How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE? Forum

[sophia.olive]

--ImageRemoved--
--ImageRemoved--

[d34d9823]

Maybe you missed the part about you not being a mythical white person that magically appeared out of nowhere before the LSAT exam, let alone in college.

I assure you if the the LSAT tested your logic on merit/unearned privileges, you would have needed a scantron genie.

Good thing it tests actual logic and not politically palatable narrative-speak, then.

[firemed]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. I think it is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

I am staying completely way the fuck out of this argument... but, as a sociology nerd, I would like to say the following:

Racism is institutional, practiced by the dominant party.

Prejudice is what an individual or group negatively thinks about another group.

An oppressed minority, by definition, cannot be racist. But they can be prejudiced... and that is, of course, still wrong.

/end sociology nerd

[NZA]

It is just possible that we're wrong, you know.

Humility and the internet do not mix, apparently.

Or reading comprehension, apparently.

Yes, this is becoming painfully obvious.

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. I think it is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Fair points. But I guess I would just respond by asking, "If a URM boost is 'an unjust and imperfect solution,' what is a better one?"

Because I can understand what you're saying to a certain degree, and I'm honestly curious to see if there are alternatives to AA/URM boosting.

[JazzOne]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Tell me what you would do, Jazz.

I think a socioeconomic boost would achieve most of the goals we want without the negative side effects of reverse discrimination.

[firemed]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Tell me what you would do, Jazz.

I think a socioeconomic boost would achieve most of the goals we want without the negative side effects of reverse discrimination.

+1 (provided you put the word "most" in between "without" and "the")


And now I really am out of here. GL all!

And, also, IBTL in case it gets ugly in here.

[d34d9823]

It is just possible that we're wrong, you know.

Humility and the internet do not mix, apparently.

Or reading comprehension, apparently.

Yes, this is becoming painfully obvious.

Grrr, do I have to explain it?

His statement was obvious sarcasm meant to sway my position.

[LAWLAW09]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt reverse discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Can you name some examples of institutional racism that is created, committed, or maintained by minorities?

The current state of affairs, and the past state of affairs for that matter, are not sustaining themselves because of isolated, individual acts of discrimination.

[JazzOne]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. I think it is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

I am staying completely way the fuck out of this argument... but, as a sociology nerd, I would like to say the following:

Racism is institutional, practiced by the dominant party.

Prejudice is what an individual or group negatively thinks about another group.

An oppressed minority, by definition, cannot be racist. But they can be prejudiced... and that is, of course, still wrong.

/end sociology nerd

The specialized definitions of those terms that are unique to sociology are not universally accepted. The context of my statement makes it clear that I was talking about personal racism or prejudice. That distinction may be useful for a more formalized discussion on racism, but legal discourse is characterized by realism. Context matters, and this is not a sociology forum.

[20121109]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Tell me what you would do, Jazz.

I think a socioeconomic boost would achieve most of the goals we want without the negative side effects of reverse discrimination.

Do you know what the main goal of URM status is?

If the primary objective was to remedy the disparity of socioeconomic status, that would be a fine metric.

But guess what?

[JazzOne]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt reverse discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Can you name some examples of institutional racism that is created, committed, or maintained by minorities?

The current state of affairs, and the past state of affairs for that matter, are not sustaining themselves because of isolated, individual acts of discrimination.

Agreed. I was talking about personal attitudes, not institutional effects. Nonetheless, AA might be construed as institutionalized reverse discrimination.

[JazzOne]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Tell me what you would do, Jazz.

I think a socioeconomic boost would achieve most of the goals we want without the negative side effects of reverse discrimination.

Do you know what the main goal of URM status is?

If the primary objective was to remedy the disparity of socioeconomic status, that would be a fine metric.

But guess what?

I never said that the goal was to remedy economic disparity. I said that a socioeconomic boost would achieve the real goal of AA through a more palatable means. Let's have an honest debate here without your straw men.

[firemed]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Tell me what you would do, Jazz.

I think a socioeconomic boost would achieve most of the goals we want without the negative side effects of reverse discrimination.

Do you know what the main goal of URM status is?

If the primary objective was to remedy the disparity of socioeconomic status, that would be a fine metric.

But guess what?

Damn, I keep getting sucked back in.

I have to ask, what was it for if not for the bolded above?

[LAWLAW09]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt reverse discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Can you name some examples of institutional racism that is created, committed, or maintained by minorities?

The current state of affairs, and the past state of affairs for that matter, are not sustaining themselves because of isolated, individual acts of discrimination.

Agreed. I was talking about personal attitudes, not institutional effects. Nonetheless, AA might be construed as institutionalized reverse discrimination.

How can something be "reverse" when the consequences and rationale aren't the same or even close to being equal?

You think there's a demographic of Whites folks that can point to AA as an explanation for negative realities connected to how they live and where they live?

AA used to be a very positive and acceptable thing when it was primarily White men and White women benefiting from it. Correction: When White men and White women were aware that they were the ones that were primarily benefiting from it.

[d34d9823]

You think there's a demographic of Whites folks that can point to AA as an explanation for negative realities connected to how they live and where they live? .

All the white people who will get into a lesser law/medical/etc. school because of affirmative action.

[moopness]

LOL

Someone bombed the LR section.

Not even close. Did you? I wouldn't be surprised.

What?

It's not about one side demonizing the other, it's about working towards a just society.

The whole point was that just because we have a black president doesn't mean that racism disappeared. Sigh, It's not that hard to understand, really.

[NZA]

I have to ask, what was it for if not for the bolded above?

I think the socioeconomic argument is a good one, but it sort of ignores the fact that the goal is to overcome racism and institutional obstacles to success.

And, yes, the benefits of a socioeconomic boost (as opposed to the URM boost) would certainly cover some people in the current URM category. But they are two different issues, and the fact that it is a URM boost at the very least puts the issue of institutionalized racism on the table for discussion.

I don't know how exactly to put this into words, though. Does this need clarification?

The whole point was that just because we have a black president doesn't mean that racism disappeared. Sigh, It's not that hard to understand, really.

Sorry, I missed the sarcasm.

[20121109]

I think a socioeconomic boost would achieve most of the goals we want without the negative side effects of reverse discrimination.

Do you know what the main goal of URM status is?

If the primary objective was to remedy the disparity of socioeconomic status, that would be a fine metric.

But guess what?

Damn, I keep getting sucked back in.

I have to ask, what was it for if not for the bolded above?

To remedy the disparity of race.

Race is not synonymous with socioeconomic status.

I never said that the goal was to remedy economic disparity. I said that a socioeconomic boost would achieve the real goal of AA through a more palatable means. Let's have an honest debate here without your straw men.

Then what is this real goal? What are you trying to get at here, exactly?

I will ask you again, do you know what the goal of URM status is?

[LAWLAW09]

You think there's a demographic of Whites folks that can point to AA as an explanation for negative realities connected to how they live and where they live? .

All the white people who will get into a lesser law/medical/etc. school because of affirmative action.

That could possibly be true if you knew of law schools or medical schools that accept/reject people by only considering their standardized test scores and nothing else. Try again.

[firemed]

You think there's a demographic of Whites folks that can point to AA as an explanation for negative realities connected to how they live and where they live? .

All the white people who will get into a lesser law/medical/etc. school because of affirmative action.

Sorry deadluke, but I gotta jump on this one... they are URM= Under Represented Minorities... they aren't in the profession at a rate higher than their representation in the population... lower actually. The spots they fill have been filled by white men for years... So if a white man gets into a lower ranked school... well, you see where I am going with this, right?

[JazzOne]

How can something be "reverse" when the consequences and rationale aren't the same or even close to being equal?

You can argue that the consequences and rationale are justified, but the fact is that AA is an example of discriminating between applicants based on race. And this form of discrimination is "reverse" in the sense that it disfavors the majority.

You think there's a demographic of Whites folks that can point to AA as an explanation for negative realities connected to how they live and where they live?

Negative realities? Yes, of course; they don't get into certain school.

AA used to be a very positive and acceptable thing when it was primarily White men and White women benefiting from it. Correction: When White men and White women were aware that they were the ones that were primarily benefiting from it.

That's absurd. We're fair minded people here, and I don't think anyone is arguing that discrimination against minorities is positive.

[JazzOne]

I think a socioeconomic boost would achieve most of the goals we want without the negative side effects of reverse discrimination.

Do you know what the main goal of URM status is?

If the primary objective was to remedy the disparity of socioeconomic status, that would be a fine metric.

But guess what?

Damn, I keep getting sucked back in.

I have to ask, what was it for if not for the bolded above?

To remedy the disparity of race.

Race is not synonymous with socioeconomic status.

I never said that the goal was to remedy economic disparity. I said that a socioeconomic boost would achieve the real goal of AA through a more palatable means. Let's have an honest debate here without your straw men.

Then what is this real goal? What are you trying to get at here, exactly?

I will ask you again, do you know what the goal of URM status is?

I agree with your goal, and I submit that it is largely achieved through socioeconomic boost. Sheesh, this is pretty easily inferred from my comments.

[d34d9823]

You think there's a demographic of Whites folks that can point to AA as an explanation for negative realities connected to how they live and where they live? .

All the white people who will get into a lesser law/medical/etc. school because of affirmative action.

Sorry deadluke, but I gotta jump on this one... they are URM= Under Represented Minorities... they aren't in the profession at a rate higher than their representation in the population... lower actually. The spots they fill have been filled by white men for years... So if a white man gets into a lower ranked school... well, you see where I am going with this, right?

Point isn't what's fair or just - that's the eternal bone of contention. Point is that those white people's lives are negatively affected by affirmative action.

[JazzOne]

As a minority, I also feel that the URM boost is unfair. It is an unjust and imperfect solution to the problem of racism. I think it foments further discord when a socioeconomic boost would achieve similar results without overt racial discrimination. I also think that the racism of minorities is a taboo topic, yet racism by the majority is fair game for criticism. That creates a false impression that whites are simply recalcitrant and that no one else is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Tell me what you would do, Jazz.

Are you even bothering to read the subtleties of the arguments in this thread? Or are you just trolling?

[firemed]

To remedy the disparity of race.

Race is not synonymous with socioeconomic status.

I thought the point of this was to remedy the socioeconomic effects of institutionalized racism. No government program is going to eliminate every disparity of race all on its own. That is why AA laws only effect things like school admissions and employment. Other laws deal with other disparities.

I agree that the point is specifically about race... but what I was trying to say was that AA is designed for the socioeconomic problems associated with that.

I don't know how clear I am saying that... hopefully I am making sense.