Mr. Matlock wrote:Aha, BUT LSAC sets the URM standard.
Actually the URM standard is set by
Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed a very narrow form of affirmative action for the purposes of increasing diversity of certain under-represented groups, specifically African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. At one point in the ruling it was made clear that Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans were the impacted groups among Hispanics, but otherwise the case simply refers to "Hispanics", creating a good bit of confusion about whether the narrow holding is broad enough to allow URM boosts for all Hispanics or not.
Because all attempts at affirmative action other than
Grutter v. Bollinger have so far been struck down by the Supreme Court, and the court made it clear that
Bollinger was lawful because it was so narrowly tailored, many other schools have since instituted similar narrowly tailored "soft AA" programs modeled after the one approved in that case. This is why, generally, only African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans receive URM boosts; this is also why many schools also go further and only apply boosts within the Hispanic community to Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans.
This is where URM status comes from. It is essentially a legal designation. The only question is whether schools consider native Hawaiians to fall within Native Americans (which is a URM group), or another category such as Asian or white (which are not).