How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE? Forum

[d34d9823]

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.

So you think that if law school admissions was race blind the same amount of black people would get into HYS?

[20121109]

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.

So you agree that the goal is to remedy the inequality of race....but you'd rather it be done through socioeconomic status instead of just race?

Got it.

Clearly you prefer the indirect route.

[JazzOne]

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.

So you agree that the goal is to remedy the inequality of race....but you'd rather it be done through socioeconomic status instead of just race?

Got it.

Clearly you prefer the indirect route.

I think the direct route creates injustices of its own, whereas the indirect route does not.

[NZA]

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.

How? In the end, it benefits the majority!

I'd argue that URM boosts benefit everyone that attends any given law school. Diversity is something that applicants should not only expect, but really require in order to become good, thoughtful attorneys. Having it be a factor isn't something that we should react to negatively.

From an individual's standpoint, it's easy to understand why people get upset, though, and I understand that. But I think making the leap from, "Why does that person get a boost?" to "I'm at a disadvantage!" is unfounded. Plus, couldn't one simply argue that URMs are often at a disadvantage to begin with?

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.

No way! White people's lives are positively affected. Having practicing lawyers and judges that come from a diverse and varying communities helps to ensure a justice system that is capable of understanding the individual situations and perspectives of people in the system. How does that not benefit everyone, white people included?

[20121109]

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.

Is not using the construct of race, rather than by socioeconomic status, a much more efficient way to do this?

[d34d9823]

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.

No way! White people's lives are positively affected. Having practicing lawyers and judges that come from a diverse and varying communities helps to ensure a justice system that is capable of understanding the individual situations and perspectives of people in the system. How does that not benefit everyone, white people included?

Because not having the career you wanted is all gravy if those other diverse people are having it in your place

[20121109]

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.

So you agree that the goal is to remedy the inequality of race....but you'd rather it be done through socioeconomic status instead of just race?

Got it.

Clearly you prefer the indirect route.

I think the direct route creates injustices of its own, whereas the indirect route does not.

I would rather the direct route, the same route that has historically marginalized and discriminated against an entire group of people, be used to fix it.

But now we're just stating our individual opinions. So ....meh.

[NZA]

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.

No way! White people's lives are positively affected. Having practicing lawyers and judges that come from a diverse and varying communities helps to ensure a justice system that is capable of understanding the individual situations and perspectives of people in the system. How does that not benefit everyone, white people included?

Because not having the career you wanted is all gravy if those other diverse people are having it in your place

Come on. Do you really think there are thousands of white people who are out of a job because thousands of URMs were able to get into better law schools?

Or is it more likely that thousands of URMs are living on the margins because for decades white people have treated them unfairly?

[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.

Is not using the construct of race, rather than by socioeconomic status, a much more efficient way to do this?

nvm... I see what you are saying... think it is down to personal opinion. happen to agree with jazz. gotta go make my kids dinner. peace out all.

[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.

How? In the end, it benefits the majority!

I'd argue that URM boosts benefit everyone that attends any given law school. Diversity is something that applicants should not only expect, but really require in order to become good, thoughtful attorneys. Having it be a factor isn't something that we should react to negatively.

From an individual's standpoint, it's easy to understand why people get upset, though, and I understand that. But I think making the leap from, "Why does that person get a boost?" to "I'm at a disadvantage!" is unfounded. Plus, couldn't one simply argue that URMs are often at a disadvantage to begin with?

It benefits the ethnic-majority students who get into law school, but it's hard to argue that the ethic majority who are denied admission (but would have been admitted without URM boost) are benefited in any way. They seem to have been rather harmed by the policy. That was the question. Are there any whites who are harmed? The answer is yes. Perhaps the overall benefit to society is a net plus, but some individuals are in fact harmed.

[bilbobaggins]

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.

Point is, URM's lives are negatively affected by a legacy of institutionalized racism and slavery.

So, wait, what's your point again? That some people don't get into some schools even though they have better numbers than other people? I can guarantee you this happens in law school admissions regardless of race.

So what's your point again? It's not fair that URMs get into law school with lower numbers than white people? It's not fair that you have a much higher chance of being incarcerated, not having a high school diploma, living in poverty if you're a URM. Why aren't you all bent out of shape about that?

This is one of these issues - structural societal problems where people need to look beyond their own circumstances and look at what's just in terms of making structural changes to an unjust society.

[mrmangs]

Point is that those white people's lives are negatively affected by affirmative action.

I don't think anyone is arguing that AA doesn't result in some undesirable negative consequences for certain whites. AA is not completely fair. But the natural state of affairs is even less so.

If you had your way and we got rid of AA, a downward socioeconmic spiral for URMs would be given a big push forward. Then, proportionately, there would be more URMs justifiably complaining about their circumstances than whites (acutally, arguably, this is even the case with AA in effect).

The idea is that, at some point, AA will have run its course and will no longer be necessary (if anything, this is the point you should be attacking.... But I haven't seen anyone explicitly address this). Until then, with regard to admissions, I sympathize with URMs much more than I sympathize with whites (although I certainly see what you are getting at).

[20121109]

Is not using the construct of race, rather than by socioeconomic status, a much more efficient way to do this?

Gotta go make dinner for my kiddo, but it seems like it would be really complicated to do this to me... maybe I am just being unimaginative though...

Come back if this thread is still live. I would love to hear more of your thoughts

[LAWLAW09]

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.

I didn't argue that the consequences and rationale are justified. I'm arguing that the consequences and rationale aren't the same or even close to being same. Therefore, the "reverse" never took place and doesn't take place.

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.[/quote]

You can't acknowledge that there are other factors to explain why a White person gets into a school over a White person with higher grades, or that there are other factors at play to explain when a lower-scoring URM gets into a school over a higher scoring URM, and then try to say a White person didn't get into a school because an applicant took their spot b/c of a policy that considers race as an additional consideration.

You're picking and choosing which factors (outside of scores) should matter and are the deciding factor. And, you're doing so with very little information.

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.[/quote]

I think fair-minded, but self-interested people implicitly argue that all the time. Institutional racism isn't perpetuated b/c it's the cool thing to do or the right thing to do.

[bilbobaggins]

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.

No way! White people's lives are positively affected. Having practicing lawyers and judges that come from a diverse and varying communities helps to ensure a justice system that is capable of understanding the individual situations and perspectives of people in the system. How does that not benefit everyone, white people included?

Because not having the career you wanted is all gravy if those other diverse people are having it in your place

Additionally, if you really believe the world functions this way, then you likely don't deserve to have the "career of your choice." It's not an either/or proposition. (In fact, Bakke v. Michigan has ensured that).

[d34d9823]

Come on. Do you really think there are thousands of white people who are out of a job because thousands of URMs were able to get into better law schools?

Or is it more likely that thousands of URMs are living on the margins because for decades white people have treated them unfairly?

I wouldn't say out of a job, but there are thousands of white people who have had slightly lower career trajectories because of AA.

No one's denying the past. The point is that the way to fix discrimination is not more discrimination, which is what we have currently.

How about instead of me discriminating against you or you discriminating against me, we just stop doing it.

[20121109]

How about instead of me discriminating against you or you discriminating against me, we just stop doing it.

You're killing me, D.

You know racial inequality will persist if left alone. Doing nothing is an acceptance of the status quo.

[d34d9823]

Additionally, if you really believe the world functions this way, then you likely don't deserve to have the "career of your choice." It's not an either/or proposition. (In fact, Bakke v. Michigan has ensured that).

Of course it is. The economy is a zero-sum game (maybe not true overall, but certainly true in terms of the legal service revenues available).

Also, whether you deserve the career of your choice depends on your qualifications and the quality of your work, not what you believe about economics.

[bilbobaggins]

Come on. Do you really think there are thousands of white people who are out of a job because thousands of URMs were able to get into better law schools?

Or is it more likely that thousands of URMs are living on the margins because for decades white people have treated them unfairly?

I wouldn't say out of a job, but there are thousands of white people who have had slightly lower career trajectories because of AA.

No one's denying the past. The point is that the way to fix discrimination is not more discrimination, which is what we have currently.

How about instead of me discriminating against you or you discriminating against me, we just stop doing it.

What about the millions of white people who had grossly higher career trajectories because they benefited from institutionalized racism? What about their children, who benefited from the spoils, and there children and so on. You're missing the big picture when you make that statement.

[moopness]

It's not certain that whites are being crowded out of top law schools because of AA. Most AA admits fill the bottom 25th percentile for schools, so for all we know law schools would have a higher 25th percentile (maybe much closer to median numbers) without AA. It's highly possible that the only reason that law schools have the 25th that they do is because they lower the threshold for AA. So it's possible that without AA, those white applicants you're talking about still wouldn't be able to get in as they'd have to compete with the same people who are at median, at which point you have the sqo.

[bilbobaggins]

Additionally, if you really believe the world functions this way, then you likely don't deserve to have the "career of your choice." It's not an either/or proposition. (In fact, Bakke v. Michigan has ensured that).

Of course it is. The economy is a zero-sum game (maybe not true overall, but certainly true in terms of the legal service revenues available).

Also, whether you deserve the career of your choice depends on your qualifications and the quality of your work, not what you believe about economics.

You're really mixing your metaphors here. When you say "career of one's choice," you're talking about something that's hardly quantifiable. You're then following it up with a platitude "the economy is a zero-sum game." I'm starting to notice a trend here...

[NZA]

It benefits the ethnic-majority students who get into law school, but it's hard to argue that the ethic majority who are denied admission (but would have been admitted without URM boost) are benefited in any way. They seem to have been rather harmed by the policy. That was the question. Are there any whites who are harmed? The answer is yes. Perhaps the overall benefit to society is a net plus, but some individuals are in fact harmed.

Perhaps. But I don't know, I honestly have a hard time believing that a law school giving a handful of applicants a boost because of they're URMs is going to significantly disadvantage an equal number of non-URM applicants.

But I do see your point.

No one's denying the past. The point is that the way to fix discrimination is not more discrimination, which is what we have currently.

How about instead of me discriminating against you or you discriminating against me, we just stop doing it.

That's definitely a start, I agree. But the fact of the matter is, the material and social conditions of the past have not magically disappeared in the last thirty or forty years. They persist.

Again, I sympathize with your perspective, but I just can't agree with you.

[d34d9823]

How about instead of me discriminating against you or you discriminating against me, we just stop doing it.

You're killing me, D.

You know the racial equality will persist if left alone. Doing nothing is an acceptance of the status quo.

I'm not saying do nothing in general. I'm saying the way to address discrimination is to eradicate it, not introduce more.

Absolutely do whatever has to be done to make housing, education, etc. stop discriminating against certain races. But don't add more discrimination to the mix and act like it solves anything.

[NZA]

I'd also like to say that I'm having a really good time taking this all in. It's kind of nice that we're managing to have a discussion on an extraordinarily sensitive topic without too much flaming.

[LAWLAW09]

How about instead of me discriminating against you or you discriminating against me, we just stop doing it.

How about you ask something similar to your white colleagues at the school you end up attending?


The injustices that result from a lack of minority representation in law-related fields are largely the product of actions committed by Whites. (Judges, prosecutors, pd, jurors are all predominantly and overwhelmingly White) Something tells me that's a fight or question you don't plan to address or take up with them.

Under-representation is a problem b/c those who are over-represented, historically and presently are unable and unwilling to act in a manner that leads to more fairness, not less.