?