这个是在反对 AA 的律师质问下，美国最高法院的大法官拍案定义的范畴。

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in her pro-AA opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), famously stated that “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved today.”

When affirmative action should end, we’ll all know it should end.

Only a generation ago for many of us, the idea of someone being a doctor or lawyer wasn’t realistic; it was an almost completely alien idea for our parents and an almost a complete uncertainty for our grandparents. Diversity is codeword now for affirmative action, but it’s more than that. It’s often mocked, but it’s an ideal that a truly free country, the people at the top will match the people in society. If that discrepancy isn’t fixed, it’s a clear stain on the idea that all men are created equal. How can we as a people proclaim that America is free land of equal opportunity if people of darker skin are continually worse economically and socially?

换种说法就是：当华人为名牌大学里面，华男不够多而愤慨的时候，也可以想想：为什么大法官里面还没有华裔？为什么五星上将里面还没有华裔？为什么CEO里面还很少有华裔？而即使增加名校里面华男的比例，是否会改变 the people at the top 的构成？到底是哪个比例增多，更公平？At the top, which skin color is the most dominant one and a synonym for "success"?

至于为什么仅限于高等教育和政府合同，可以看下面一个著名案例：

http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/znjy/3334578.html?