Pacific Islanders=URM's, but no boost

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
mrloblaw
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Pacific Islanders=URM's, but no boost

Postby mrloblaw » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:01 pm

dkt4 wrote:this thread seems to not understand where AA came from


France?

admisionquestion
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Pacific Islanders=URM's, but no boost

Postby admisionquestion » Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:21 am

On the original point of this post:

I definitely don't know but I feel like under represented means X ethnicity represents Y percent of the population but only <Y percent of the law school population.

Not X ethnicity only has Y percent of being college educated whereas the average is >Y.

I think that those are not statistically identical and as such I think your looking at the wrong data.

And then of course, your point only makes any sense once I've suspended all disbelief and assumed that Affirmative Action is based on reason.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Pacific Islanders=URM's, but no boost

Postby PDaddy » Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:43 am

When defining "underrepresentation" one must consider several dynamics.

1) To the extent that Pacific Islanders represent a small portion of the American legal community, they are "underrepresented" in pure numbers. However, this is probably not by a large margin, given that they comprise a very small minority of Americans to begin with. By contrast, African-Americans comprise at least 13% of the American population but represent an unacceptably small segment of lawyers...ditto Hispanics, whose population is growing faster than any. Because the general population predicts the level and frequency of interaction with the medical and legal fields, a group's representation in those professions should ideally reflect its portion of the general population.

2) The other metric defining underrepresentation is "relative poverty levels" both within the Pacific Islander ethnic class(es) and between Pacific Islanders and middle-class American whites. This is where Pacific Islanders also fail to qualify. In the aggregate, their relative earnings, quality of schools and education levels, etc. tend to surpass those of Hispanics, African-Americans, Indian/Native-Americans, and poorer Asians (i.e., Korean, Filipino, Lao, Cambodian, etc.). They have historically had lower dropout rates and received better quality education.

3) The third dynamic to be considered is "historical disenfranchisement", via slavery, geographical displacement, and laws designed to perpetuate it, such as the Filipino Exclusion Act, Jim Crow Laws, etc. Pacific Islanders do not fall into this group because American laws have not been specifically aimed at disenfranchising them, economically, geographically or otherwise.

4) Lastly, many people of color cannot claim underrepresentation in the U.S. for the same reason an American who relocates to France would not have a similar benefit there: their "relocation is by choice". Those people of color who immigrate to the U.S. by choice cannot, and should not have the benefit of getting in line with the aforementioned groups.

Many Ethiopians, for example, shun black Americans but align with them when they see an opportunity to benefit from associating with them. Indians from India wonder why they cannot be considered in the same class with Native American Indians or Mexican Americans, since they are all brown and red-skinned. It would be fundamentally wrong to allow those groups to benefit in such ways when they have not endured the suffering that ethnic groups of color have endured in the U.S.

That having been said, the boost is not simply about historical disenfranchisement, but that which has been historical and continues. It's a complicated subject, but there are reasons certain ethnic groups receive the boost while others do not. The sad part is that they system would be unjust no matter how we handled it, but this is the best idea we have at the present time.
Last edited by PDaddy on Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Pacific Islanders=URM's, but no boost

Postby PDaddy » Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:54 am

rgndvo wrote:Whatever one thinks of affirmative action (and I'm not inclined to debate that here), we can all agree that, if such a system exists, it should apply to ALL URM's. Consider Pacific Islanders, who are grotesquely under-represented in higher education, but are not accorded any sort of AA boost. The is manifestly unjust and unfair.


"Over 28 percent of graduation-age (25-or-older) have at least a 4-year-degree. By comparison, only 14 percent of single-race Pacific Islander Americans have a 4-year-degree. For advanced degrees, the national graduation rate is 10 percent, while the Pacific Islander graduate is 4 percent."



Source: 2010 US Census. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... -ff06.html


In contrast with real URM's, Pacific Islanders are more educationally and economically enfranchised. These stats actually disprove your point. Furthermore, you misuse the term "underrepresented". It's meaning doesn't extend to defining comparisons between ethnic groups. A group's underrepresentation is defined by its population within schools relative to its general population. You seem to be arguing that if Asians or whites comprise a greater number of law students than do Pacific Islanders, Pacific Islanders must be underrepresented. It doesn't work that way.

dkt4
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Pacific Islanders=URM's, but no boost

Postby dkt4 » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:25 pm

mrloblaw wrote:
dkt4 wrote:this thread seems to not understand where AA came from


France?


how did u know




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest