manofjustice wrote:NOTHING is offensive about what I said. What is offensive is your presumption that unless I ratify OP's vacuous appeal to a metric-independent preferential recognition, I am offensive.
URM != underrepresented. But they're functionally equivalent. To say otherwise is like saying a home loan is nothing like a car loan because the former has to do with a house. The functional component of "URM" is "UR" not "M."
Let's put it this way. If OP had said: "hey, guys: NYU's app asks 'underrepresented groups' to write a DS. Now, I have no idea if pansexuals are underrepresented, but can I assume, at least, that avowed pansexuals are, given the stigma that still exists to being anything but heterosexual? If so, it took me some serious self-insight and a fair bit of struggle to come to understand I was pansexual, and then to be clear enough about who I am to talk about that to other people. And I am a stronger person for it. There are a lot of details I would like to convey about my struggle to the AdCom. What do you think?"
Then I'd say...go right ahead.
I'm confused now. You started off by saying that because you weren't familiar with the term "pansexual," the OP wasn't justified in mentioning it in a diversity statement. Now you say that it's OK if OP writes a diversity statement about being pansexual, as long as they follow the format of every decent diversity statement ever. It seems to me like you're just backtracking. If this actually was your original position, I wish you would have said this from the beginning.
At no point did I say that OP should simply write a "vacuous appeal to a metric-independent preferential recognition" or that you should "ratify" that. What I found offensive was your implication that pansexuality was somehow not a legitimate sexual orientation or subject of a diversity statement, and that by using a term for their sexuality that you were unfamiliar with, the OP had done something wrong. The OP was asking if pansexuality was an OK subject for a DS, given that homosexuality, bisexuality and being non-gender conforming ARE considered OK subjects, but pansexuality is less well known. It's perfectly understandable that one would want to know if pansexuality is an OK subject for a DS at all before writing out the actual DS.
If you were actually under the impression that OP was planning to write a three-word diversity statement that only read "I am pansexual," why didn't you just ask whether the OP planned to write a real diversity statement (which you now say you're totally fine with) or simply a sentence telling the adcomm what their sexual orientation was?
Also, you're statements about URMs and "underrepresented" are contradictory. Maybe I should clarify what I meant. In common speech, the term "underrepresented minority" refers to ANY minority which is underrepresented. In terms of LSAC, "URM" refers to four SPECIFIC underrepresented minorities, AA, NA, MA, PR, and not any other underrepresented minorities. There are other groups, whether ethnic/racial, religious, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation or gender based, which are underrepresented and/or discriminated against in this country or in the legal profession, but they do not receive the "URM boost." Thus, all URM's are underrepresented, but not all underrepresented groups are URM's.