> Well this argument is pretty disturbing… besides the tiny and very neat island of abstract and platonic constructs every concepts about the real world are fuz

> Well this argument is pretty disturbing… besides the tiny and very neat island of abstract and platonic constructs every concepts about the real world are fuzzy. If someone followed your idea completely he could not use such concepts as “green” or “blue”, or even more relevantly, such an argument can also be applied to the concept of “species”. What's so disturbing about that? Species are also on a continuum. I think there's a popsci piece about certain lizards in California that inhabit a horseshoe shaped habitat. If your abstraction is wrong, change your abstraction. > I also find this assertion… strange to say the least. Historically people have had horrible things happen to them due to what race they were classified in. Now let's use those classifications to create a diverse campus, thus ensuring the continuation of the racial classification system? If you want a bunch of people who think differently, and you're a university, there should be a more direct way to do this than using some classifier that's both biased and has negative historical connotations. Here's a couple of ways: interview the students to assess their thinking. You're a university right? The kind of place where thinking people go to practice thinking. Number two is a lottery. You want a representative sample? There you go. > ...some of those biological differences could lead to behavioural differences... If I want basketball players, should I recruit in the Netherlands, where people are really tall, or should I just recruit people who are good at basketball?