Any "fortunate" URM's Forum

[r2b2ct]

So far a lot of people seem to be taking it for granted that the purpose (or the only possible justifiable purpose) of URM boosts is either (1) to provide equal access to institutions of higher education for people from lower social status or (2) to counteract specific forms and/or acts of racism as they affect someone's access to higher education. I don't think either of these is an adequate explanation. URM boosts are intended to increase the representation of underrepresented groups. The point is that proportional representation of racial groups is a desirable and worthwhile end itself. Acknowledgement of the negative influences of racism and socio-economic discrimination are certainly related to the rationale of the boosts (at least insofar as they cause the unequal representation), but the boosts are not necessarily intended to be specifically tailored to suppress or counteract these influences. I think it is clear that a major component of the rationale is that racial diversity is important and desirable.

[excelsiorcaelo]

I think it is clear that a major component of the rationale is that racial diversity is important and desirable.

I agree. However, at what point, if ever, does the value of diversity become subordinate to the value of meritocracy? For example, the Harvard Law Review reserves several spots for diversity purposes each year. Is this appropriate? My initial feeling is that, if you're already at HLS, and you're entering a completely blind meritocratic application process for the Law Review, ethnicity should not be a factor. Let the best writers win.

That being said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of arguments to the contrary, although I hope there's more to it than the idea that diversity simply trumps all other values.

Caveat: I finished the competition less than a week ago, so it's very possible that my feelings are distorted by my desire to come out on top.

[DavidYurman85]

I think it is clear that a major component of the rationale is that racial diversity is important and desirable.

I agree. However, at what point, if ever, does the value of diversity become subordinate to the value of meritocracy? For example, the Harvard Law Review reserves several spots for diversity purposes each year. Is this appropriate? My initial feeling is that, if you're already at HLS, and you're entering a completely blind meritocratic application process for the Law Review, ethnicity should not be a factor. Let the best writers win.

That being said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of arguments to the contrary, although I hope there's more to it than the idea that diversity simply trumps all other values.

Caveat: I finished the competition less than a week ago, so it's very possible that my feelings are distorted by my desire to come out on top.

I agree to an extent.

I mean the same argument could be made for law firm diversity - if a student attends a top law school, presumably they should be able to to compete on their own merit. I don't know much about Harvard's Law Review process, but like many law firms, maybe these spots are allotted to mitigate discrimination in employment or on the HLR.

[excelsiorcaelo]

I think it is clear that a major component of the rationale is that racial diversity is important and desirable.

I agree. However, at what point, if ever, does the value of diversity become subordinate to the value of meritocracy? For example, the Harvard Law Review reserves several spots for diversity purposes each year. Is this appropriate? My initial feeling is that, if you're already at HLS, and you're entering a completely blind meritocratic application process for the Law Review, ethnicity should not be a factor. Let the best writers win.

That being said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of arguments to the contrary, although I hope there's more to it than the idea that diversity simply trumps all other values.

Caveat: I finished the competition less than a week ago, so it's very possible that my feelings are distorted by my desire to come out on top.

I agree to an extent.

I mean the same argument could be made for law firm diversity - if a student attends a top law school, presumably they should be able to to compete on their own merit. I don't know much about Harvard's Law Review process, but like many law firms, maybe these spots are allotted to mitigate discrimination in employment or on the HLR.

I support diversity hiring at law firms (to a degree), but the situations are fairly dissimilar. Law firm hiring has a large personalized aspect, from a partner seeing an applicant's name on a resume to associates interviewing the hopeful student in person. Ethnicity is much more likely to become a factor or a basis for discrimination in this situation. In contrast, as I said, the HLR's process is completely blind--no grader can even see a competitor's name, only his number. Ethnicity is an identifying factor in the process only to the extent that the HLR has chosen to reserve some spots for diversity purposes. Since the process is otherwise blind, discrimination on the basis of race should be impossible. Therefore the objective served is clearly diversity.

This brings me back to my original question: do people think that the value of diversity should trump the value of merit at that level? It's perfectly all right if people think this, of course, but it does give off a sense of being a value judgment by opinion: at some point, you just have to decide what you prefer.

[Rock Chalk]

.

[creatinganalt]

I think it is clear that a major component of the rationale is that racial diversity is important and desirable.

I agree. However, at what point, if ever, does the value of diversity become subordinate to the value of meritocracy? For example, the Harvard Law Review reserves several spots for diversity purposes each year. Is this appropriate? My initial feeling is that, if you're already at HLS, and you're entering a completely blind meritocratic application process for the Law Review, ethnicity should not be a factor. Let the best writers win.

That being said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of arguments to the contrary, although I hope there's more to it than the idea that diversity simply trumps all other values.

Caveat: I finished the competition less than a week ago, so it's very possible that my feelings are distorted by my desire to come out on top.

THIS IS NOT AN AA THREAD. THIS IS NOT AN AA BOARD.

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS AA, FIND YOUR OWN THREAD

(seriously, do non URM just troll the URM board to complain about AA? Get a life. I know it's crazy that URMS could have a conversation NOT about AA!)

This thread was about writing a DS! It was immediately flooded with non URMs complaining about AA. Does anyone get how frustrating that is?

[Knock]

I think it is clear that a major component of the rationale is that racial diversity is important and desirable.

I agree. However, at what point, if ever, does the value of diversity become subordinate to the value of meritocracy? For example, the Harvard Law Review reserves several spots for diversity purposes each year. Is this appropriate? My initial feeling is that, if you're already at HLS, and you're entering a completely blind meritocratic application process for the Law Review, ethnicity should not be a factor. Let the best writers win.

That being said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of arguments to the contrary, although I hope there's more to it than the idea that diversity simply trumps all other values.

Caveat: I finished the competition less than a week ago, so it's very possible that my feelings are distorted by my desire to come out on top.

THIS IS NOT AN AA THREAD. THIS IS NOT AN AA BOARD.

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS AA, FIND YOUR OWN THREAD

(seriously, do non URM just troll the URM board to complain about AA? Get a life. I know it's crazy that URMS could have a conversation NOT about AA!)

This thread was about writing a DS! It was immediately flooded with non URMs complaining about AA. Does anyone get how frustrating that is?

As the OP, yes, yes I do.

[DavidYurman85]

I think it is clear that a major component of the rationale is that racial diversity is important and desirable.

I agree. However, at what point, if ever, does the value of diversity become subordinate to the value of meritocracy? For example, the Harvard Law Review reserves several spots for diversity purposes each year. Is this appropriate? My initial feeling is that, if you're already at HLS, and you're entering a completely blind meritocratic application process for the Law Review, ethnicity should not be a factor. Let the best writers win.

That being said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of arguments to the contrary, although I hope there's more to it than the idea that diversity simply trumps all other values.

Caveat: I finished the competition less than a week ago, so it's very possible that my feelings are distorted by my desire to come out on top.

I agree to an extent.

I mean the same argument could be made for law firm diversity - if a student attends a top law school, presumably they should be able to to compete on their own merit. I don't know much about Harvard's Law Review process, but like many law firms, maybe these spots are allotted to mitigate discrimination in employment or on the HLR.

I support diversity hiring at law firms (to a degree), but the situations are fairly dissimilar. Law firm hiring has a large personalized aspect, from a partner seeing an applicant's name on a resume to associates interviewing the hopeful student in person. Ethnicity is much more likely to become a factor or a basis for discrimination in this situation. In contrast, as I said, the HLR's process is completely blind--no grader can even see a competitor's name, only his number. Ethnicity is an identifying factor in the process only to the extent that the HLR has chosen to reserve some spots for diversity purposes. Since the process is otherwise blind, discrimination on the basis of race should be impossible. Therefore the objective served is clearly diversity.

This brings me back to my original question: do people think that the value of diversity should trump the value of merit at that level? It's perfectly all right if people think this, of course, but it does give off a sense of being a value judgment by opinion: at some point, you just have to decide what you prefer.

Under those circumstances, I would prefer merit. At what point is an applican'ts indentity disclosed? How does the committee know if they selected enough applicants to meet the diversity quota?

[YCrevolution]

..

[creatinganalt]

You <idiots> are going to get the thread locked. Congratulations.

Dear non URMS who don't post on this board. Stop trolling threads to try to make them about AA. It's annoying and unfair.

[Jay-Electronica]

When will URMs learn that TLS is not the place to discuss race relations? This is especially true for blacks. I know its hard to stay away from topics like this but sometimes its better to keep your distance.

[excelsiorcaelo]

I'm genuinely sorry for my post. I was trying to present a thoughtful and non-antagonistic response to the immediately preceding one. I did not read everything that came before it, and, while I saw YC's admonishment that we be civil, I didn't notice a prohibition against continuing the kind of discussion I sought to encourage. My mistake.

[d34d9823]

I'm genuinely sorry for my post.

That's good, because if you were fake sorry, we would have to mock you.

[Mattalones]

The mocking comes for genuine apologies too; it just tastes different

[creatinganalt]

I'm genuinely sorry for my post. I was trying to present a thoughtful and non-antagonistic response to the immediately preceding one. I did not read everything that came before it, and, while I saw YC's admonishment that we be civil, I didn't notice a prohibition against continuing the kind of discussion I sought to encourage. My mistake.

Sorry for snapping! It just happens on every thread (not you, just someone)