Mark – This is rapidly becoming angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff, because Congress will never, ever, pass such laws. And I agree that, traditionally, the real argument for preferences hinges on “historically aggrieved groups” or whatever the buzz phrase is today. But that logic is already evaporating, which is why the Bollinger crowd has been arguing for making “diversity” an educational tool in and of itself for years now and plenty of judges have bought this line. Indeed, elite colleges have been “importing” African blacks for years to keep their minority numbers high. And, in fairness, if the criterion is “diversity” then there’s no logical reason not to include immigrants, who will likely be poor and will actually provide some real diversity of thought (which should be the only diversity that counts anyway). I’d be delighted if we could move the argument back to historical grievances because that would undermine the case for all sorts of preferences today. But the diversity-is-everything crowd won’t let itself be cornered that way.