Egyptian as URM?

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
playhero
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:04 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby playhero » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:08 pm

The_Wall wrote:
As for this social construct BS, please.

Please to be giving me a quantifiable way to define race then.

The_Wall
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby The_Wall » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:09 pm

--LinkRemoved--

US Census Bureau.

It's also the definition in every major dictionary.

There are gray areas, sure, but this isn't one of them.

User avatar
doctorgonzo
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:45 am

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby doctorgonzo » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:10 pm

Then I refer to my question about what a Somali immigrant should check as mentioned before. If an immigrant from Somalia can't check "African-American", then I am curious as to know why. And if a Somali immigrant who came to this country 15 years ago can check "African-American", then why couldn't a person from a country barely a thousand miles away on the same continent not be able to?

User avatar
iagolives
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby iagolives » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:11 pm

playhero wrote:
The_Wall wrote:
As for this social construct BS, please.

Please to be giving me a quantifiable way to define race then.


I know you meant that sarcastically, but the math nerd in me died a little inside of happiness at the thought of a URM equation.

Sorry, I am very not helpful....

User avatar
playhero
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:04 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby playhero » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:12 pm

The_Wall wrote:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm

US Census Bureau.

It's also the definition in every major dictionary.

There are gray areas, sure, but this isn't one of them.

That dosen't say shit.

census wrote: includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"

So basically he indicates his race as African Am and he now is one as far as the Census bureau is considered. Way to not prove your point. Also don't try to misconstrue this and claim that I am saying hes African-America. What I am saying is you have failed to prove anything.

Roo
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:45 am

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby Roo » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:15 pm

Then I refer to my question about what a Somali immigrant should check as mentioned before. If an immigrant from Somalia can't check "African-American", then I am curious as to know why. And if a Somali immigrant who came to this country 15 years ago can check "African-American", then why couldn't a person from a country barely a thousand miles away on the same continent not be able to?


There is Arab North Africa and Black Subsaharan Africa. Somalia is literally on the line. Egypt is not.

The_Wall
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby The_Wall » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:15 pm

A Somali citizen of the United States may or may not get the bump. There you have a bit of grayness, as far as I know. Some argue absolutely not, some argue yes, as the overall purpose of affirmative action is to promote the entrance of blacks, among others, into the professions and the middle class. Even if originally Somali, a US citizen and his or her descendants serve this purpose.

The counter-argument is that affirmative action is meant solely, or at least primarily, in redress of slavery and segregation, meaning immigrants of the past twenty five years are not similarly entitled. I think this is largely ignored not because it's incorrect but because it's impractical.

Again, the definition is racial, not continental, so the two are not analogous.
Last edited by The_Wall on Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The_Wall
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby The_Wall » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:16 pm

"Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa."

Do read the entire definition.

And note how people of Middle Eastern or North African descent are classified. These definitions do exist and they are racial, not geographic.

User avatar
BigAristotle
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby BigAristotle » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:17 pm

Black does not mean 'descendant of slaves', it points to a set of people in America with a skin color, and who are consequently treated/live a different life than others. Race is a social construct, a perception and self identification.

BLACK immigrants who gain citizenship are certainly eligible for the bonus. No, the box doesn't say this, but for example,the OP has not identified as an African American (in terms of the GENERALLY USED TERM) his entire life, so he's lying. He's identified as an Egyptian, most likely with the skin color and physical features typified with Arabs?

Your Somalian example would fall under the latter, qualifying for URM as long as he has citizenship. However, it doesn't matter that he's from Somalia. A Black individual transplanted from Russia who gains citizenship would gain this boost.

Let's say, hypothetically, a group of Black individuals were transplanted to Sweden a long time ago (like 700 years). They then come to the United States in the 1940s, and a 2nd or third generation born American applies to law school. They are certainly not identified as 'African'. It points to their skin color and subsequent experiences that would add to the law school's community, for they as a race are under-representative. You might not agree with this, as these Black people have a different experience than the 'stereotypical' one; but this is the system in place and used.

Playing technicalities and using semantics doesn't win you this argument. Just as with Native Americans (where tribe affiliation is usually asked for), one must identify themselves as the given race/ethnic class. The point of the URM boost is to give those who have difficulty getting into law school a boost, so diversity and differing opinions are presented in school Not truly falling under the categories doesn't aid in this purpose. Knowing you do not fall under a category, yet checking it anyway in this manner, is the same, as I said before, as me ( a white American born male) claiming to be a Native American; since I'm natively born here.

Ideally, the four URM categories will be removed once they serve the purpose of furthering the representation of the four classes in the given environment.

I think if the OP checks AA, and writes a DS about being Egyptian, an ad comm is going to think he was trying to work the system, or doesn't understand classifications, OR, if the poster really believes he is AA in actual terms and not technicalities, boost his app.

Mark African America and write a ds talking about your egyption life style. This way an adcom can over rule it if they do not feel you qualify as an African American (which they won't do). Then no one can say it was unethical since you fully disclosed what you meant, upfront. If anyone ever ask, you can say you thought it would qualify but since it was a grey area, you tried to be as upfront as possible and let the adcoms make the call.


/agreed

End of story, OP is not Black/African American. Putting anything else is a lie, imho.

User avatar
playhero
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:04 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby playhero » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:21 pm

The_Wall wrote:"Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa."

Do read the entire definition.

And note how people of Middle Eastern or North African descent are classified. These definitions do exist and they are racial, not geographic.

That's not an exclusive definition, gg?

If it said something like . People who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," and have origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Then you would be right since it would be an exclusive definition. As it is now it's not.

0/2 want to try again? I'm more then willing to totally conceded if you can actually prove what you are saying.

User avatar
doctorgonzo
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:45 am

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby doctorgonzo » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:22 pm

The_Wall wrote:The counter-argument is that affirmative action is meant solely, or at least primarily, in redress of slavery and segregation, meaning immigrants of the past twenty five years are not similarly entitled. I think this is largely ignored to because it's incorrect but because it's impractical.


That's one purpose of AA; there are several others. A broader purpose could be to address past and current evidence of discrimination, not necessarily over segregation. My hometown now has a sizable Somali community, and in the wake of 9/11, I am sorry to say they were discriminated against terribly by the majority-white population. As were plenty of other people of Middle Eastern descent. I think they would argue very vociferously against being considered "White" by the population at large, as the census seems to do.

It is up to the individual schools to decide why their AA exists for the most part. If he does check African-American and says that he is an Egyptian immigrant, the school will decide what they will make of it. I can't see how that could be held against him if he does check it, unless the application specifically says "Use the racial definitions of the U.S. census" or otherwise explicitly limits the meaning of "African-American".

As for the census definitions, they have always changed. Back in the day, Irish was considered a separate race I believe. They'll undoubtedly change again. There's just no objective, scientific measure of race.

The_Wall
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby The_Wall » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:27 pm

Oh, for Christ's sake. If you disagree, by all means, but don't be shrill.

The first line is the definition. The second line defines analogous terms-that is, as a racial group blacks and African Americans put ""Black, African Am., or Negro" on various forms in various periods of American census. It does not mean that putting black on the form makes you black.

Furthermore-White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

Clearly the distinctions are being drawn in the first line. The subsequent line explains which entries on various forms, whether analogous to white or of an ethnic subgroup, are included for statistical purposes.

I'm not sure how anybody could read that page any other way, unless deliberately.

User avatar
playhero
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:04 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby playhero » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:27 pm

doctorgonzo wrote:
It is up to the individual schools to decide why their AA exists for the most part. If he does check African-American and says that he is an Egyptian immigrant, the school will decide what they will make of it. I can't see how that could be held against him if he does check it, unless the application specifically says "Use the racial definitions of the U.S. census" or otherwise explicitly limits the meaning of "African-American".

Actually if it did say that I think it would strength the argument for him to check it. Since their definition is clearly up to self determination of the person filling out the paper work.

The_Wall
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby The_Wall » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:31 pm

They're the definitions that exist now. The definitions that existed twenty years ago or twenty years from now are irrelevant, as the question is not how we, as a society, rigidly define race but how race is defined by institutions in the United States.

Is it possible there's an admissions committee that considers Egyptians African-Americans for the purposes of affirmative action? Perhaps, but it's quite unlikely, and at any rate, the definition of African-American, in government and in social parlance (given that it was adopted by blacks, specifically Jesse Jackson), has never been Americans of any African descent. We all know what we're talking about. Willfully ignoring the content of the term for a technical meaning that is not found in any dictionary nor used by any agency of the American government nor, as far as I know, any law school, is, in my view, unethical and unlikely to produce any longterm advantage.

If you disagree on that fundamental point, I suppose that's all there is. I'm not sure how one can possibly structure affirmative action policy around your definition, however.

User avatar
doctorgonzo
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:45 am

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby doctorgonzo » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:35 pm

Of course future law students are going to parse definitions, what else do you expect? :)

I can very easily see AA programs that have zero to do with race. That is the kind of AA program I would like to see more of. A more holistic view that looks at the life of the individual, not something based on something as clunky as "race".

I suppose one of my fundamental issues is how "Other" or any other category can possibly be more accurate for this person than "African-American".

User avatar
iagolives
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby iagolives » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:37 pm

doctorgonzo wrote:Of course future law students are going to parse definitions, what else do you expect? :)

I can very easily see AA programs that have zero to do with race. That is the kind of AA program I would like to see more of. A more holistic view that looks at the life of the individual, not something based on something as clunky as "race".

I suppose one of my fundamental issues is how "Other" or any other category can possibly be more accurate for this person than "African-American".


As an "other," TITCR

User avatar
playhero
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:04 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby playhero » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:43 pm

The_Wall wrote:They're the definitions that exist now. The definitions that existed twenty years ago or twenty years from now are irrelevant, as the question is not how we, as a society, rigidly define race but how race is defined by institutions in the United States.

Is it possible there's an admissions committee that considers Egyptians African-Americans for the purposes of affirmative action? Perhaps, but it's quite unlikely, and at any rate, the definition of African-American, in government and in social parlance (given that it was adopted by blacks, specifically Jesse Jackson), has never been Americans of any African descent. We all know what we're talking about. Willfully ignoring the content of the term for a technical meaning that is not found in any dictionary nor used by any agency of the American government nor, as far as I know, any law school, is, in my view, unethical and unlikely to produce any longterm advantage.

If you disagree on that fundamental point, I suppose that's all there is. I'm not sure how one can possibly structure affirmative action policy around your definition, however.

I fundamentally agree with you. I do dissent about your limited definition but I do understand your view point. You are probably right about what should be, but keeping personal politics aside, I think we should stick to what is. My real contention or rather question is what do you have against letting an admission commit decide if he qualifies?

At best just checking the the box is a gray area and at worst it's an abuse of the system. That said however I do not see what is fundamentally wrong with checking the box , as long as the op fully discloses that his family lines come from North Africa/Egypt. Is the admissions commit not the best to deiced if this is qualified? Are they not the experts?

The_Wall
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby The_Wall » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:45 pm

The proper selection according to the US Census Bureau would be White. If the poster feels otherwise, it would be Other.

That she doesn't like the other definitions does not make one from which she is explicitly excluded appropriate.

You may be right about coming to a different implementation of affirmative action policy. It does not, however, justify her attempt to game the existing system. It's not the dictionary definition, it's not the US government's definition, it's not the definition in common usage. I see zero justification for checking that box.

EDIT: If she explicitly communicates to the admissions committees that she is not, in fact, black, it's not as egregious, no. On the other hand, given that there simply isn't any justification for checking that box, and that she has said explicitly that it's not identity she's defending (Egyptians do not consider themselves Africans, so why on Earth would they consider themselves African Americans?) but her right to affirmative action. That sentiment, more than the checking of the box, raises serious ethical questions.

She just shouldn't check it. If she does it your way, all right, I will concede it's not as objectionable as simply checking it and trying to slip past them. But it's wrong either way.

User avatar
playhero
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:04 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby playhero » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:52 pm

The_Wall wrote:EDIT: If she explicitly communicates to the admissions committees that she is not, in fact, black, it's not as egregious, no. On the other hand, given that there simply isn't any justification for checking that box, and that she has said explicitly that it's not identity she's defending (Egyptians do not consider themselves Africans, so why on Earth would they consider themselves African Americans?) but her right to affirmative action. That sentiment, more than the checking of the box, raises serious ethical questions.

She just shouldn't check it. If she does it your way, all right, I will concede it's not as objectionable as simply checking it and trying to slip past them. But it's wrong either way.

Ok I see your point. I'm not 100% with you but it is a convincing argument.

User avatar
doctorgonzo
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:45 am

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby doctorgonzo » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:57 pm

The_Wall wrote:EDIT: If she explicitly communicates to the admissions committees that she is not, in fact, black, it's not as egregious, no. On the other hand, given that there simply isn't any justification for checking that box, and that she has said explicitly that it's not identity she's defending (Egyptians do not consider themselves Africans, so why on Earth would they consider themselves African Americans?) but her right to affirmative action. That sentiment, more than the checking of the box, raises serious ethical questions.


I don't buy that there "simply isn't any justification" for checking that box. Of there is plenty of justification: both African and American.

What really matters, though, is that there is less justification for the other categories. Asian? Native American? Nonstarters of course. Ditto for Hispanic. White? Show a picture of the applicant, or any other Arabic person, to 100 random people on the street and ask if that person is white. I'm betting on an affirmative response rate of 0%. That leaves Other. Oh, the dreaded "Other". The OP isn't a Martian. Comes from this planet as far as I can tell. So why "Other"? Why the category that screams out, "Hey, you, you really don't belong! You are in the catch-all category, the add-on!" It's a pretty demeaning category when you think of it: not good enough to be a named "race" like the others.

So I do disagree that there is zero justification for choosing African-American, and I argue that the other categories are even worse.

The_Wall
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby The_Wall » Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:15 pm

Again, by that logic, I can check the Native American box. I'm native to America and an American.

The dictionary definition, the US government's definition, the generally accepted definition in daily usage, etc., etc. If that isn't enough for you, I guess there's nothing else for me to say.

As for the other categories, white/Caucasian is what's used by the US census bureau and definitely the closest. It's odd that Caucasian is worse because she's not "white enough" but African-American is acceptable despite the fact that she's not "black at all."

User avatar
doctorgonzo
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:45 am

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby doctorgonzo » Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:22 pm

The_Wall wrote:As for the other categories, white/Caucasian is what's used by the US census bureau and definitely the closest. It's odd that Caucasian is worse because she's not "white enough" but African-American is acceptable despite the fact that she's not "black at all."


It's not odd; isn't that the point of AA? To give minorities that have not been part of the power structure an added boost to make up for social/institutional discrimination. What would be odd would be to call somebody White because of some arbitrary government definition, despite the fact that society does not see them or treat them as white at all. Do people of Arabic descent in this country benefit from historical white privilege? Probably not. Plus, I don't see how she is not "black at all"; again, in the hypothetical ask-a-hundred-people-on-the-street experiment, a good proportion probably would say "black", and again, isn't the point of AA to address how society views people? If a person is treated as if they are black, doesn't that count? If a person doesn't identify with a certain race, but society as a whole identifies that person with a race, which is more important?

In my ideal world, we all would check "other" and make schools and other institutions come up with AA programs that provide a diversity of cultural background, economic background, educational background, family background, gender, employment background, and yes, even skin color. Oh well.

The_Wall
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby The_Wall » Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:38 pm

First of all, as has been pointed out, Arabs are not an underrepresented minority. Like Asians, Arabs fare better in this country than whites in a number of categories (this is, obviously, self-selection-I'm not suggesting they have it easier, only that they don't need help). Secondly, even if they didn't, affirmative action is currently applied to three racial groups. Whether it ought to be or not, it is. She's still acting unethically if she attempts to circumvent that policy, particularly with zero justification.

Finally, if you showed her picture on the street, how many would say white, how many would say Middle Eastern (that is, Caucasian, again, in the dictionary, by government definition and by the earliest historical definitions of the term), how many would say Hispanic, I don't know, but it's fair to say, by her self-description, none would say black.

But that, again, is not the test. The definition you've made up, even if it is more appropriate (and I don't think it is, but the broader view of affirmative action is fairly close to mine), does not change the definition that's actually in use. It may be affirmative action ought to help out Egyptians. I dunno. But that's not the current affirmative action policy and, therefore, the original poster ought not attempt to benefit by it.

User avatar
bwv812
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:18 am

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby bwv812 » Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:47 am

.
Last edited by bwv812 on Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lishi
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:53 pm

Re: Egyptian as URM?

Postby lishi » Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:09 am

bwv812 wrote:
playhero wrote: Thy gold standard of law schools is self-identification.

Please tell Yale, because I self identify with 3.95/179 (i.e., I'm sure there's someone out there who's smarter, but I've yet to meet her).


:lol: :lol:




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest