ToTransferOrNot wrote:I love how asserting that things like Diversity Clerkship Programs are wrong somehow makes a person a racist.
Yes, I am clearly a racist for asserting that someone with:
1.) Inferior grades (Median vs. Top 1%)
2.) A far more privileged background (Parents: 1 doctor, 1 lawyer. Undergrad: Harvard. Parents paying for law school, paid for LSAT prep, paid for Undergrad, etc. Compared to, me: Bartender parents, worked 40-50+ hours a week while in high school to put food on the table that I paid for, in the apartment that I rented--not even going to get in to UG/Law School inequities)
Shouldn't receive hiring preference based solely on skin color--and make no mistake, when you're talking about Diversity Clerkship Programs, they are not referring to socio-economic diversity (I tried that line and was essentially laughed out of the room.)
I make no qualms about it--I do not support race-based AA in any way. To the extent that it can serve as a proxy for socio-economic AA, I think that is its only benefit--and even then, it should be limited to undergraduate admissions. This may reflect some bitterness, but it does not reflect racism.
This is reposted from another thread. But I think it applies here:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Ok. Let's talk about this disadvantaged thing and the underrepresented thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole concept of URM status is that you are part of a race that is underrepresented in the field of law, relative to their representation in American society as a whole. Though there are a substantial amount of white people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, this has absolutely zero effect on the representation of whites in the legal community. However, the fact that a majority of blacks/latinos/Native Americans are socioeconomically disadvantaged has a palpable effect on the representation of minorities, not just in the legal field but in professional occupations in general, leading to their under-represented status.
A lot of people argue for socioeconomic consideration in these debates, and although there is some merit, this argument essentially misses the point of URM status. If poor whites were given a boost, it would not remedy any kind of under-representation in the legal community for whites for obvious reasons. However, if poor blacks/latinos/Native Americans, or even rich blacks/latinos/Native Americans are given a boost, it would at least help these races become better represented. URM status is not trying to resolve the disparity of class, its trying to resolve the disparity of race, relative to their representation in society.
ToTransferOrNot wrote:And I still argue that, at least in the case of college admissions--particularly graduate school admissions, society is, indeed, progressive enough to do away with race-based affirmative action entirely.
I don't think you're racist, but I would like to hear why you think this is the case.
On a side note, there seems to be a random and sudden increase of URM/AA debates on TLS nowadays