SCOTUS ruling question

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
anubis1911
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 12:41 am

SCOTUS ruling question

Postby anubis1911 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:47 pm

I've been following the case carefully and am a bit concerned that affirmative action may be overturned. Naturally as an AA male with what will be a 3.7 GPA and hopefully a great LSAT score from June, I would like that bump to get me over the top. I am applying for the upcoming cycle... When would the decision come into effect should the practice be overturned? This is quite possibly the difference of H/Y to University of Texas for me....

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby kaiser » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:04 pm

anubis1911 wrote:I've been following the case carefully and am a bit concerned that affirmative action may be overturned. Naturally as an AA male with what will be a 3.7 GPA and hopefully a great LSAT score from June, I would like that bump to get me over the top. I am applying for the upcoming cycle... When would the decision come into effect should the practice be overturned? This is quite possibly the difference of H/Y to University of Texas for me....


Well, if they indeed completely overturn the practice of affirmative action in admissions, the practice would be deemed immediately unconstitutional.

However, I suspect that they will still manage to factor it into admissions decisions, but simply not admit to it. For example, if you wrote into a personal statement something that indicated your background, they may very well still pick up on it and weight that in (even though they would no longer be allowed to weigh this).

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby Br3v » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:17 pm

anubis1911 wrote:I've been following the case carefully and am a bit concerned that affirmative action may be overturned. Naturally as an AA male with what will be a 3.7 GPA and hopefully a great LSAT score from June, I would like that bump to get me over the top. I am applying for the upcoming cycle... When would the decision come into effect should the practice be overturned? This is quite possibly the difference of H/Y to University of Texas for me....


Put together your best application and apply wide, if you get the extra boost for being an URM then cool, if not then you will still have out together your best effort. No one knows for sure the answer to your question until maybe a cycle or two when the data can be examined.

UnderrateOverachieve
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby UnderrateOverachieve » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:31 pm

kaiser wrote:
anubis1911 wrote:I've been following the case carefully and am a bit concerned that affirmative action may be overturned. Naturally as an AA male with what will be a 3.7 GPA and hopefully a great LSAT score from June, I would like that bump to get me over the top. I am applying for the upcoming cycle... When would the decision come into effect should the practice be overturned? This is quite possibly the difference of H/Y to University of Texas for me....


Well, if they indeed completely overturn the practice of affirmative action in admissions, the practice would be deemed immediately unconstitutional.

However, I suspect that they will still manage to factor it into admissions decisions, but simply not admit to it. For example, if you wrote into a personal statement something that indicated your background, they may very well still pick up on it and weight that in (even though they would no longer be allowed to weigh this).


Private institutions would be free to ignore a constitutional ban on the practice. However, I would be curious to see if the practice would nonetheless fold due to external forces.

thsmthcrmnl
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:07 am

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby thsmthcrmnl » Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:04 pm

UnderrateOverachieve wrote:Private institutions would be free to ignore a constitutional ban on the practice. However, I would be curious to see if the practice would nonetheless fold due to external forces.


Maybe. Depends on Title VI and what we think Bakke means.

User avatar
Typhoon24
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:09 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby Typhoon24 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:08 pm

This freaking sucks. This crap has to go down the year I want to apply.

anubis1911
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 12:41 am

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby anubis1911 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:15 pm

Typhoon24 wrote:This freaking sucks. This crap has to go down the year I want to apply.


This is what I am saying!

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby kaiser » Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:40 pm

Though lets be real here. Yeah, it sucks for those who would have been beneficiaries of it. But I always envisioned AA as something that is meant to take the kid who would otherwise be totally shut out, and raise him up and give him an opportunity where there otherwise was none. Those who are pretty much on the cusp of T14 schools already, even without consideration of race, are already winners. You are going to have great opportunities, lots of doors open, etc. no matter what. Ok, so you may end up at Cornell/Georgetown as opposed to Harvard. I'd say thats still a pretty good situation to be in, all things considered.

Its the kid who truly is without opportunity who I'm concerned about should AA be struck down.

anubis1911
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 12:41 am

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby anubis1911 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:42 pm

I know that we aren't supposed to argue affirmative action but I completely agree with you. I personally don't believe that race should be a factor at all but what do I know? However, I believe in using all the cards given to you. I have a pretty decent hand thus far and would like to go all in and win if you get my analogy.

JackSparrow
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:53 am

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby JackSparrow » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:32 am

Looks like we may be in the clear, at least for this cycle. But, you never know how this will affect the upcoming cycle.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

laww
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:08 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby laww » Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:48 am

anubis1911 wrote:
Typhoon24 wrote:This freaking sucks. This crap has to go down the year I want to apply.


This is what I am saying!


How is this fair for people like me? (Asian)

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby californiauser » Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:13 pm

laww wrote:
anubis1911 wrote:
Typhoon24 wrote:This freaking sucks. This crap has to go down the year I want to apply.


This is what I am saying!


How is this fair for people like me? (Asian)


Take this garbage to the lounge.

laww
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:08 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby laww » Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:26 am

Wow really?

My bad for posting it here but wow...

User avatar
bosmer88
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:07 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby bosmer88 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:38 am

laww wrote:Wow really?

My bad for posting it here but wow...


You are getting that reaction because there is a big sticky at the top of the URM forum that says not to do what you did in caps. Plus, what you are stating isn't new, novel, or innovative by any means. There are many before you who have posted the same argument in this forum. You will find your idea regurgitated over and over and over again in the AA thread in the lounge, so no need to state here.

Ruluo
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:26 am

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby Ruluo » Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:34 pm

bosmer88 wrote:
laww wrote:Wow really?

My bad for posting it here but wow...


You are getting that reaction because there is a big sticky at the top of the URM forum that says not to do what you did in caps. Plus, what you are stating isn't new, novel, or innovative by any means. There are many before you who have posted the same argument in this forum. You will find your idea regurgitated over and over and over again in the AA thread in the lounge, so no need to state here.


Part of the issue is that the 'reaction,' calling his post "garbage," is not just a rude dismissal of the question but also is an implicit counter argument that the question/concern has (little or) no value.

Such aggressive marginalization of an arguably legitimate question (even if it is in a controlled forum in which it is technically not allowed) is bound to aggrevate resentment and foster indignation.

Removing the issue from context, imagine a hypothetical situation in which you were descrimiated against and banned from even mildly questioning the subject when you heard a group of people actively advocating for the continuance of the mechanism of descrimination against you--how would you feel? Now imagine that in response to a relatively benign question regarding the fairness of the descrimination against you, you were met with (seemingly) dismissive contempt.

Regardless of whether the initial question should have been posed, the response was inappropriate and could easily (and understandably) create unnecessary tension.

I would suggest next time that a neutral request for the issue to not be raised (or dropped if already mentioned) would be potentially more effective and almost certainly less counterproductive. It would also just be generally nicer.

User avatar
bosmer88
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:07 pm

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby bosmer88 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:21 pm

Ruluo wrote:
Part of the issue is that the 'reaction,' calling his post "garbage," is not just a rude dismissal of the question but also is an implicit counter argument that the question/concern has (little or) no value.

Such aggressive marginalization of an arguably legitimate question (even if it is in a controlled forum in which it is technically not allowed) is bound to aggrevate resentment and foster indignation.

Removing the issue from context, imagine a hypothetical situation in which you were descrimiated against and banned from even mildly questioning the subject when you heard a group of people actively advocating for the continuance of the mechanism of descrimination against you--how would you feel? Now imagine that in response to a relatively benign question regarding the fairness of the descrimination against you, you were met with (seemingly) dismissive contempt.

Regardless of whether the initial question should have been posed, the response was inappropriate and could easily (and understandably) create unnecessary tension.

I would suggest next time that a neutral request for the issue to not be raised (or dropped if already mentioned) would be potentially more effective and almost certainly less counterproductive. It would also just be generally nicer.


No one has banned him/her from asking the question, the poster just can't pose that question in this forum. There is a huge difference. What he/she is asking has been discussed thousands of times on TLS in the lounge. Additionally, there is a big warning at the top that explicitly says not to do what she/he did because it always results in a shitstorm in the URM forum.

The URM forum is supposed to serve as a resource for URMs and other underrepresented groups applying to law school or attending law school. It is not a place for people to vent about how butthurt they feel about AA.

If that poster had asked for advice, the posters on this forum would have gladly helped him or her. People are generally happy to help others here when someone has a *legitimate question*.
Last edited by bosmer88 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22892
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:23 pm

Garbage = not appropriate in this forum because of the conflicts it causes, not a commentary on the content.

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: SCOTUS ruling question

Postby californiauser » Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:56 pm

Ruluo wrote:
bosmer88 wrote:
laww wrote:Wow really?

My bad for posting it here but wow...


You are getting that reaction because there is a big sticky at the top of the URM forum that says not to do what you did in caps. Plus, what you are stating isn't new, novel, or innovative by any means. There are many before you who have posted the same argument in this forum. You will find your idea regurgitated over and over and over again in the AA thread in the lounge, so no need to state here.


Part of the issue is that the 'reaction,' calling his post "garbage," is not just a rude dismissal of the question but also is an implicit counter argument that the question/concern has (little or) no value.

Such aggressive marginalization of an arguably legitimate question (even if it is in a controlled forum in which it is technically not allowed) is bound to aggrevate resentment and foster indignation.

Removing the issue from context, imagine a hypothetical situation in which you were descrimiated against and banned from even mildly questioning the subject when you heard a group of people actively advocating for the continuance of the mechanism of descrimination against you--how would you feel? Now imagine that in response to a relatively benign question regarding the fairness of the descrimination against you, you were met with (seemingly) dismissive contempt.

Regardless of whether the initial question should have been posed, the response was inappropriate and could easily (and understandably) create unnecessary tension.

I would suggest next time that a neutral request for the issue to not be raised (or dropped if already mentioned) would be potentially more effective and almost certainly less counterproductive. It would also just be generally nicer.


descrimination?




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest