A/HRC/28/81 programmes that seek to improve the position of disadvantaged groups by other means. He noted that although the CERD occasionally used these other terms, especially “affirmative action,” its preference, for the purpose of clarity, was to apply the wording of the Convention. He added that the one term that the Committee definitively rejected was the term “positive discrimination.” This phrase, the Committee has said, is a contradiction in terms, since all racial discrimination is prohibited by the Convention and therefore cannot be “positive.” Mr. Vazquez continued that the term “reverse discrimination” is more complicated and should be used cautiously, if at all. A measure pursued by a State party could in theory amount to reverse discrimination – if it failed to satisfy the conditions set forth in the Convention for using special measures. If a measure does satisfy the Convention’s conditions, then the measure does not amount to discrimination, and hence is not reverse discrimination. 38. With regard to the text of the Convention, special measures are mentioned in two provisions: article 1, section 4, and article 2, section 2. Article 1 defines racial discrimination, which is prohibited by the Convention, and section 4 makes clear that special measures ordinarily do not constitute prohibited racial discrimination. Specifically, article 1, section 4 provides that “Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.” 39. Article 1, section 4 should be understood as a clarification of the definition of “racial discrimination” in article 1, section 1. Section 1 defines racial discrimination as “distinction[s], exclusion[s], restriction[s] or preference[s] based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.” Because special measures sometimes take the form of “preferences” based on race or ethnicity, they might be thought to be barred by article 1, section 1. Section 4, however, makes it clear that such preferences are not barred if they are adopted to secure the adequate advancement of groups requiring such protection, and if other conditions are satisfied. One might think that section 4 is an exception to the broad prohibition of racial discrimination. The Committee, however, views section 4 as instead a clarification of the meaning of section 1. Article 1, section 1 does not prohibit all preferences, but only those preferences “which ha[ve] the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” The Committee elaborated on this definition in its General Recommendation 14, in which it observed that “differentiation of treatment will not constitute discrimination if the criteria for such differentiation, judged against the objectives and purposes of the Convention, are legitimate.” Article 1, section 4 should be understood to clarify that preferences adopted for the purpose of securing the advancement of disadvantaged groups serve a legitimate purpose, and, if they meet the other conditions set forth in Article 1, section 4, they do not violate the Convention. 40. Mr. Vasquez explained the conditions that determine the validity of special measures. Article 1, section 4 refers to special measures taken for the “sole purpose” of securing the advancement of disadvantaged groups. According to the Committee’s General Recommendation 32, the “sole purpose” language “limits the scope of acceptable motivations for special measures within the terms of the Convention.” This raises potentially difficult questions when racial preferences are adopted for multiple purposes. For example, in some countries, racial preferences in university admissions are justified on the ground that it is important for the educational mission to expose students to a diverse range of viewpoints. The achievement of diversity would appear to be a motivation distinct 30