How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE? Forum

[LAWLAW09]

Is it really a sign of corruption that a DA would choose white jury members when prosecuting a black defendant, or is he just doing his job and going by statistical evidence which suggests that black jury members are less likely to convict a black defendant? If it were a white defendant, I suspect the DA would prefer black jury members because I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that a white jury is less likely to convict a white defendant.

I’m sorry, but how can you justify giving an advantage to URM applicants at the expense of ORM applicants for reasons like this? The ORM applicant has done nothing (as of yet) to add to this problem.

It is pattern of corruption for Blacks to be systematically removed from juries b/c they are black.
You're not sorry.

What you fail to realize is that "the problem" repeats itself and will continue to repeat itself largely b/c the legal world is dominated by ORMs.

[d34d9823]

All your arguments are premised on what I deem to be a misnomer. Like affirmative action is such a punitive thing that it's "holding the modern generation responsible for the crimes of the past." This is entirely the incorrect way to look at it. AA's purposes are to elevate the lives of minorities, not pushing those in the majority down.

It's even in the name: AFFIRMATIVE action.

Also, gaia, this was just a brilliant post.

[d34d9823]

It is pattern of corruption for Blacks to be systematically removed from juries b/c they are black.
You're not sorry.

What you fail to realize is that "the problem" repeats itself and will continue to repeat itself largely b/c the legal world is dominated by ORMs.

I sort of agree with him on this one. As a DA, your job is not to administer justice, it's to get a conviction. Why would you not run the statistics on who is likely to convict and base your jury selection on that?

[20121109]

My argument didn't depend on my hypothetical (assuming were talking about Milton and Jamal). The purpose behind that was to show that I acknowledged the merit of both sides of this debate. My real argument has to do with the futility of imposing a liability on successive generations. Is that a micro-level hypothetical?

Yet again you're making unwarranted assumptions. Where is this "liability"? How are whites as a whole being hurt from this purported "liability"? How are the methods of AA futile when it clearly has demonstrable effects?

Please let me know what you mean.

[3|ink]

All your arguments are premised on what I deem to be a misnomer. Like affirmative action is such a punitive thing that it's "holding the modern generation responsible for the crimes of the past." This is entirely the incorrect way to look at it. AA's purposes are to elevate the lives of minorities, not pushing those in the majority down. Of course, a few whites may lose out opportunities that may have been granted without AA, but schools have already acknowledged that the value of diversity in classroom, is a much more auspicious goal than to have a few more whites in the class.

I apologize. I was not very explicit. I did not intend to characterize AA as ‘sticking it to the white man’. I don’t think AA is spiteful. I agree that its purpose is to elevate minority groups who have been oppressed in the past and continue to be oppressed today by a significant socioeconomic gap resulting from the past oppression. However, whenever you allocate an advantage of this sort, you do so at the expense of another party. In the case of AA, the party that is paying the bill is generally white people. Thus, even though AA is entirely about elevating URMs, ORMs are paying a price. You can argue over the value of that price all you want, but ORMs are ultimately held liable thanks to AA.

Let's not mix words here: White people have the best educational opportunities over any other race, except maybe Asians. So a few whites "lose" seats to help advance an entire race of people who were historically subjugated to institutionalized racism. It's unfortunate, but I hope no one would disagree that white people, as a whole, now enjoy a higher standard of living as a result of the discrimination minorities sustained and continue to endure. I feel like because race relations started so unfairly you can't expect it to be remedied without someone "losing out". An entire race was kept down for years. Are you really going to complain that a few whites are now losing out on opportunities, even though as a whole they are still very much at an advantage? It may appear unfair, but looking in the broader picture....No. It's not unfair at all.

Honestly, I think that whatever price whites pay for AA is insignificant in the long run. However, that’s an easy pill for me to swallow because I haven’t been the guy to lose a spot at HYS thanks to AA. Regardless, I think it is an unsound policy. It is a cheap substitute for what is really needed: a complete revision of the public education system. I agree that whites have it much easier in public school. That’s because they tend to live in areas where property values are significantly higher. That’s what really has to be fixed. The only solution AA offers to address that problem is to fix it after it has taken effect.

Also, the whole restructuring of the public education system is admirable, but its horribly unrealistic.

I should have read this before writing the previous paragraph. I don’t think it’s that unrealistic, but definitely years beyond our current capabilities.

[20121109]

I apologize. I was not very explicit. I did not intend to characterize AA as ‘sticking it to the white man’. I don’t think AA is spiteful. I agree that its purpose is to elevate minority groups who have been oppressed in the past and continue to be oppressed today by a significant socioeconomic gap resulting from the past oppression. However, whenever you allocate an advantage of this sort, you do so at the expense of another party. In the case of AA, the party that is paying the bill is generally white people. Thus, even though AA is entirely about elevating URMs, ORMs are paying a price. You can argue over the value of that price all you want, but ORMs are ultimately held liable thanks to AA.

Honestly, I think that whatever price whites pay for AA is insignificant in the long run. However, that’s an easy pill for me to swallow because I haven’t been the guy to lose a spot at HYS thanks to AA. Regardless, I think it is an unsound policy. It is a cheap substitute for what is really needed: a complete revision of the public education system. I agree that whites have it much easier in public school. That’s because they tend to live in areas where property values are significantly higher. That’s what really has to be fixed. The only solution AA offers to address that problem is to fix it after it has taken effect.

I should have read this before writing the previous paragraph. I don’t think it’s that unrealistic, but definitely years beyond our current capabilities.

Well I guess we have differing values and I don't think I can argue that I just feel that whenever there are competing interests in public policy, the one for the greater good needs to win out. And although I have no doubt that you would agree with this, I think that we disagree as to what that "greater good" should be.

Also, you agree that the restructuring of public education should be the better method of fighting racial inequality and you acknowledge that it is beyond our current capabilities. So what do you propose we should do until the time comes for the option to become truly tangible?

[JazzOne]

Also, you agree that the restructuring of public education should be the better method of fighting racial inequality and you acknowledge that it is beyond our current capabilities. So what do you propose we should do until the time comes for the option to become truly tangible?

Well, if we're playing hypothetical here, we could stop spending more than the GDP of a medium-sized country on two wars and start funding the first-class education system we say we want.

+1

I am writing my journal note on constitutional war powers, and one of the issues I'm examining is the ridiculously broad language in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force and the subsequent legislation authorizing force in Iraq. Congress dropped the ball on both.

[3|ink]

Also, you agree that the restructuring of public education should be the better method of fighting racial inequality and you acknowledge that it is beyond our current capabilities. So what do you propose we should do until the time comes for the option to become truly tangible?

You got me there. I always argue in the sphere of 'the ideal world' and my solutions are rarely practical. If no other solution exists, then I suppose the only solution to this problem in an imperfect world is an unsound solution.

[LAWLAW09]

There were a lot of theories, plans, and "this it what would be better than AA" statements discussed in this thread.

For those that have been comfortable enough to type hundreds of words to express your displeasure with AA, are any of you willing to tell us what YOU plan to personally do to either a) make ORMs lawyers less likely to abuse their privilege, power, and wealth, or b) help under-represented and/or oppressed groups enter influential law schools and legal careers more frequently?

To be clear: I'm not looking for any of you to prove anything to me or anybody else. (my post count is low for a reason and my expectations are what they are.) But, many of you speak as if you are personally invested in this debate, i.e., offended or uncomfortable with AA or the circumstances that create the need for something, so some thoughts on personal accountability would be interesting to read.

I repeat: Under-representation is a problem b/c those who are over-represented historically and presently are unable and unwilling to act in a manner that leads to more fairness, not less.

Thoughts on what YOU plan to or are willing to do?

Got two responses.

Personally, I'm going to change my facebook profile picture. That'll show 'em.

Your question probably wasn't directed at me anyway because I answered it already.

This is the part where I disengage. Sleep well folks.

[3|ink]

This is the part where I disengage. Sleep well folks.

I'm sorry, but I think that race is relevant when [selecting] considering a jury. I don't see how selecting a jury based on race is a problem.

[LAWLAW09]

This is the part where I disengage. Sleep well folks.

I'm sorry, but I think that race is relevant when [selecting] considering a jury. I don't see how selecting a jury based on race is a problem.

I'm not sure what your background is as it relates to studying race in America, but the things you don't see aren't much different from what the typical law student has been under-prepared and unwilling to see for way too long.



http://eji.org/eji/files/62510%20Edited ... online.pdf


Ok. I'm really checking out this time.

[mrmangs]

All your arguments are premised on what I deem to be a misnomer. Like affirmative action is such a punitive thing that it's "holding the modern generation responsible for the crimes of the past." This is entirely the incorrect way to look at it. AA's purposes are to elevate the lives of minorities, not pushing those in the majority down. Of course, a few whites may lose out opportunities that may have been granted without AA, but schools have already acknowledged that the value of diversity in classroom, is a much more auspicious goal than to have a few more whites in the class.

Let's not mix words here: White people have the best educational opportunities over any other race, except maybe Asians. So a few whites "lose" seats to help advance an entire race of people who were historically subjugated to institutionalized racism. It's unfortunate, but I hope no one would disagree that white people, as a whole, now enjoy a higher standard of living as a result of the discrimination minorities sustained and continue to endure. I feel like because race relations started so unfairly you can't expect it to be remedied without someone "losing out". An entire race was kept down for years. Are you really going to complain that a few whites are now losing out on opportunities, even though as a whole they are still very much at an advantage? It may appear unfair, but looking in the broader picture....No. It's not unfair at all.

Also, the whole restructuring of the public education system is admirable, but its horribly unrealistic.

+1000000000

[St.Remy]

For those that have been comfortable enough to type hundreds of words to express your displeasure with AA, are any of you willing to tell us what YOU plan to personally do to either a) make ORMs lawyers less likely to abuse their privilege, power, and wealth, or b) help under-represented and/or oppressed groups enter influential law schools and legal careers more frequently?

To be clear: I'm not looking for any of you to prove anything to me or anybody else. (my post count is low for a reason and my expectations are what they are.) But, many of you speak as if you are personally invested in this debate, i.e., offended or uncomfortable with AA or the circumstances that create the need for something, so some thoughts on personal accountability would be interesting to read.

This seems like one of those questions that only a handful of people in the country could give a satisfactory answer to. After all, not many people have the opportunity to dedicate their lives to a cause, even one so deserving as striving towards racial equality in the United States legal system. I'm personally invested in supporting new medical research for Alzheimer's, but what plan can I have for tackling this issue? I'm personally invested in ending child hunger in the U.S. as well, but outside of donating money and spending some free time in my local soup kitchen what more can I "personally plan to do" about this issue? I obviously don't consider myself to be racist, and I don't consciously act in a way that continues institutionalized racism, but I'd guess that you wouldn't find that sufficient to fulfill point A that you listed above. I guess my question is what are you doing for A and B that I could do that wouldn't require me to make racial representation in the legal system the focal point of my life? (I realize that since you just went away this isn't an ideal time to post this, but I hope you'll find the comment eventually).

On the topic of discriminatory jury selection I think it's important to note that race is not the only thing discriminated against. The ADAs in my county for instance exclude teachers and professors from juries whenever possible. I think that so long as you are allowed to strike jury members there will always be DAs and PDs that run the numbers and determine that certain groups are statistically likely to decide against them, and respond by excluding those groups from juries. Maybe you'll disagree with me but I bet that if African Americans were statistically more likely to convict than Whites (the opposite of what is currently the case) jury selection biases on that count would reverse. This is not to say that discriminatory jury selection is not a problem, I'm just pointing out that there are more factors at play on this topic than have been raised so far in this thread.

[kwais]

Just a slightly different perspective.

When someone says that their spot was taken at HYS because of AA, they are assuming a few problematic things.
1. That their essays, LORs, resume created the impression of a more interesting person than that of the minority candidate.

2. that an admissions committee, when presented with a candidate whose perspective they feel will add to the classroom and quality of the education, would rather chose another, perhaps less interesting person who got an extra 3 logic games questions right.

Maybe AA brings up that possibility that no one seems to want to accept. That the law school admissions process is far more qualitative than some would like.
For instance, I saw someone argue on this site that it was unfair for him to lose his spot in the top-14 to someone who "happened to have a demonstrated interest in helping others". Really?

[d34d9823]

Just a slightly different perspective.

When someone says that their spot was taken at HYS because of AA, they are assuming a few problematic things.
1. That their essays, LORs, resume created the impression of a more interesting person than that of the minority candidate.

2. that an admissions committee, when presented with a candidate whose perspective they feel will add to the classroom and quality of the education, would rather chose another, perhaps less interesting person who got an extra 3 logic games questions right.

Maybe AA brings up that possibility that no one seems to want to accept. That the law school admissions process is far more qualitative than some would like.
For instance, I saw someone argue on this site that it was unfair for him to lose his spot in the top-14 to someone who "happened to have a demonstrated interest in helping others". Really?

The fact that admissions committees consistently choose numbers over "being interesting" when choosing between white candidates is a pretty good clue that the interesting thing about URMs is their ethnic background.

[northwood]

if you are worried about this issue, why dont you just leave the question unanswered? If you have to check it, put other, and write the name of the country you live in ( ex. American, Canadian, etc)?

[bergg007]

if you are worried about this issue, why dont you just leave the question unanswered? If you have to check it, put other, and write the name of the country you live in ( ex. American, Canadian, etc)?

yeah law schools love smarmy smart-ass answers. everyone should do this...

[northwood]

im not saying that you should do this, I just leave the question blank. Im just saying that i condiser myself an american, and not a descendant of any european country/ colony. I have never lived there, only visited there a few times, and while there is family members still around - The only thing that we share in common is some strands of genetic information and a last name.

If you are going to get all bent out of shape over it, choose not to answer.

[St.Remy]

if you are worried about this issue, why dont you just leave the question unanswered? If you have to check it, put other, and write the name of the country you live in ( ex. American, Canadian, etc)?

Who exactly are you addressing this response to? It doesn't really relate to where the discussion is on this page, and neither does it respond to the OP. Also I agree that adcomms wouldn't be fans of this course of action, since it's basically a roundabout way of marking Caucasian. Thus being bent out of shape and responding as you suggest doesn't solve any of the concerns that people have been discussing ITT.

[LAWLAW09]

This seems like one of those questions that only a handful of people in the country could give a satisfactory answer to. After all, not many people have the opportunity to dedicate their lives to a cause, even one so deserving as striving towards racial equality in the United States legal system. I'm personally invested in supporting new medical research for Alzheimer's, but what plan can I have for tackling this issue? I'm personally invested in ending child hunger in the U.S. as well, but outside of donating money and spending some free time in my local soup kitchen what more can I "personally plan to do" about this issue? I obviously don't consider myself to be racist, and I don't consciously act in a way that continues institutionalized racism, but I'd guess that you wouldn't find that sufficient to fulfill point A that you listed above. I guess my question is what are you doing for A and B that I could do that wouldn't require me to make racial representation in the legal system the focal point of my life? (I realize that since you just went away this isn't an ideal time to post this, but I hope you'll find the comment eventually).

On the topic of discriminatory jury selection I think it's important to note that race is not the only thing discriminated against. The ADAs in my county for instance exclude teachers and professors from juries whenever possible. I think that so long as you are allowed to strike jury members there will always be DAs and PDs that run the numbers and determine that certain groups are statistically likely to decide against them, and respond by excluding those groups from juries. Maybe you'll disagree with me but I bet that if African Americans were statistically more likely to convict than Whites (the opposite of what is currently the case) jury selection biases on that count would reverse. This is not to say that discriminatory jury selection is not a problem, I'm just pointing out that there are more factors at play on this topic than have been raised so far in this thread.

I don't think it's a question that only a handful of people are in a position to address. (The students entering law schools are the ones maintaining much of what exists. Institutional racism and discrimination has to be maintained by someone for it to continue. Therefore, law students can do something about it.) As far as what's a satisfactory answer? Any answer that speaks to what an individual plans to do or doesn't plan to do would be satisfactory for my question about personal accountability/contribution.

Considering this country's history and current state regarding questions of race, I think everyone should ask themselves why race is rarely studied in formal educational environments, and who benefits when it doesn't take place? There is nothing in our past or present that suggests folks are just going to naturally "get it." Most American students have never studied race, have never studied its meaning, implications, or impact on the society around them, and yet superlative academic distinctions and classifications of intellectual superiority have been given out and ingrained in the minds of people that are positioned to run a country that operates differently than the one they've come to know.

Everyone can seek out conversations or literature centered around or inclusive of questions regarding race. Folks can realize that mastering subjects that never address race, does not inherently make them qualified to be experts on institutions and policies that were created in a racialized context, and that are maintained in a racialized context. Again, there's no reason for ppl to repeatedly assume they "get it," or will "get" what they should get, just b/c they're good ppl, mean well, are smart, or have a few minority friends and/or family members. If folks are honest with themselves, many will realize that they have put out very little effort to make sure they are in proximity to qualified minorities that spend their lives studying and speaking to issues regarding race and equality.

When you change the conversation from what "We should do is..." to "What I will do is...," it's easy to see why the "problem" is likely to continue for a very long time.

My personal commitments aside (I don't want to out myself or end up like Fred Hampton, not yet anyway), everyone can:

1) Position his/herself to a) be approached by URMs or b) seek out URMs offline for the purposes of offering guidance on the lsat/law school process. This can be as simple as sending a routine email to remind family, friends, or organizations that you're available and willing to be connected to URMs that may be thinking about going this route. There are many ways that this step could be done without making it "the focal point" of one's life.

(this somewhat requires understanding that underrepresentation in top law schools and law-related careers limits individual and institutional progress.)


As for your second paragraph/point, the damage that is done to to URMs, and Black communities more specifically, is widespread, documented, and ongoing. The same can't be said for teachers or professors that are being removed from juries. The link in my previous post addresses the problem more thoroughly.

[bergg007]

This seems like one of those questions that only a handful of people in the country could give a satisfactory answer to. After all, not many people have the opportunity to dedicate their lives to a cause, even one so deserving as striving towards racial equality in the United States legal system. I'm personally invested in supporting new medical research for Alzheimer's, but what plan can I have for tackling this issue? I'm personally invested in ending child hunger in the U.S. as well, but outside of donating money and spending some free time in my local soup kitchen what more can I "personally plan to do" about this issue? I obviously don't consider myself to be racist, and I don't consciously act in a way that continues institutionalized racism, but I'd guess that you wouldn't find that sufficient to fulfill point A that you listed above. I guess my question is what are you doing for A and B that I could do that wouldn't require me to make racial representation in the legal system the focal point of my life? (I realize that since you just went away this isn't an ideal time to post this, but I hope you'll find the comment eventually).

On the topic of discriminatory jury selection I think it's important to note that race is not the only thing discriminated against. The ADAs in my county for instance exclude teachers and professors from juries whenever possible. I think that so long as you are allowed to strike jury members there will always be DAs and PDs that run the numbers and determine that certain groups are statistically likely to decide against them, and respond by excluding those groups from juries. Maybe you'll disagree with me but I bet that if African Americans were statistically more likely to convict than Whites (the opposite of what is currently the case) jury selection biases on that count would reverse. This is not to say that discriminatory jury selection is not a problem, I'm just pointing out that there are more factors at play on this topic than have been raised so far in this thread.

I don't think it's a question that only a handful of people are in a position to address. (The students entering law schools are the ones maintaining much of what exists. Institutional racism and discrimination has to be maintained by someone for it to continue. Therefore, law students can do something about it.) As far as what's a satisfactory answer? Any answer that speaks to what an individual plans to do or doesn't plan to do would be satisfactory for my question about personal accountability/contribution.

Considering this country's history and current state regarding questions of race, I think everyone should ask themselves why race is rarely studied in formal educational environments, and who benefits when it doesn't take place? There is nothing in our past or present that suggests folks are just going to naturally "get it." Most American students have never studied race, have never studied its meaning, implications, or impact on the society around them, and yet superlative academic distinctions and classifications of intellectual superiority have been given out and ingrained in the minds of people that are positioned to run a country that operates differently than the one they've come to know.

Everyone can seek out conversations or literature centered around or inclusive of questions regarding race. Folks can realize that mastering subjects that never address race, does not inherently make them qualified to be experts on institutions and policies that were created in a racialized context, and that are maintained in a racialized context. Again, there's no reason for ppl to repeatedly assume they "get it," or will "get" what they should get, just b/c they're good ppl, mean well, are smart, or have a few minority friends and/or family members. If folks are honest with themselves, many will realize that they have put out very little effort to make sure they are in proximity to qualified minorities that spend their lives studying and speaking to issues regarding race and equality.

When you change the conversation from what "We should do is..." to "What I will do is...," it's easy to see why the "problem" is likely to continue for a very long time.

My personal commitments aside (I don't want to out myself or end up like Fred Hampton, not yet anyway), everyone can:

1) Position his/herself to a) be approached by URMs or b) seek out URMs offline for the purposes of offering guidance on the lsat/law school process. This can be as simple as sending a routine email to remind family, friends, or organizations that you're available and willing to be connected to URMs that may be thinking about going this route. There are many ways that this step could be done without making it "the focal point" of one's life.

(this somewhat requires understanding that underrepresentation in top law schools and law-related careers limits individual and institutional progress.)


As for your second paragraph/point, the damage that is done to to URMs, and Black communities more specifically, is widespread, documented, and ongoing. The same can't be said for teachers or professors that are being removed from juries. The link in my previous post addresses the problem more thoroughly.

I'd like you all to meet Chip; he hangs out on my shoulder.

[d34d9823]

I'd like you all to meet Chip; he hangs out on my shoulder.

Dude, this isn't funny and is honestly pretty irritating in a thread that has been mostly civil so far.

[vanwinkle]

Holy shit, did we just have an overwhelmingly calm and rational AA debate in the URM forum?

[northwood]

Holy shit, did we just have an overwhelmingly calm and rational AA debate in the URM forum?

you just jinxed it.

While I am in disbelief myself, im glad that smarter heads have prevailed.

[vanwinkle]

you just jinxed it.

I'm here now and I have a banhammer. If this is the point when people start being crazy, then they're pretty damn dumb.