Hawaiian a URM

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
savetheturtles
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby savetheturtles » Wed May 26, 2010 8:34 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
savetheturtles wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
savetheturtles wrote:Assuming the OP means native Hawaiian, wouldn't this fall under Native American?


That's right! A native Texan would also fall under Native American, as Texans and Hawaiians are both Americans.


There were indigenous peoples in Hawaii before it became a part of America.


*sigh*....Hawaiian =/= Native American. I don't really know what else to say without sounding like a condescending enema.


Maybe you can say something substantial to back up your assertions. It's not as clear cut as lay perception might have it.

This historical and unique legal relationship has been consistently recognized and affirmed by the Congress through the enactment of Federal laws which extend to the Hawaiian people the same rights and privileges accorded to American Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut communities, including the Native American Programs Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C. 2991 et seq.]; the American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996, 1996a]; the National Museum of the American Indian Act [20 U.S.C. 80q et seq.]; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.].

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/us ... -000-.html

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby vanwinkle » Wed May 26, 2010 8:36 pm

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).

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby 20121109 » Wed May 26, 2010 8:37 pm

Matthies wrote:Wait, really? I don't think so, but I'm not sure either. I mean native American would tend to me to mean native to the Americas. last time I checked Hawaii was not really connected to the Americas, since we kinds just took it over and it's in the middle of the ocean and stuff. But Alaskan's are native Americans, and we bought that, but, again last time I checked, Alaska was attached to the Americas viva America's Hat. I really don't know the answer to this, but that would be my argument against them being considered "native Americans" rather than "pacific islanders". But personally i don't really like calling people names like Native American or Pacific islanders, I prefer the more non-offside generic "you people" when describing anyone different from me.


I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby vanwinkle » Wed May 26, 2010 8:40 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?

Because tribes do issue affiliation cards, many schools will require applicants have one to verify identity. However, this doesn't appear consistent (some schools don't ask at all, others make it very explicit they want to know if you are or not).

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby DoubleChecks » Wed May 26, 2010 8:41 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
Matthies wrote:Wait, really? I don't think so, but I'm not sure either. I mean native American would tend to me to mean native to the Americas. last time I checked Hawaii was not really connected to the Americas, since we kinds just took it over and it's in the middle of the ocean and stuff. But Alaskan's are native Americans, and we bought that, but, again last time I checked, Alaska was attached to the Americas viva America's Hat. I really don't know the answer to this, but that would be my argument against them being considered "native Americans" rather than "pacific islanders". But personally i don't really like calling people names like Native American or Pacific islanders, I prefer the more non-offside generic "you people" when describing anyone different from me.


I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?


not sure since all my knowledge only comes from reading this thread, but possibly being a registered member of the native samoan tribe? (as someone else suggested)

User avatar
War Cardinal
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 11:24 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby War Cardinal » Wed May 26, 2010 8:42 pm

Stop looking for crutches and boosts and study your but off on the LSAT, get as many A's as you can, and hope for the best. You'll feel much better about yourself and your accomplishments that way.

User avatar
jeremydc
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby jeremydc » Wed May 26, 2010 8:42 pm

This is confusing. The Akaka Bill would establish Native HAwaiians the same rights as NAtive AMericans but that could take years.

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby 20121109 » Wed May 26, 2010 8:43 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?

Because tribes do issue affiliation cards, many schools will require applicants have one to verify identity. However, this doesn't appear consistent (some schools don't ask at all, others make it very explicit they want to know if you are or not).


But even without an actual affiliation card, if the person has demonstrated a connection with their tribe they're considered URM, right? I guess my question is, does a Hawaiian have to be affiliated with a tribe to be considered URM, or are they URM without such an affiliation?

User avatar
jeremydc
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby jeremydc » Wed May 26, 2010 8:44 pm

War Cardinal wrote:Stop looking for crutches and boosts and study your but off on the LSAT, get as many A's as you can, and hope for the best. You'll feel much better about yourself and your accomplishments that way.



Lol, I am hitting high 160s on PTs. I am confident that I will get a 170 on the lsat and As are al I have been getting lately.


It is not about the "boost", I am just interested to see where I stand.

Besides Newark aint a reach school for me.

User avatar
jeremydc
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby jeremydc » Wed May 26, 2010 8:44 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?

Because tribes do issue affiliation cards, many schools will require applicants have one to verify identity. However, this doesn't appear consistent (some schools don't ask at all, others make it very explicit they want to know if you are or not).


But even without an actual affiliation card, if the person has demonstrated a connection with their tribe they're considered URM, right? I guess my question is, does a Hawaiian have to be affiliated with a tribe to be considered URM, or are they URM without such an affiliation?



There is no tribe........

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby Mr. Matlock » Wed May 26, 2010 8:50 pm

Matthies wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
*sigh*....Hawaiian =/= Native American. I don't really know what else to say without sounding like a condescending enema.


Wait, really? I don't think so, but I'm not sure either. I mean native American would tend to me to mean native to the Americas. last time I checked Hawaii was not really connected to the Americas, since we kinds just took it over and it's in the middle of the ocean and stuff. But Alaskan's are native Americans, and we bought that, but, again last time I checked, Alaska was attached to the Americas viva America's Hat. I really don't know the answer to this, but that would be my argument against them being considered "native Americans" rather than "pacific islanders". But personally i don't really like calling people names like Native American or Pacific islanders, I prefer the more non-offsive generic "you people" when describing anyone different from me.

180!!!!

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby Matthies » Wed May 26, 2010 8:51 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
Matthies wrote:Wait, really? I don't think so, but I'm not sure either. I mean native American would tend to me to mean native to the Americas. last time I checked Hawaii was not really connected to the Americas, since we kinds just took it over and it's in the middle of the ocean and stuff. But Alaskan's are native Americans, and we bought that, but, again last time I checked, Alaska was attached to the Americas viva America's Hat. I really don't know the answer to this, but that would be my argument against them being considered "native Americans" rather than "pacific islanders". But personally i don't really like calling people names like Native American or Pacific islanders, I prefer the more non-offside generic "you people" when describing anyone different from me.


I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?


To be NA you have to show some connection to the indigious peoples of the ameraics before whity got here. Diffrent rtibes have diffrnet rules for what is considered part of thier tribe. But even if you can trace your ancestray back to the first non native person to live in Kansas, your not native amercian.

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby Matthies » Wed May 26, 2010 8:54 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?

Because tribes do issue affiliation cards, many schools will require applicants have one to verify identity. However, this doesn't appear consistent (some schools don't ask at all, others make it very explicit they want to know if you are or not).


Oh christ your a mod now too?

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby 20121109 » Wed May 26, 2010 8:54 pm

Matthies wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
Matthies wrote:Wait, really? I don't think so, but I'm not sure either. I mean native American would tend to me to mean native to the Americas. last time I checked Hawaii was not really connected to the Americas, since we kinds just took it over and it's in the middle of the ocean and stuff. But Alaskan's are native Americans, and we bought that, but, again last time I checked, Alaska was attached to the Americas viva America's Hat. I really don't know the answer to this, but that would be my argument against them being considered "native Americans" rather than "pacific islanders". But personally i don't really like calling people names like Native American or Pacific islanders, I prefer the more non-offside generic "you people" when describing anyone different from me.


I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?


To be NA you have to show some connection to the indigious peoples of the ameraics before whity got here. Diffrent rtibes have diffrnet rules for what is considered part of thier tribe. But even if you can trace your ancestray back to the first non native person to live in Kansas, your not native amercian.


So...OP isn't NA, and thus not URM....?

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby Mr. Matlock » Wed May 26, 2010 8:55 pm

jeremydc wrote:
There is no tribe........

The kid's says he's not even Samoan, just "Native Hawaiian" and won't even say what the fuck that means.

With that, I'm out of here. I've had my fill of moronic bullshit for the day.

BTW, kudos to you vanwinkle for the urm case reference.

User avatar
SilverE2
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby SilverE2 » Wed May 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Hawaiian is not URM. You are not allowed to check the URM box on the application.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby vanwinkle » Wed May 26, 2010 8:58 pm

SilverE2 wrote:Hawaiian is not URM. You are not allowed to check the URM box on the application.

*headdesk*

There is no URM box. You check your race and schools decide whether or not to treat you legally as a URM or not. See the discussion above for why schools are limited in which races they consider to be URMs.

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby 20121109 » Wed May 26, 2010 9:01 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
SilverE2 wrote:Hawaiian is not URM. You are not allowed to check the URM box on the application.

*headdesk*

There is no URM box. You check your race and schools decide whether or not to treat you legally as a URM or not. See the discussion above for why schools are limited in which races they consider to be URMs.


I think I've heard you say this at least 5 times on TLS...Shame no one seems to pay attention, lol...

savetheturtles
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby savetheturtles » Wed May 26, 2010 9:01 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
Matthies wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
Matthies wrote:Wait, really? I don't think so, but I'm not sure either. I mean native American would tend to me to mean native to the Americas. last time I checked Hawaii was not really connected to the Americas, since we kinds just took it over and it's in the middle of the ocean and stuff. But Alaskan's are native Americans, and we bought that, but, again last time I checked, Alaska was attached to the Americas viva America's Hat. I really don't know the answer to this, but that would be my argument against them being considered "native Americans" rather than "pacific islanders". But personally i don't really like calling people names like Native American or Pacific islanders, I prefer the more non-offside generic "you people" when describing anyone different from me.


I thought to be considered NA, you have to be affiliated with an established tribe? Not just native to a particular state... :?


To be NA you have to show some connection to the indigious peoples of the ameraics before whity got here. Diffrent rtibes have diffrnet rules for what is considered part of thier tribe. But even if you can trace your ancestray back to the first non native person to live in Kansas, your not native amercian.


So...OP isn't NA, and thus not URM....?


He's saying the first NON-native person (e.g., a white person) would not be NA. If the OP is a descendant of the Hawaiians who were there before America conquered Hawaii, then he arguably has a claim.

I have no idea how the topic of Samoans came up, but as this thread made pretty clear, you will get pretty different reactions, depending on how knowledgeable the adcomm is on the topic. Whatever you do, you should be as explicit as possible in your DS and detail all the ties you have to your culture. There IS some legal basis for the inclusion of native Hawaiians under the NA term, but as you know, they are not completely incorporated.

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby Matthies » Wed May 26, 2010 9:01 pm

SilverE2 wrote:Hawaiian is not URM. You are not allowed to check the URM box on the application.


Yes if you do the AA police will come to your door and take you away, i hear they wear white pointy hats

User avatar
drdolittle
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby drdolittle » Wed May 26, 2010 9:04 pm

Mr. Matlock wrote:
jeremydc wrote:
There is no tribe........

The kid's says he's not even Samoan, just "Native Hawaiian" and won't even say what the fuck that means.

With that, I'm out of here. I've had my fill of moronic bullshit for the day.

BTW, kudos to you vanwinkle for the urm case reference.


What it means to be "Native Hawaiian" has been an issue of confusion even in Hawaii, but Hawaii has clear criteria for it since some of the top schools there a reserved for native Hawaiians, or at least for those who can demonstrate some relation. From what I've read, ethnic Hawaiians are a minority even in Hawaii.

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby 20121109 » Wed May 26, 2010 9:05 pm

savetheturtles wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:So...OP isn't NA, and thus not URM....?


He's saying the first NON-native person (e.g., a white person) would not be NA. If the OP is a descendant of the Hawaiians who were there before America conquered Hawaii, then he arguably has a claim.

I have no idea how the topic of Samoans came up, but as this thread made pretty clear, you will get pretty different reactions, depending on how knowledgeable the adcomm is on the topic. Whatever you do, you should be as explicit as possible in your DS and detail all the ties you have to your culture. There IS some legal basis for the inclusion of native Hawaiians under the NA term, but as you know, they are not completely incorporated.


Thanks, honey. No need to break it down for me, I got what he was saying. I was just trying to clear up the ambiguity on behalf of the OP. The rest of your post is credited, but for all intents and purposes, OP should assume non-URM status.

User avatar
jeremydc
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby jeremydc » Wed May 26, 2010 9:05 pm

I apologize guys for my igorance here. I thought there was a box to check For URM.


Now I understand that each schools has thier own guidelines in regards to URMS.


I will study hard until the LSAT in FEB then worry about the DS.


Thanks all for helping me here. I appreciate it.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby Kohinoor » Wed May 26, 2010 11:39 pm

jeremydc wrote:That is not the "only reason."

correct. Some people do it to start delicious flame. Thank you OP.

HITeacher2
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: Hawaiian a URM

Postby HITeacher2 » Thu May 27, 2010 12:19 am

If the OP is still reading this...

If you've got enough Native Hawaiian blood in you to register for Kau Inoa (--LinkRemoved--) then consider yourself an URM and by all means write about it in your essays. As for whether you should check off the "Native American" box, I would go school by school calling admissions offices and asking them on their individual policies. It's quite rare for Native Hawaiians to get to where you are (applying to law school that is) so give yourself a big pat on the back as well.

@Matlock; Realize that Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Tongans, Tahitians and Micronesians (Chuukese, Marshall Islands, etc) are all distinctly different people with distinctly different cultures. It's kind of like how Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Nicaraguans are all different - perhaps to a greater degree because each of the aforementioned pacific island peoples speak their own languages and their islands of origin are actually nowhere near each other. Native Hawaiian, by the way, is a classification - it refers to the people who lived in Hawaii before Captain Cook showed up, as well as their descendants. They used to have their own government before it was overthrown by American business interests about a hundred years ago.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 1 guest