From a fascinating article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:
Because Jews are overrepresented in higher education compared with their share of the U.S. population, Jewish students normally don’t receive preference in admissions.
Yet Franklin Rubinstein and Daniel Sokol, both Jewish, qualified for an
admissions boost at the University of Chicago Law School, where they enrolled in 1998. The reason: Mr. Rubinstein’s mother is Mexican-American and Mr. Sokol was born in Panama, so both applicants legitimately checked themselves off as Hispanics — an underrepresented group.
Mr. Rubinstein, now a Washington attorney, says: “I think affirmative
action is appropriate in the aggregate. It becomes more difficult when you’re looking at particular individuals.”
Well, yes. That’s one way to put it.
The article predicts, safely:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday upholding race preference in admissions is likely to deepen the confusion surrounding who qualifies for affirmative action and why — and to encourage more ethnic, racial and geographic groups to seek preference in both education and the workplace.
Mr. Rubenstein is ethnically a Jew if his Mexican-American mother is a Jewish woman. The ethnicity of his father is irrelevant.
That’s according to Jewish law, anyhow.
There’s no reason one can’t be both Hispanic and a Jew, especially when Hispanic is defined as someone whose ancsetry lies in Spanish-speaking countries.
There’s no reason one can’t be both Hispanic and a Jew, especially when Hispanic is defined as someone whose ancsetry lies in Spanish-speaking countries.