How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby JazzOne » Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:44 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:
mrmangs wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:I would disagree with the proposition that people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against.


At the very least, one has to admit law school admissions are zero-sum. There is a limited number of spots, and if applicant A gets in, then applicant B has one less spot to compete for. Hell, even for admitted students, a similar competition exists: there is a limited amount of funds available for scholarships, and if admitted student A gets money, there is that much less available for admitted student B.

But, when we then move to AA and all the complications and subtleties that have been brought up ITT, well, whether one thinks people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against really turns on how one assesses the sense of the word "discriminated" in light of all that information.


Sure, but it's impossible to show that any given person was excluded because he was white as opposed to a host of other factors (low LSAT, low gpa, etc). It's not quota based admissions, so admissions departments are using a host of factors to make their decisions. These decisions result in what seems like an LSAT bump for URMs, but this is not technically what's actually occurring. What's occurring is that admissions departments want a variety of individuals in their programs- including people from the lower class, people from different racial backgrounds, people from less populous states, people from different professions, a balanced number of men and women etc.

I agree that this is a shell game. It would be akin to me arguing that our criminal justice system is not discriminatory just because you can't prove that any particular minority convict would have been acquitted in the absence of racism. After all, there are a million other reasons the jury might have convicted that particular defendant. Even though you cannot prove the discrimination in individual cases, I'm sure you believe it exists, just as I believe that there are whites who are denied admission to law school who would have been accepted were it not for the consideration of race in the admissions process.
Last edited by JazzOne on Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
GATORTIM
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby GATORTIM » Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:45 pm

They ask?

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby northwood » Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:48 pm

maybe sometime down the road it will be similar to dont ask dont tell

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby bilbobaggins » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:00 pm

JazzOne wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:
mrmangs wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:I would disagree with the proposition that people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against.


At the very least, one has to admit law school admissions are zero-sum. There is a limited number of spots, and if applicant A gets in, then applicant B has one less spot to compete for. Hell, even for admitted students, a similar competition exists: there is a limited amount of funds available for scholarships, and if admitted student A gets money, there is that much less available for admitted student B.

But, when we then move to AA and all the complications and subtleties that have been brought up ITT, well, whether one thinks people not getting a URM boost are being discriminated against really turns on how one assesses the sense of the word "discriminated" in light of all that information.


Sure, but it's impossible to show that any given person was excluded because he was white as opposed to a host of other factors (low LSAT, low gpa, etc). It's not quota based admissions, so admissions departments are using a host of factors to make their decisions. These decisions result in what seems like an LSAT bump for URMs, but this is not technically what's actually occurring. What's occurring is that admissions departments want a variety of individuals in their programs- including people from the lower class, people from different racial backgrounds, people from less populous states, people from different professions, a balanced number of men and women etc.

I agree that this is a shell game. It would akin to me arguing that our criminal justice system is not discriminatory just because you can't prove that any particular minority convict would have been acquitted in the absence of racism. After all, there are a million other reasons the jury might have convicted that particular defendant. Even though you cannot prove the discrimination in individual cases, I'm sure you believe it exists, just as I believe that there are whites who are denied admission to law school who would have been accepted were it not for the consideration of race in the admissions process.


This is different than racism in criminal convictions. I'll show you why:

Angry white student: I didn't get in to Yale! I know a URM got into Yale and he/she had the same numbers/lower numbers than me! URM took my spot and didn't get into my first choice law school!

Angry black convict: I got convicted of a crime I didn't commit because of my skin color! The jury chose to convict me because underlying racial assumptions made them think me more likely to commit a crime than my white counterpart given the same evidence! I'm in prison!

One involves the assertion that an absence of a racial identifier led to negative results. The other involves the assertion that the presence of a racial identifier led to negative results. In the first instance, the applicant isn't entitled to admission at Yale. In the second, the defendant is entitled to a fair trial. The applicant who doesn't get into Yale cannot say his/her race was used against him/her, only that someone else's race was a benefit to that other individual. This is why it's problematic to call affirmative action "reverse discrimination," because there's not a preference against non-URMs (as a gross majority admitted are non-URMs), but there is a preference for having classes with more than a handful of URMs.

That aside, as has been stated, the "they took our spots" mentality is extremely unhelpful, self serving and ignores the historical and present realities of race in the United States.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby d34d9823 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:09 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:The applicant who doesn't get into Yale cannot say his/her race was used against him/her, only that someone else's race was a benefit to that other individual.

This is a meaningless semantic difference when there are a fixed number of seats in the class.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby JazzOne » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:17 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:This is different than racism in criminal convictions. I'll show you why:

Angry white student: I didn't get in to Yale! I know a URM got into Yale and he/she had the same numbers/lower numbers than me! URM took my spot and didn't get into my first choice law school!

Angry black convict: I got convicted of a crime I didn't commit because of my skin color! The jury chose to convict me because underlying racial assumptions made them think me more likely to commit a crime than my white counterpart given the same evidence! I'm in prison!

One involves the assertion that an absence of a racial identifier led to negative results. The other involves the assertion that the presence of a racial identifier led to negative results. In the first instance, the applicant isn't entitled to admission at Yale. In the second, the defendant is entitled to a fair trial. The applicant who doesn't get into Yale cannot say his/her race was used against him/her, only that someone else's race was a benefit to that other individual. This is why it's problematic to call affirmative action "reverse discrimination," because there's not a preference against non-URMs (as a gross majority admitted are non-URMs), but there is a preference for having classes with more than a handful of URMs.

That aside, as has been stated, the "they took our spots" mentality is extremely unhelpful, self serving and ignores the historical and present realities of race in the United States.

I'm surprised you don't see this, and I think your position would be more defensible if you at least admitted the problems it creates at the margins. If admissions is a zero-sum game (which it probably is, more or less), then giving one group a boost is completely equivalent to discriminating against other groups. I'm sure you'd admit that it's discriminatory for me to favor renting to whites even though this is an affirmative boost for one group rather than an exclusion of another. This reminds me of my crim law professor who told our class not to worry because the final would be easy and participation in the class could only increase our grades. Sure, but since the curve is forced, that increase for some necessarily entailed a reduction for others.

Also, I concede that defendants are entitled to a fair trial whereas there is no constitutional right to a law degree. However, our Constitution espouses the principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of race. I'm not claiming that whites are entitled to a spot at Yale. I'm claiming that they are entitled to an admissions process that does not directly handicap them on the basis of race. I don't have to show that someone would have been admitted without the policy. It is sufficient to show that his chances were substantially diminished, and this is borne out in the statistics.

I agree that it is unhelpful to be angry that AA has occurred or even that it is occurring. But that should not preclude us from deliberating on whether it should continue in the future.
Last edited by JazzOne on Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wade LeBosh
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:46 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby Wade LeBosh » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:28 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:The applicant who doesn't get into Yale cannot say his/her race was used against him/her, only that someone else's race was a benefit to that other individual.

This is a meaningless semantic difference when there are a fixed number of seats in the class.


Does Yale have a fixed number of seats? I was under the impression they took everyone they wanted. Unless they're specifically reserving spots for URMs how does it effect non-URMs?

They took 'er jobs!

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby JazzOne » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:39 pm

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

I knew I should have locked it back then. Although it hasn't become terrible yet.

It's not even contentious. No need to lock it.

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby bilbobaggins » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

JazzOne wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:This is different than racism in criminal convictions. I'll show you why:

Angry white student: I didn't get in to Yale! I know a URM got into Yale and he/she had the same numbers/lower numbers than me! URM took my spot and didn't get into my first choice law school!

Angry black convict: I got convicted of a crime I didn't commit because of my skin color! The jury chose to convict me because underlying racial assumptions made them think me more likely to commit a crime than my white counterpart given the same evidence! I'm in prison!

One involves the assertion that an absence of a racial identifier led to negative results. The other involves the assertion that the presence of a racial identifier led to negative results. In the first instance, the applicant isn't entitled to admission at Yale. In the second, the defendant is entitled to a fair trial. The applicant who doesn't get into Yale cannot say his/her race was used against him/her, only that someone else's race was a benefit to that other individual. This is why it's problematic to call affirmative action "reverse discrimination," because there's not a preference against non-URMs (as a gross majority admitted are non-URMs), but there is a preference for having classes with more than a handful of URMs.

That aside, as has been stated, the "they took our spots" mentality is extremely unhelpful, self serving and ignores the historical and present realities of race in the United States.

I'm surprised you don't see this, and I think your position would be more defensible if you at least admitted the problems it creates at the margins. If admissions is a zero-sum game (which it probably is, more or less), then giving one group a boost is completely equivalent to discriminating against other groups. I'm sure you'd admit that it's discriminatory for me to favor renting to whites even though this is an affirmative boost for one group rather than an exclusion of another. This reminds me of my crim law professor who told our class not to worry because the final would be easy and participation in the class could only increase our grades. Sure, but since the curve is forced, that increase for some necessarily entailed a reduction for others.

Also, I concede that defendants are entitled to a fair trial whereas there is no constitutional right to a law degree. However, our Constitution espouses the principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of race. I'm not claiming that whites are entitled to a spot at Yale. I'm claiming that they are entitled to an admissions process that does not directly handicap them on the basis of race. I don't have to show that someone would have been admitted without the policy. It is sufficient to show that his chances were substantially diminished, and this is borne out in the statistics.

I agree that it is unhelpful to be angry that AA has occurred or even that it is occurring. But that should not preclude us from deliberating on whether it should continue in the future.


I don't see race being a positive factor in admissions as a problem given the way our society is currently structured. As had been pointed out in this thread, white individuals gain a general advantage in society based on how people react to whiteness as opposed to non-whites. This bias is operative every day and is systematic (i.e. not just the fault of some outwardly bigoted people). There have been many studies done to this affect. The high rates of incarceration for young, African American men and the negative societal perception of young, African American men shouldn't be in dispute. You're still statistically less likely to have a good K-12 education as a URM as compared to a white individual.

Despite all of these things that we (presumably) acknowledge to be the case, the discussion tends to be framed around URMs getting a "boost" which, as you have argued necessarily makes it "more difficult" for certain white students to be admitted. And, as I've said, this formulation is flawed for several reasons, the best of which is because it simply ignores the fact that being a young, African American man in the United States already puts you at a disadvantage before you get near an LSAT. This should be made clear by the statistics on African American BigLaw partners, CEOs, etc. Why, then, is the focus on the hypothetical marginalized white guy?

It seems like we've agreed that diversity is valuable, but there's something wrong with using race as a shortcut to diversity (despite the fact that simply being a URM in America, whether in a wealthy community or a poor one, will result in a different perspective than growing up a white male in either type of community). Top law schools, as institutions that train the next group of America's leaders, would be worse off by not including racial diversity in their admissions standards.

And while you might characterize it as an "intellectual shell game," SCOTUS, in Bakke, differentiated between using a quota system (aka a zero sum system) and an admissions system that used race as a plus factor in a "holistic" view. White students aren't getting denied from Yale because they're not URMs, they're getting denied because of their scores or their lack of other soft factors. Black students aren't getting denied from Yale because they're not white, they're getting denied because of their scores or their lack of other soft factors.

User avatar
mrmangs
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby mrmangs » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:37 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:This is different than racism in criminal convictions. I'll show you why:

Angry white student: I didn't get in to Yale! I know a URM got into Yale and he/she had the same numbers/lower numbers than me! URM took my spot and didn't get into my first choice law school!

Angry black convict: I got convicted of a crime I didn't commit because of my skin color! The jury chose to convict me because underlying racial assumptions made them think me more likely to commit a crime than my white counterpart given the same evidence! I'm in prison!

One involves the assertion that an absence of a racial identifier led to negative results. The other involves the assertion that the presence of a racial identifier led to negative results. In the first instance, the applicant isn't entitled to admission at Yale. In the second, the defendant is entitled to a fair trial. The applicant who doesn't get into Yale cannot say his/her race was used against him/her, only that someone else's race was a benefit to that other individual. This is why it's problematic to call affirmative action "reverse discrimination," because there's not a preference against non-URMs (as a gross majority admitted are non-URMs), but there is a preference for having classes with more than a handful of URMs.

That aside, as has been stated, the "they took our spots" mentality is extremely unhelpful, self serving and ignores the historical and present realities of race in the United States.

I'm surprised you don't see this, and I think your position would be more defensible if you at least admitted the problems it creates at the margins. If admissions is a zero-sum game (which it probably is, more or less), then giving one group a boost is completely equivalent to discriminating against other groups. I'm sure you'd admit that it's discriminatory for me to favor renting to whites even though this is an affirmative boost for one group rather than an exclusion of another. This reminds me of my crim law professor who told our class not to worry because the final would be easy and participation in the class could only increase our grades. Sure, but since the curve is forced, that increase for some necessarily entailed a reduction for others.

Also, I concede that defendants are entitled to a fair trial whereas there is no constitutional right to a law degree. However, our Constitution espouses the principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of race. I'm not claiming that whites are entitled to a spot at Yale. I'm claiming that they are entitled to an admissions process that does not directly handicap them on the basis of race. I don't have to show that someone would have been admitted without the policy. It is sufficient to show that his chances were substantially diminished, and this is borne out in the statistics.

I agree that it is unhelpful to be angry that AA has occurred or even that it is occurring. But that should not preclude us from deliberating on whether it should continue in the future.


I don't see race being a positive factor in admissions as a problem given the way our society is currently structured. As had been pointed out in this thread, white individuals gain a general advantage in society based on how people react to whiteness as opposed to non-whites. This bias is operative every day and is systematic (i.e. not just the fault of some outwardly bigoted people). There have been many studies done to this affect. The high rates of incarceration for young, African American men and the negative societal perception of young, African American men shouldn't be in dispute. You're still statistically less likely to have a good K-12 education as a URM as compared to a white individual.

Despite all of these things that we (presumably) acknowledge to be the case, the discussion tends to be framed around URMs getting a "boost" which, as you have argued necessarily makes it "more difficult" for certain white students to be admitted. And, as I've said, this formulation is flawed for several reasons, the best of which is because it simply ignores the fact that being a young, African American man in the United States already puts you at a disadvantage before you get near an LSAT. This should be made clear by the statistics on African American BigLaw partners, CEOs, etc. Why, then, is the focus on the hypothetical marginalized white guy?

It seems like we've agreed that diversity is valuable, but there's something wrong with using race as a shortcut to diversity (despite the fact that simply being a URM in America, whether in a wealthy community or a poor one, will result in a different perspective than growing up a white male in either type of community). Top law schools, as institutions that train the next group of America's leaders, would be worse off by not including racial diversity in their admissions standards.

And while you might characterize it as an "intellectual shell game," SCOTUS, in Bakke, differentiated between using a quota system (aka a zero sum system) and an admissions system that used race as a plus factor in a "holistic" view. White students aren't getting denied from Yale because they're not URMs, they're getting denied because of their scores or their lack of other soft factors. Black students aren't getting denied from Yale because they're not white, they're getting denied because of their scores or their lack of other soft factors.


While I sympathize with you and agree with the upshot of your argument, I really think the bolded is weak. No one is denying the process is holistic. Clearly, LSAT/GPA matter, and so do softs, including race, for admissions anywhere. But once you put race under the category of softs, that doesn't suddenly make it the case that race is not determinative in certain side-by-side comparisons (namely, when LSAT/GPA and softs other than race are essentially equivalent) between admits and rejections from any given school. In other words, while it sounds nice to say both URMs and whites get admitted or not purely based on "their scores and soft factors," there are certain cases where one metric is the deciding factor in the admissions process: URM status. This is not something AA advocates (such as you and I) should shy away from. It's determinative in certain cases because it is important (which has already been discussed at length ITT). The real argument between anti-AA folks and AA folks comes down to whether one thinks URM status should be considered a soft in the first place.

The argument from "quotas aren't practiced anymore" also seems off to me, but I have to think about it more. At least at first glance, it seems unsubstantial because I don't think you can realistically argue that any law school does not have an upper bound on its total number of admitted students for any given cycle (the number might be indefinite, but there is a limit). It's great that schools don't have quotas or caps for any given population within that pool, but if the total admit pool is limited, in the cases I've outlined above, results functionally equivalent to an actual quota system will arise. I don't think this is problematic for AA.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby d34d9823 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:46 pm

mrmangs wrote:At least at first glance, it seems unsubstantial because I don't think you can realistically argue that any law school does not have an upper bound on its total number of admitted students for any given cycle (the number might be indefinite, but there is a limit). It's great that schools don't have quotas or caps for any given population within that pool, but if the total admit pool is limited, in the cases I've outlined above, results functionally equivalent to an actual quota system will arise.

Even if an unlimited number of students could be admitted to Yale, admitting more would still negatively affect all admitted students. The name of the school is what you're paying for, and each additional student admitted dilutes this to an infinitesimal degree. On a side note, this is why schools with smaller class sizes have held up better in the recession.

User avatar
bergg007
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:21 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby bergg007 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:25 am

bilbobaggins wrote:This is different than racism in criminal convictions. I'll show you why:

Angry white student: I didn't get in to Yale! I know a URM got into Yale and he/she had the same numbers/lower numbers than me! URM took my spot and didn't get into my first choice law school!

Angry black convict: I got convicted of a crime I didn't commit because of my skin color! The jury chose to convict me because underlying racial assumptions made them think me more likely to commit a crime than my white counterpart given the same evidence! I'm in prison!

One involves the assertion that an absence of a racial identifier led to negative results. The other involves the assertion that the presence of a racial identifier led to negative results. In the first instance, the applicant isn't entitled to admission at Yale. In the second, the defendant is entitled to a fair trial. The applicant who doesn't get into Yale cannot say his/her race was used against him/her, only that someone else's race was a benefit to that other individual. This is why it's problematic to call affirmative action "reverse discrimination," because there's not a preference against non-URMs (as a gross majority admitted are non-URMs), but there is a preference for having classes with more than a handful of URMs.

That aside, as has been stated, the "they took our spots" mentality is extremely unhelpful, self serving and ignores the historical and present realities of race in the United States.



You are arguing two points, this does not make a cogent argument. There is no correlation between these two arguments. You are almost saying, "Which is worse, not getting into Yale , or going to prison." Obviously it's worse to go to prison and get butt-raped, etc. but that isn't the question. The question is, should persons of color be given a boost in admissions over Whitefolks like me?

I think that they should, maybe not as much of a boost as they currently receive but a boost nonetheless.

However, I think that to qualify for the boost they should have to prove a a socioeconomic disadvantage greater than just color. Being poor or picked on or physically handicapped should be weighed equally outside of race. I don't think a rich, or middle class, African American should get the boost that a White first-generation college graduate from a poor background should get. Please note I am none of these things, I'm a middle class white kid from CA.

You said, "This is why it's problematic to call affirmative action "reverse discrimination," because there's not a preference against non-URMs (as a gross majority admitted are non-URMs), but there is a preference for having classes with more than a handful of URMs." You are right this is not reverse discrimination, it is just discrimination. It doesn't matter which way the bias falls (pro or anti-URM) the Law Schools are openly discriminating against people like me (remember, I'm ok with the URM boost). Showing a preference either way because of race is discrimination. if two people are exactly the same in every way and the black one is admitted and the white one isn't, or vice versa, is discrimination. The law school has entered race as a factor in admissions, saying openly that it is better to be a minority than to be in the majority.

I think that socioeconomic status should weigh more heavily than race.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 3|ink » Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:28 pm

Nothing about this thread was calm until page 7 or 8.

Is it just to give preferential treatment to modern day URMs for the 'actions' (for lack of a better word) taken against their ancestors by the predecessors of modern day over-represented majorities? Who could possibly answer this question objectively? With or without AA, someone is bound to get screwed.

Screwed with AA: Milton. A poor white guy who busted his ass through UG with a full-time job yet somehow managed a 3.6 GPA and a 171 on the LSAT.

Screwed without AA: Jamal. A descendent of an historically poor black family who breaks eight generations of family tradition to attend college, somehow managing a 3.3 GPA and a 166 LSAT.

To say that AA is justified is to shit on the efforts of Milton. Likewise, to say AA is not justified is to shit on the efforts of Jamal.

Sorry Jamal, but I believe AA is unjustified discrimination. It’s probably the case that you and others of your demographic have been at a disadvantage since the first day you attended school. It’s likely that the actions of my predecessors are to blame. However, to hold me and others like me economically responsible for the actions of our predecessors is dubious. No ethnic group is an autonomous entity. Ignoring the obvious temporal issue, there has never been (and hopefully never will be) any white man or woman who has acted on behalf of all whites. Therefore, whatever horrible crimes were committed by my ancestors were their crimes alone. Whatever liability may have existed died with them. As previously admitted, this is an easier pill for someone of my background to swallow.

That aside, we (Whites, Blacks and anyone else with privilege) still have a responsibility as members of an imperfect society to ensure that whatever disadvantages Jamal may have experienced in public school were not the result of his family’s economic status. I don’t want to dive into a discussion regarding public education. However, the long-term answer to Jamal’s problems is not AA. It’s a public education system funded by more than local property taxes.

User avatar
LAWLAW09
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:09 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby LAWLAW09 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:42 pm

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?

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 3|ink » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:51 pm

LAWLAW09 wrote: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?


Wait. What? Are ORM lawyers more likely to abuse their privilege, power and wealth? Does this really have anything to do with the achievement gap?

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

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby d34d9823 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:56 pm

LAWLAW09 wrote:a) make ORMs lawyers less likely to abuse their privilege, power, and wealth

Are you alleging that there's an ongoing pattern of intentional subjugation of minorities?

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

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 20121109 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:59 pm

3|ink wrote:Sorry Jamal, but I believe AA is unjustified discrimination. It’s probably the case that you and others of your demographic have been at a disadvantage since the first day you attended school. It’s likely that the actions of my predecessors are to blame. However, to hold me and others like me economically responsible for the actions of our predecessors is dubious. No ethnic group is an autonomous entity. Ignoring the obvious temporal issue, there has never been (and hopefully never will be) any white man or woman who has acted on behalf of all whites. Therefore, whatever horrible crimes were committed by my ancestors were their crimes alone. Whatever liability may have existed died with them. As previously admitted, this is an easier pill for someone of my background to swallow.


Oh! Awesome. Let's keep bringing up micro-level hypotheticals like they're the main rationales behind affirmative action, and try to debunk the initiative that way :)

To say all of this and fail to recognize the lasting effects of ancestral crimes that are still very prevalent today strikes me as willfully ignorant or just blatant apathy.

I also fail to see how being held economically responsible, from what is implied from your post, is necessarily a disadvantage on the macro-level when being white alone is highly correlative with economic prosperity.

No white person needs to have acted on behalf of all whites for it to have deleterious effects on race equality. You're going to have to explain the relevance of this point.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 3|ink » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:10 am

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Oh! Awesome. Let's keep bringing up micro-level hypotheticals like they're the main rationales behind affirmative action, and try to debunk the initiative that way :)


So the main rationale has nothing to do with restoring balance?

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:To say all of this and fail to recognize the lasting effects of ancestral crimes that are still very prevalent today strikes me as willfully ignorant or just blatant apathy.


But I acknowledged the crimes and their lasting effects. I explained that it is absurd to hold the modern generation of an entire race responsible for the crimes of [some of] their predecessors.

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:I also fail to see how being held economically responsible, from what is implied from your post, is necessarily a disadvantage on the macro-level when being white alone is highly correlative with economic prosperity.


Regardless of socioeconomic background, to provide preferential treatment to URMs over ORMs is to give URMs an economic advantage at the expense of ORMs. As I've explained, I don't see how the crimes of our ancestors give anyone license to impose such a liability.

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:No white person needs to have acted on behalf of all whites for it to have deleterious effects on race equality. You're going to have to explain the relevance of this point.


The relevance is that no one should be held responsible for actions they had no part of. I conceded that those actions may have put URMs at a disadvantage. However, that doesn't mean that URMs have a claim against the successors of ORMs.

User avatar
LAWLAW09
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:09 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby LAWLAW09 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:13 am

3|ink wrote:
LAWLAW09 wrote: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?


Wait. What? Are ORM lawyers more likely to abuse their privilege, power and wealth? Does this really have anything to do with the achievement gap?

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


Not sure how your questions are relevant to what I posted. Also not sure why you assume AA is primarily about closing an inadequately defined "achievement gap." For example, the documented pattern of DA's and prosecutors systematically removing Blacks off of juries b/c they are Black, for me, is one reason that supports the need for AA. The problems associated with, and that result from, that example does not inherently bring achievement gaps into the conversation.

I don't know who answered it, but if no one wants to repeat his/herself that's cool.

User avatar
LAWLAW09
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:09 am

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby LAWLAW09 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:16 am

d34dluk3 wrote:
LAWLAW09 wrote:a) make ORMs lawyers less likely to abuse their privilege, power, and wealth

Are you alleging that there's an ongoing pattern of intentional subjugation of minorities?



No. Regardless of whether or not something is intentional or unintentional, predictable patterns of behavior can still be prevented or minimized.



(ETA: "Crimes of our ancestors" is not what maintains institutional and widespread patterns of racism and discrimination. In fact, that line of reasoning is a great way to keep those patterns going another hundred years.)
Last edited by LAWLAW09 on Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 3|ink » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:21 am

Nightrunner wrote:
3|ink wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Oh! Awesome. Let's keep bringing up micro-level hypotheticals like they're the main rationales behind affirmative action, and try to debunk the initiative that way :)


So the main rationale has nothing to do with restoring balance?


See what I did there?


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?

User avatar
MTal
Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby MTal » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:24 am

I LOVE the fact that people are still talking about this.

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

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 20121109 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:28 am

3|ink wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Oh! Awesome. Let's keep bringing up micro-level hypotheticals like they're the main rationales behind affirmative action, and try to debunk the initiative that way :)


So the main rationale has nothing to do with restoring balance?

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:To say all of this and fail to recognize the lasting effects of ancestral crimes that are still very prevalent today strikes me as willfully ignorant or just blatant apathy.


But I acknowledged the crimes and their lasting effects. I explained that it is absurd to hold the modern generation of an entire race responsible for the crimes of [some of] their predecessors.

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:I also fail to see how being held economically responsible, from what is implied from your post, is necessarily a disadvantage on the macro-level when being white alone is highly correlative with economic prosperity.


Regardless of socioeconomic background, to provide preferential treatment to URMs over ORMs is to give URMs an economic advantage at the expense of ORMs. As I've explained, I don't see how the crimes of our ancestors give anyone license to impose such a liability.

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:No white person needs to have acted on behalf of all whites for it to have deleterious effects on race equality. You're going to have to explain the relevance of this point.


The relevance is that no one should be held responsible for actions they had no part of. I conceded that those actions may have put URMs at a disadvantage. However, that doesn't mean that URMs have a claim against the successors of ORMs.


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.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 3|ink » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:30 am

LAWLAW09 wrote:
3|ink wrote:
LAWLAW09 wrote: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?


Wait. What? Are ORM lawyers more likely to abuse their privilege, power and wealth? Does this really have anything to do with the achievement gap?

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


Not sure how your questions are relevant to what I posted. Also not sure why you assume AA is primarily about closing an inadequately defined "achievement gap." For example, the documented pattern of DA's and prosecutors systematically removing Blacks off of juries b/c they are Black, for me, is one reason that supports the need for AA. The problems associated with, and that result from, that example does not inherently bring achievement gaps into the conversation.

I don't know who answered it, but if no one wants to repeat his/herself that's cool.


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.

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

Re: How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE?

Postby 20121109 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:30 am

Nightrunner wrote:
3|ink wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Oh! Awesome. Let's keep bringing up micro-level hypotheticals like they're the main rationales behind affirmative action, and try to debunk the initiative that way :)


So the main rationale has nothing to do with restoring balance?


See what I did there?


<3




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests