junelsat wrote:MissCongeniality wrote:I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.
Every non- [strike]URM[/strike] legacy applicant, or applicant without the "right" connections, who applies to law school is affected, because there are limited spots and many are filled by [strike]less-qualified[/strike] candidates with the right connections. So its a valid question to ask whether or not [strike]URMs[/strike] legacies or well-connected candidates succeed once at law schools for which they have below-average qualifications, because if so then it would raise questions about the merits of [strike]AA[/strike] people admitted on the basis of having the right connections. Its absurd to claim that all non-[strike]URMs[/strike] legacies ought to ignore the issue.
FWIW, there's not a more loaded word in America than "merit."
This is obviously an affirmative action debate; changing the title is window-dressing. Why pretend otherwise? OP, why not just state your position up front, and then we can discuss it?