Widely disparate groups with very different indicia of socioeconomic success

From The American Bar Association's Problematic Proposed "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" Rules for Law Schools by David Bernstein.  He has a nice paragraph encapsulating the sheer absurdity of racial categories and identities.  

That raises the obvious question of why, in pursuit of educational diversity, law schools should be using these particular categories as their baseline. The categories themselves are extremely broad, including within them widely disparate groups with very different indicia of socioeconomic success, including in the legal community.

"Hispanics" are underrepresented as attorneys, but are such subgroups as Cuban, Argentine, or Spanish Americans underrepresented? "African Americans" are underrepresented, but is that true of, say, Nigerian Americans, who have among the highest incomes of all American groups? "Asian Americans" overall do very well in educational achievement, but that's primarily because of the success of Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Korean Americans. Are Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Bangladeshi, Pakistani Americans well represented in the American legal profession? I doubt it. In the white category, how many Appalachians wind up as attorneys are legal faculty? Cajuns? Yemeni, Iraqi, and Egyptian Americans (contrary to popular belief, all Arabs are counted as white)? If the ABA is truly concerned about underrepresented ethnic groups, is there a sound reason why someone of Argentine or Spanish descent should be of special interest to law schools because they (justifiably) check the Hispanic box, but not someone of Hmong or Yemini descent?

This goes back to that issue of the individual is not the average and the average is not the individual which can often lead to absurd and even detrimental outcomes.  If racial quotas are all filled with wonderfully qualified and competent Nigerian Americans, has that served any useful purpose?  Was the original intent achieved?  Almost certainly no.  

We do not have any better or more ethical way than to select based on demonstrated competence and measured anticipated capability.  Everything else is less effective and less ethical falling under various headings as favoritism, nepotism, racism, etc.