Latino URM 162 3.61 Forum

[TrialLawyer16]

And, as someone else just said, the culture one identifies with is irrelevant. Do wealthy MA, PR, and AA applicants not count if they were raised by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt? Obviously not.

Would those children identify themselves as caucasian? Obviously not. [ETA: And there are a few assumptions in your question. Does being wealthy and raised by Brad and Angelina preclude one from identifying with MA/PR/AA culture? These things are not mutually exclusive. In the example I gave, I spoke about Barack who was raised by a single white mom and white grandparents in Hawaii and clearly identifies with the black culture. Despite that, I definitely agree that the issue at hand is ethnicity and not culture in the traditional sense. Culture is a word that can be taken many ways as this thread shows.]

I figured everyone would know what I meant, but I guess saying "identify with" (I said ethnicity and culture, but culture was just used additionally to differentiate BO with Ortiz & Ramirez) may be worded better as "identify as". What I mean is this: If I ask you if you're black what would you tell me? If I ask you if you're Dominican what would you tell me? And so on, and so on. It's that simple. If in a casual conversation, a Dominican would tell me that they are black, that's perfectly fine. But if they wouldn't and then all of a sudden they're applying to law school and want to check the black box, that's disgustingly immoral and as DaRascal said is "a blatant subversion of the intent of the URM boost." An AA URM boost is intended to get more AAs into the legal profession. Having a Hispanic check that box does not accomplish that objective. By the same logic used in some of this thread, half of Brazil should be checking the Black/African-American box as well. It's been a long time since Philosophy class, but I believe Kant's Categorical Imperative applies here.

TL;DR If you even for a split second have to think about whether you should check a certain ethnicity box, the answer is no. That box is not meant for you. This is not something anyone should have to think about. Tell them what you would tell them you are if you were not applying to law school.

[Tom Joad]

TL;DR If you even for a split second have to think about whether you should check a certain ethnicity box, the answer is no. That box is not meant for you. This is not something anyone should have to think about. Tell them what you would tell them you are if you were not applying to law school.

I don't think that is the right advice, breh. It is Under Represented Minority because there are interests in having those groups better represented. You are either black or not. If you are, your presence helps represent the group more proportionately. It's not a personal boost because the applicant needs it. It is a system to even out ratios.

[TrialLawyer16]

TL;DR If you even for a split second have to think about whether you should check a certain ethnicity box, the answer is no. That box is not meant for you. This is not something anyone should have to think about. Tell them what you would tell them you are if you were not applying to law school.

I don't think that is the right advice, breh. It is Under Represented Minority because there are interests in having those groups better represented. You are either black or not. If you are, your presence helps represent the group more proportionately. It's not a personal boost because the applicant needs it. It is a system to even out ratios.

Unless I'm reading that wrong, I feel like you're actually agreeing with me here brosef:

An AA URM boost is intended to get more AAs into the legal profession. Having a Hispanic check that box does not accomplish that objective. By the same logic used in some of this thread, half of Brazil should be checking the Black/African-American box as well. It's been a long time since Philosophy class, but I believe Kant's Categorical Imperative applies here.

[Tom Joad]

TL;DR If you even for a split second have to think about whether you should check a certain ethnicity box, the answer is no. That box is not meant for you. This is not something anyone should have to think about. Tell them what you would tell them you are if you were not applying to law school.

I don't think that is the right advice, breh. It is Under Represented Minority because there are interests in having those groups better represented. You are either black or not. If you are, your presence helps represent the group more proportionately. It's not a personal boost because the applicant needs it. It is a system to even out ratios.

Unless I'm reading that wrong, I feel like you're actually agreeing with me here brosef:

An AA URM boost is intended to get more AAs into the legal profession. Having a Hispanic check that box does not accomplish that objective. By the same logic used in some of this thread, half of Brazil should be checking the Black/African-American box as well. It's been a long time since Philosophy class, but I believe Kant's Categorical Imperative applies here.

But if they are both, why not just check both and let the adcoms sort it out by reading the diversity statement? It's not disingenuous.

[bk1]

Unfortunately not. Afro-Caribbean =\= African-American.

This is wrong. For reference:

Dept. of Education defines African-Americans as:

"African American:
A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa."

LSAC uses the DOE definition. Not that you can't get a bump some other way, but you're not going to get a URM bump by being classified as African-American.

The DoE definition is correct. The reason that it is like this is that at some point in American history, Americans started to use a term that related strictly to geography (African-American) as a substitute for race. It is a euphemism for black that happens to use a geographical term so the definition stems from the term it replaces, not from the literal meaning of the words that constitute the euphemism. So you'll hear Americans sometimes call black people from other countries "African-Americans" because the term is wholly synonymous with black to them even though black people from other countries aren't actually American.

If someone from the Caribbean is black (as in they have ancestors from black African racial groups), they are black. While they might not be "African-American" in the sense that they are an American with African ancestry, they do fit the technical definition of African-American (see above). Ignoring African-American, they are undoubtedly black. Furthermore, many of the ethnicity questionnaires lump all black people together (whether they are American or from other countries) so it is essentially a moot point.

Also if you're Dominican and you check the Black/African American box then what's to stop a lot of Central Americans and other Hispanics who would not otherwise get a URM boost from checking the Native American box by claiming mixed ancestry? I just think that's a blatant subversion of the intent of the URM boost.

Stop trying to divine intent. They ask an ethnicity question. You answer it honestly (and marking black is honest if you are a Dominican with black African racial group ancestors). Full stop. What happens after that has nothing to do with the applicant. Yes, schools will then generally give this applicant a boost but it doesn't matter why they do it. As long as someone answers the questionnaire honestly, it is ridiculous get into an argument about "the intent of the URM boost."

I will say that I understand your point about Native Americans. A lot of Central and South Americans (maybe even most) technically have American Indian blood in them. However, the government definition for American Indian gets around this issue by requiring cultural ties (see below). A lot of law schools seem to have a similar requirement for considering someone for an NA URM boost by asking for tribal ID.

“American Indian or Alaska Native” refers to a person having origins in
any of the original peoples of North and South America (including
Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community
attachment. This category includes people who indicated their race(s)
as “American Indian or Alaska Native” or reported their enrolled or principal tribe, such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, or Central
American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.

[bk1]

TL;DR If you even for a split second have to think about whether you should check a certain ethnicity box, the answer is no. That box is not meant for you. This is not something anyone should have to think about. Tell them what you would tell them you are if you were not applying to law school.

I don't think this is fair at all. Many people don't grow up conceptualizing race in the way that they are generally defined in American culture (which is essentially what the government, LSAC, and law schools use). A Mexican-American (with white ancestry tracing back to Europe) might consider themselves purely Hispanic their entire lives. However, this person is also technically white even though they may not have thought of themselves as such. Were this person to mark white on an ethnicity questionnaire, they would be being completely honest. Many Latinos consider themselves purely Latino when in fact all of them do have at least one race (be it white/black/Asian/etc). Just because they have some confusion when they have to fill out an ethnicity questionnaire that does not comport to their traditional definitions of race/ethnicity does not make them wrong to fill out that questionnaire using the definitions that the questionnaire itself uses.

We may be in disagreement as to what is the "correct" course of action for people filling out ethnicity questionnaires. I think there is nothing wrong as long as people are marking what is factually accurate. You seem to favor only allowing people to mark what they have thought of themselves as for most of their life. I see why that is appealing (and see how deviating from previous responses could create issues for applicants), but I think people are okay as long as they are not lying.

[TrialLawyer16]

TL;DR If you even for a split second have to think about whether you should check a certain ethnicity box, the answer is no. That box is not meant for you. This is not something anyone should have to think about. Tell them what you would tell them you are if you were not applying to law school.

I don't think that is the right advice, breh. It is Under Represented Minority because there are interests in having those groups better represented. You are either black or not. If you are, your presence helps represent the group more proportionately. It's not a personal boost because the applicant needs it. It is a system to even out ratios.

Unless I'm reading that wrong, I feel like you're actually agreeing with me here brosef:

An AA URM boost is intended to get more AAs into the legal profession. Having a Hispanic check that box does not accomplish that objective. By the same logic used in some of this thread, half of Brazil should be checking the Black/African-American box as well. It's been a long time since Philosophy class, but I believe Kant's Categorical Imperative applies here.

But if they are both, why not just check both and let the adcoms sort it out by reading the diversity statement? It's not disingenuous.

That's where we disagree, I think it is. I know you said you aren't a URM, so that may be contributing to some of the divide here. Just because you're darker skinned and some part of your ancestry has roots in Africa does not mean you identify your ethnicity as black. For example, read up on antihatianismo. Very relevant to this discussion.

Also, Kant's Imperative. Imagine if everyone did what you suggested and it worked. A small elite school, say Cornell, could say, "Yes, we have a very diverse student body. In fact, we have 15 Black/African-American students in our first year class. Here are Javier Rodriguez, Isabella Sanchez, Enrique Uriarte, etc. (all the way down to 15)." This is a somewhat extreme example, but the entire concept would be blown up and Al Sharpton would be on the first flight to Ithaca.

[Tom Joad]

If the powers at be wanted to exclude black hispanics, don't you think they would have made it explicit? Law schools know how to make categories. Anyway bk pretty much confirmed I am right, and he knows his shit.

[bk1]

If the powers at be wanted to exclude black hispanics, don't you think they would have made it explicit? Law schools know how to make categories. Anyway bk pretty much confirmed I am right, and he knows his shit.

I think that looking at the intent of the boost is the wrong way to look at it. Just do things honestly on your end (fill out the questionnaire correctly) and let the chips fall where they may. Schools will do what they do. If they want to give a boost, they will. If they don't, they won't. But that decision is not up to you, it is up to the school.

[TrialLawyer16]

We may be in disagreement as to what is the "correct" course of action for people filling out ethnicity questionnaires. I think there is nothing wrong as long as people are marking what is factually accurate. You seem to favor only allowing people to mark what they have thought of themselves as for most of their life. I see why that is appealing (and see how deviating from previous responses could create issues for applicants), but I think people are okay as long as they are not lying.

This is probably what we are going to agree to disagree on. I have absolutely no problem with black hispanics identifying as both if that's what they truly identify themselves as, but to do so simply to attempt to game the system I believe is immoral. Regardless if you are a descendant of an African slave from the 1500s.

[TrialLawyer16]

If the powers at be wanted to exclude black hispanics, don't you think they would have made it explicit? Law schools know how to make categories. Anyway bk pretty much confirmed I am right, and he knows his shit.

BK is not God. He's extremely knowledgeable and he's a great resource, but at the end of the day he's another man with an opinion that is often wrong just like all of us except his name is in purple. Again, I never said black hispanics should be precluded from checking both. In my opinion this is a social issue that cannot be answered by the "technicalities" that you guys are pointing out.

[bk1]

We may be in disagreement as to what is the "correct" course of action for people filling out ethnicity questionnaires. I think there is nothing wrong as long as people are marking what is factually accurate. You seem to favor only allowing people to mark what they have thought of themselves as for most of their life. I see why that is appealing (and see how deviating from previous responses could create issues for applicants), but I think people are okay as long as they are not lying.

This is probably what we are going to agree to disagree on. I have absolutely no problem with black hispanics identifying as both if that's what they truly identify themselves as, but to do so simply to attempt to game the system I believe is immoral. Regardless if you are a descendant of an African slave from the 1500s.

Fair enough. I think it is a bit shady, but I am not going to impose my views on this issue on someone else. As long as they are not lying, I believe they are in the clear. It's not for me to decide what they morally should do outside of giving advice as to what they probably can do.

I do think it's unfair to tell people the "box is not meant for you" when that is merely your opinion on the morality of the decision. You really have nothing to back you up on that except your own belief. I think something along the lines of "you can mark anything that you legally are but it seems to me like you're gaming the system by changing from what you've previously considered yourself" would be better, but now I'm just nitpicking.

[TrialLawyer16]

We may be in disagreement as to what is the "correct" course of action for people filling out ethnicity questionnaires. I think there is nothing wrong as long as people are marking what is factually accurate. You seem to favor only allowing people to mark what they have thought of themselves as for most of their life. I see why that is appealing (and see how deviating from previous responses could create issues for applicants), but I think people are okay as long as they are not lying.

This is probably what we are going to agree to disagree on. I have absolutely no problem with black hispanics identifying as both if that's what they truly identify themselves as, but to do so simply to attempt to game the system I believe is immoral. Regardless if you are a descendant of an African slave from the 1500s.

Fair enough. I think it is a bit shady, but I am not going to impose my views on this issue on someone else. As long as they are not lying, I believe they are in the clear. It's not for me to decide what they morally should do outside of giving advice as to what they probably can do.

I do think it's unfair to tell people the "box is not meant for you" when that is merely your opinion on the morality of the decision. You really have nothing to back you up on that except your own belief. I think something along the lines of "you can mark anything that you legally are but it seems to me like you're gaming the system by changing from what you've previously considered yourself" would be better, but now I'm just nitpicking.

Fair enough. I guess my viewpoint can best be summed up in this:

I find it ironic that, in my opinion, affirmative action programs were created because nobody in this country wanted to be (or be associated with) a certain minority, and now people, who would not have been prejudiced against like that minority was, are trying to figure out ways to classify themselves as that minority to gain an advantage from said programs.

[suralin]

Ugh

[bk1]

I find it ironic that, in my opinion, affirmative action programs were created because nobody in this country wanted to be (or be associated with) a certain minority, and now people, who would not have been prejudiced against like that minority was, are trying to figure out ways to classify themselves as that minority to gain an advantage from said programs.

A black Dominican who has never identified as black likely would face many of the same prejudices that African-Americans who consider themselves black face.

Again I think looking at why the program exists is the wrong way to look at it. You can't know for sure why school X has decided to give URM boosts. It was likely due to a group of people who didn't necessarily have one coherent viewpoint as to the program's reasons. Maybe they truly care about diversity. Maybe they just want to appear diverse to attract other candidates. All you can really control is your own answers to the questionnaire.

[DaRascal]

Stop trying to divine intent. They ask an ethnicity question. You answer it honestly (and marking black is honest if you are a Dominican with black African racial group ancestors). Full stop. What happens after that has nothing to do with the applicant. Yes, schools will then generally give this applicant a boost but it doesn't matter why they do it. As long as someone answers the questionnaire honestly, it is ridiculous get into an argument about "the intent of the URM boost."

I will say that I understand your point about Native Americans. A lot of Central and South Americans (maybe even most) technically have American Indian blood in them. However, the government definition for American Indian gets around this issue by requiring cultural ties (see below). A lot of law schools seem to have a similar requirement for considering someone for an NA URM boost by asking for tribal ID.

Okay but what I'm saying is that a non-URM Hispanic most likely can't provide tribal affiliation with a Native American group just like a black Dominican most likely isn't going to be able to trace his lineage back to the 17th centuy and prove that his ancestors were African slaves but the Dominican will get the URM boost because schools are not going to launch a full investigation to find out if he is being disingenuous and the other Hispanic won't because he can't prove tribal affiliation even though both the non-URM Hispanic and the Dominican are both probably descendants of groups that would receive a URM boost. It just doesn't seem fair at all and I agree completely with TrialLawyer about the immorality of these actions.

[bk1]

Okay but what I'm saying is that a non-URM Hispanic most likely can't provide tribal affiliation with a Native American group just like a black Dominican most likely isn't going to be able to trace his lineage back to the 17th centuy and prove that his ancestors were African slaves but the Dominican will get the URM boost because schools are not going to launch a full investigation to find out if he is being disingenuous and the other Hispanic won't because he can't prove tribal affiliation even though both the non-URM Hispanic and the Dominican are both probably descendants of groups that would receive a URM boost. It just doesn't seem fair at all and I agree completely with TrialLawyer about the immorality of these actions.

I would hazard that most African Americans can't trace their lineage back to the 17th century to prove their ancestors were African slaves. Does this mean they can't mark black either? Of course not. It's also likely that black Dominicans look black (but that doesn't really matter).

I do agree with you that it doesn't seem fair, but that has to do with the way that NAs are treated with respect to other ethnicities and nothing to do with what Dominicans mark. Why is cultural affinity a prerequisite to marking American Indian on the census but it isn't for any other racial group? Why do law schools seem to care about tribal enrollment whereas they ask no showing for any other racial group? In a sense I can understand why they do this: the intermingling of NA and white blood has created a lot of people with minute traces of NA blood and it is often hard to tell whether someone has a bit of NA blood or not, whereas other ethnicities are often more obvious (though this isn't always the case, see Plessy of Plessy v. Ferguson). It doesn't really seem all that fair, but that's just the way it is.

[TrialLawyer16]

I find it ironic that, in my opinion, affirmative action programs were created because nobody in this country wanted to be (or be associated with) a certain minority, and now people, who would not have been prejudiced against like that minority was, are trying to figure out ways to classify themselves as that minority to gain an advantage from said programs.

A black Dominican who has never identified as black likely would face many of the same prejudices that African-Americans who consider themselves black face.

I think this is wrong. If a hispanic "black Dominican", as you called them, was in America in the 1960s during the riots, they would not have been lumped in with the blacks. Blacks are particularly looked down upon here by some people in large part because they used to be slaves here. Also, let's not forget how small the proportion of Dominicans are that could actually deceive someone into believing that they are simply black. Most Dominicans of black descent don't look like David Ortiz, most Dominicans of black descent look like Alex Rodriguez. Do you honestly believe he would face the same prejudices? And the women are his complexion as well and some of the most beautiful women in the world, do you think they would face the same prejudices? You can go into the most racist town in the South and on some racist's wall you will find a picture of a gorgeous Dominican woman. Hispanics and blacks are not looked at or treated the same. Also, the OP was upset that Dominicans aren't considered URMs because they generally are "the most mixed ethnicity" made up of a myriad of races including African, so this black Dominican discussion we're having isn't even simply about the people that you can noticeably tell have African roots. OP was talking about Dominicans deserving a boost because they, as a whole, are mixed up with all kinds of things, one of which being black. Also, the way the overwhelming majority of blacks were brought and submerged into this country put social systems in place, the effects of which I believe these affirmative action programs were created to alleviate. Supplanting a Dominican into the country at this point would not automatically subject them to those same social inequalities (weak school systems, lack of parental guidance scholastically as part of a continuing cycle from their grandparents, etc.). Yes, I know some Africans, etc., benefit from the boost as well who have not been adversely affected by these systems, but it is an imperfect system meant to most effectively target certain ethnic groups who make up a large percentage of an under-priveleged socio-economic group.

Again I think looking at why the program exists is the wrong way to look at it. You can't know for sure why school X has decided to give URM boosts. It was likely due to a group of people who didn't necessarily have one coherent viewpoint as to the program's reasons. Maybe they truly care about diversity. Maybe they just want to appear diverse to attract other candidates. All you can really control is your own answers to the questionnaire.

I think we should just let this intent part rest because we're going to continue to disagree. I think why schools give URM boosts is apparent, it is a no-brainer. It is no different than any other kind of affirmative action.

[bk1]

I think this is wrong. If a hispanic "black Dominican", as you called them, was in America in the 1960s during the riots, they would not have been lumped in with the blacks. Also, let's not forget how small the proportion of Dominicans are that could actually deceive someone into believing that they are simply black. Most Dominicans of black descent don't look like David Ortiz, most Dominicans of black descent look like Alex Rodriguez. Do you honestly believe he would face the same prejudices? And the women are his complexion as well and some of the most beautiful women in the world, do you think they would face the same prejudices? You can go into the most racist town in the South and on some racist's wall you will find a picture of a gorgeous Dominican woman. Hispanics and blacks are not looked at or treated the same. Also, the OP was upset that Dominicans aren't considered URMs because they generally are "the most mixed ethnicity" made up of a myriad of races including African, so this black Dominican discussion we're having isn't even simply about the people that you can noticeably tell have African roots. OP was talking about Dominicans deserving a boost because they, as a whole, are mixed up with all kinds of things, one of which being black. Also, the way the overwhelming majority of blacks were brought and submerged into this country put social systems in place, the effects of which I believe these affirmative action programs were created to alleviate. Supplanting a Dominican into the country at this point would not automatically subject them to those same social inequalities (weak school systems, lack of parental guidance scholastically because their parents and grandparents were not taught the importance, etc.). Yes, I know some Africans, etc., benefit from the boost as well who have not been adversely affected by these systems, but it is an imperfect system meant to most effectively target certain ethnic groups who make up a large percentage of an under-priveleged socio-economic group.

Pretty much all minorities have faced prejudice. It's a bit ridiculous to look at relative levels of suffering. My point was that a Dominican would likely face racial prejudice in the 1960s whether or not they were considered black (similar to African-Americans who face different but still racial prejudice).

This is leading towards an AA debate so I'm going to nip that here and now. If anybody wants to discuss the merits of AA they are free to do so in the lounge, but not in the on topic forums.

[TrialLawyer16]

I think this is wrong. If a hispanic "black Dominican", as you called them, was in America in the 1960s during the riots, they would not have been lumped in with the blacks. Also, let's not forget how small the proportion of Dominicans are that could actually deceive someone into believing that they are simply black. Most Dominicans of black descent don't look like David Ortiz, most Dominicans of black descent look like Alex Rodriguez. Do you honestly believe he would face the same prejudices? And the women are his complexion as well and some of the most beautiful women in the world, do you think they would face the same prejudices? You can go into the most racist town in the South and on some racist's wall you will find a picture of a gorgeous Dominican woman. Hispanics and blacks are not looked at or treated the same. Also, the OP was upset that Dominicans aren't considered URMs because they generally are "the most mixed ethnicity" made up of a myriad of races including African, so this black Dominican discussion we're having isn't even simply about the people that you can noticeably tell have African roots. OP was talking about Dominicans deserving a boost because they, as a whole, are mixed up with all kinds of things, one of which being black. Also, the way the overwhelming majority of blacks were brought and submerged into this country put social systems in place, the effects of which I believe these affirmative action programs were created to alleviate. Supplanting a Dominican into the country at this point would not automatically subject them to those same social inequalities (weak school systems, lack of parental guidance scholastically because their parents and grandparents were not taught the importance, etc.). Yes, I know some Africans, etc., benefit from the boost as well who have not been adversely affected by these systems, but it is an imperfect system meant to most effectively target certain ethnic groups who make up a large percentage of an under-priveleged socio-economic group.

Pretty much all minorities have faced prejudice. It's a bit ridiculous to look at relative levels of suffering.

This type of logic would lead to an exorbitant amount of problems if used universally to treat social ills.

Bill and Melinda Gates at the dinner table:
Bill: I want to put an end to world hunger. At the moment Fidel Castro and a kid working in a blood diamond mine in the Congo are both hungry. Who should I give this food to?
Melinda: It's a bit ridiculous to look at relative levels of hunger, so just give it to either one of them.
Bill: Ok. Here you go, Fidel.

This is leading towards an AA debate so I'm going to nip that here and now. If anybody wants to discuss the merits of AA they are free to do so in the lounge, but not in the on topic forums.

That's not where I was going with this, but I understand how you could see that. Consider it dropped.

[howlery]

Deleted.

[dietert25]

So is anyone actually going to respond to my last post.

I would really like someone to show a statistic of how many Dominicans are lawyers or are in law school because I'd be real surprised if we are more represented than PRs. I just think the fact that other Hispanics are not counted as URMs is ridiculous. It seems to me that because each individual population of other hispanics Dominicans, Colombians, Guatemalans, etc. is considered "too small" to be considered "Real URMs." I guess you have to be an extremely large minority group before URM status applies.

I find the talk about the AA stuff really interesting and all but I am not putting AA down on LSAC profile. That being said I think it is entirely fine for a so-called Afro-Caribbean person to put down AA on their application. It doesn't matter if you can trace your ancestors back to Africa or slavery because guess if you are black you and your ancestors have dealt with the similar issues concerning race.