egghead wrote: Kohinoor wrote: egghead wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Nothing. You're the one who doesn't like the system, not me. I'm just saying that if you want to discuss this, let's not have the misconception that law schools are being forced by some governing authority to admit more minorities than they would otherwise prefer to.
Please link to a source where the claims of the author can be verified. None of her sources actually link to anything.
As I recall, you made the original assertion, so I'm not sure why you haven't backed it up with cited sources. But since you asked, here is another piece with more details:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007954
And since you seem to think the wall street journal has no fact checking - he also testified to the CCR. Their complete report is here:http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/AALSreport.pdf
With commentary here:http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... -on-c.html
Which contains the quote from the CCR press release: "The Commission criticizes the ABA standard because it 'substitutes the judgment of the Council for that of the law schools in deciding whether diversity is essential to their educational mission.'"
Obviously, everyone who testified had a viewpoint, as I'm sure members of the CCR did, but it's hard to make the assertion that the ABA isn't pressing for AA.
And a few more for good measure:http://www.law.com/jsp/mlj/PubArticleML ... ype=Surveyhttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006 ... ivilrights
which links to this:http://www.abanet.org/media/legaled/hod210_212.pdf
Google is a wonderful thing.
Even if you don't believe that the ABA is bullying law schools into having AA, the existence of that policy shows they're not unbiased on the issue.
And just so we're clear, I haven't expressed an opinion on AA - but the ABA, a "governing authority," clearly has.
The new first article you link provides no support for the assertions in the original article you linked. That's too bad because, unlike these other articles, the Heriot article at least provided concrete (if unsupported) statements of the ABA strong-arming a specific school into admitting minorities. Once we toss that out, we turn to this general testimony and allegations that the ABA has a vested interest in affirmative action.
Looking at the criticized proposition:
“a law school shall demonstrate, by concrete action, a commitment to providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and a commitment to having a study body that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.”
it does not require law schools to meet a quota or use affirmative action at all. The only testimony to the contrary was speculation from interested parties. In all of the testimony, I failed to see a single person make allegations of actual ABA imposition of AA.
I see them pressing for diversity, not AA. The Commission criticizes them for their emphasis on diversity. Let's not conflate the two practices.
It's actually pretty easy to argue that the ABA isn't pressing for AA considering that we have no evidence of them... pressing for AA.
The ABA is almost certainly pro-AA. That has nothing to do with claims that they force that view on institutions.
Please check your articles more carefully. Google is indeed a wonderful thing, but you can't google "affirmative action" and just use the first 5 articles as supporting evidence without reading them.