xlawschoolhopefulx wrote:hypothalamus wrote:Also, URM is a legally defined category when it comes to law school admissions. Law schools *have* to admit some African Americans, for example. If there is only one such applicant to NYU this year, NYU has to admit them, irrespective of their scores (more or less). If there is one African-born and raised candidate, NYU has no obligation to admit them whatsoever. The whole point of the URM clause is to help out US populations that have historically been underrepresented, so that they are not underrepresented in the future.
Hm. Wouldn't this kind of policy towards African Americans (ie making one an auto-admit) violate the Supreme Court's decision in Grutter? The court said it can favor URMs, but only if race is not the only factor in admission. If at least one African American is automatically admitted, that seems to presume that race was the only factor in their admission. But, I could be wrong.
No, you're right. It's definitely NOT the case that law schools *have* to admit some African Americans; in fact, it's been illegal to require any such thing since Bakke in 1987; Grutter (2003) simply reaffirmed that decision and defined diversity in admissions as the kind of compelling state interest that would allow race to be used as a "plus factor" in admissions as long as it was one of several factors used to evaluate individual candidates (in Gratz, heard at the same time, the court held that even a system that quantified that "plus factor" as points, as Michigan did for undergraduate admissions, amounted to a de facto quota and was unconstitutional under Bakke). Also, considering race in admissions isn't really designed to "help out" URM candidates; Grutter clarified that the "compelling interest" at stake here was the educational value of diversity for ALL students, not the redressing of historical wrongs for select groups.