What race do I put down????? Forum

[unsweetened]

If you had a dollar for every time someone asks "So, WHAT are you?" as if that is somehow an indicator of who you are.

[lacrossebrother]

Yea heritage has nothing to do with who we are

[jrass]

Put down what benefits you and you can't get in trouble for. When I was in your shoes the concept of URM seemed like such a nice thing, but in practice the same prejudices perpetuate such that maybe you have one or two more racially diverse kids at each stage from privileged backgrounds. As one law review article put it, they want someone who is black but not too black. Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010).

[cheesusprice]

Yeah everyone seems to agree that anyone should write down what's true AND will benefit them. But I don't think there will be much benefit, I think they classify multiracial Hispanics as just Hispanics of more than one race.

The whole URM thing is weird as well, it really seems to depend on what the school considers URM. In one forum I read a former adviser or Committee member say that just Hispanic is URM in general, but it does seem like it might depend on the school.

African Americans are the only ones I can see with a guaranteed boost, at least a powerful one.

Ugh I've heard of that too. As if half-black or multiracial is better than just black to these schools >.>, racism alive and well! Also, why I feel horrible marking black and white, despite the fact that I'm mixed racially.

If I had a dollar for every "where are you from" question and every incorrect guess I wouldn't need to go to law school.

"Where are you from?"
The earth, the universe, my state, my mother's uterus.
"No, no, no silly! Originally? Where are your people from?"
Well I came from an egg inside a human, I'm sure "my people" did too.
Real conversations from university.

[Supercalifragilistic]

What did you mark for yourself on the LSAT? (If you've taken it yet.) I'm pretty sure that if your application doesn't match, this could be questionable for C&F for the bar.

I'm a mixed Latina too and have some African heritage, but wouldn't mark black for my race because I've never done so. If you've marked "white" your entire life because you felt awkward being mixed, it seems odd to all of a sudden be black for convenience/benefit. But to everyone's point, it's not about appearance at all, it's how you identify. Just make sure this stays consistent for forms or it could be considered sketchy.

[cheesusprice]

What did you mark for yourself on the LSAT? (If you've taken it yet.) I'm pretty sure that if your application doesn't match, this could be questionable for C&F for the bar.

I'm a mixed Latina too and have some African heritage, but wouldn't mark black for my race because I've never done so. If you've marked "white" your entire life because you felt awkward being mixed, it seems odd to all of a sudden be black for convenience/benefit. But to everyone's point, it's not about appearance at all, it's how you identify. Just make sure this stays consistent for forms or it could be considered sketchy.

I haven't taken it yet. So I haven't marked anything. I was in high school when they decided that Hispanic was not a race and I don't remember if I left it with the default white or added black/mixed. Also can't remember what I put on my college applications.

I know I read an admittance committee member say that Hispanics of various races are simply marked as Hispanics of various races. So it wouldn't really be any benefit at all or it could be which is what I'm scared of.

It's definitely part of how I identify.

It's something I'm comfortable with now, though many Latinos tend to look down on it, which explains my previous discomfort. You only learn not to care at a certain age.

[AfrocentricAsian]

Put down what benefits you and you can't get in trouble for. When I was in your shoes the concept of URM seemed like such a nice thing, but in practice the same prejudices perpetuate such that maybe you have one or two more racially diverse kids at each stage from privileged backgrounds. As one law review article put it, they want someone who is black but not too black. Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010).

Why are you connoting blackness with what I'm assuming as lack of wealth. Weird.

[cheesusprice]

Put down what benefits you and you can't get in trouble for. When I was in your shoes the concept of URM seemed like such a nice thing, but in practice the same prejudices perpetuate such that maybe you have one or two more racially diverse kids at each stage from privileged backgrounds. As one law review article put it, they want someone who is black but not too black. Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010).

Why are you connoting blackness with what I'm assuming as lack of wealth. Weird.

Not my post. But if I may interject. I didn't take what they wrote to mean black=poor. I think they meant that schools tend to prefer privileged diverse students.


There are real issues about middle class/wealthy African Americans vs. poor African Americans getting into schools. That goes into the whole affirmative action topic and it's best to avoid that.

[AfrocentricAsian]

Put down what benefits you and you can't get in trouble for. When I was in your shoes the concept of URM seemed like such a nice thing, but in practice the same prejudices perpetuate such that maybe you have one or two more racially diverse kids at each stage from privileged backgrounds. As one law review article put it, they want someone who is black but not too black. Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010).

Why are you connoting blackness with what I'm assuming as lack of wealth. Weird.

Not my post. But if I may interject. I didn't take what they wrote to mean black=poor. I think they meant that schools tend to prefer privileged diverse students.


There are real issues about middle class/wealthy African Americans vs. poor African Americans getting into schools. That goes into the whole affirmative action topic and it's best to avoid that.

That's exactly what I got from "black but not too black". But I agree, there are issues with the socio-economic strata of African Americans and affirmative action. Even though socio-economic strata does not indicate that a black person is on equal playing fields as a white person.

[lymenheimer]

Put down what benefits you and you can't get in trouble for. When I was in your shoes the concept of URM seemed like such a nice thing, but in practice the same prejudices perpetuate such that maybe you have one or two more racially diverse kids at each stage from privileged backgrounds. As one law review article put it, they want someone who is black but not too black. Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010).

That's exactly what I got from "black but not too black". But I agree, there are issues with the socio-economic strata of African Americans and affirmative action.

You should re-read the whole sentence, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying... I bolded, italicized, and underlined it for you.

[AfrocentricAsian]

Put down what benefits you and you can't get in trouble for. When I was in your shoes the concept of URM seemed like such a nice thing, but in practice the same prejudices perpetuate such that maybe you have one or two more racially diverse kids at each stage from privileged backgrounds. As one law review article put it, they want someone who is black but not too black. Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010).

That's exactly what I got from "black but not too black". But I agree, there are issues with the socio-economic strata of African Americans and affirmative action.

You should re-read the whole sentence, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying... I bolded, italicized, and underlined it for you.

And he implies that he agrees with the article. No need to bold, italicize, or underline anything for me, oh knowledgeable one.

[lymenheimer]

Put down what benefits you and you can't get in trouble for. When I was in your shoes the concept of URM seemed like such a nice thing, but in practice the same prejudices perpetuate such that maybe you have one or two more racially diverse kids at each stage from privileged backgrounds. As one law review article put it, they want someone who is black but not too black. Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010).

That's exactly what I got from "black but not too black". But I agree, there are issues with the socio-economic strata of African Americans and affirmative action.

You should re-read the whole sentence, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying... I bolded, italicized, and underlined it for you.

And he implies that he agrees with the article.

Seems more that he is agreeing that it happens, not necessarily that is the correct representation. but meh.

[20160810]

I've put down pretty much all of them from time to time.

[jrass]

Put down what benefits you and you can't get in trouble for. When I was in your shoes the concept of URM seemed like such a nice thing, but in practice the same prejudices perpetuate such that maybe you have one or two more racially diverse kids at each stage from privileged backgrounds. As one law review article put it, they want someone who is black but not too black. Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010).

That's exactly what I got from "black but not too black". But I agree, there are issues with the socio-economic strata of African Americans and affirmative action.

You should re-read the whole sentence, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying... I bolded, italicized, and underlined it for you.

And he implies that he agrees with the article. No need to bold, italicize, or underline anything for me, oh knowledgeable one.

If you must know, I don't agree with the article, because it suggests having a diverse pool is a good thing. My goal is to create a firm with one master race of super lawyers - a team of short and stocky legal gurus with no need for food or exercise to prevent superfluous time out of the office. I'd want their skin to be as pale as a baby's bottom to reflect the fact they haven't had sunlight in 40 years, and for them to be incapable of procreation either due to social incompetence or castration in order to limit billable hours lost to maternity leave.

In all seriousness, how did I in any way suggest I agree with the practice? I don't. Anything that holds people to different standards base on race is racist, and requiring black associates to come from wealthy families, intentionally or unintentionally, but have no such requirement for others is racist. The black but not too black is pulled from the article. The idea is that the people that black candidates are interviewing with are racist, but are trying hard not to be. It's like if you're a father, you may let your daughter go on dates when she's 16 if she agrees to be home by 11, but that doesn't mean you' feel great about it.

[stego]

you put down whatever will enhance your career and admission chances without lying

This.

I'd assume those people are complaining about people who a) have never identified as an "URM" ethnicity until applying for law school

The thing, the application doesn't ask if you are a "URM" ... it asks what you identify as. I think sometimes the hesitation to put a certain race, if you look white, is a feeling that you can't identify with a group unless it has put you at a disadvantage and/or affects your daily life. There's no question the system has flaws (a previous posted mentioned "colorism" which is apt since your color is generally what affects how you are treated), but, as an applicant, it's not your job to be thinking about the "system" or all the implications of your answer. Just give a truthful answer (within reason ... saying you're NA if your G-G-Gmother was a Cherokee Indian is definitely pushing it).

Almost as if to point out the absurdity of this whole race thing, NA is the one race where there is a well documented objective test for affiliation. I actually think you count if your G-G-Gmother was a Cherokee, as long as you've registered as such.

Definitely want to second the suggestions on here that you check the racial/ethnic categories that feel right for you. No one knows better than you what you identify with and irrespective of whether or not you've experienced the hardships/disadvantages that others would expect to come with identifying as whatever you identify as, your lens on the world is going to be colored by how you see yourself.

Anyone who cynically chooses a URM category on a law school application just to gain an admissions advantage will eventually see that kind of thing catch up with them.

The Cherokee Nation doesn't require blood quantum for membership. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians requires 1/16th blood quantum for membership and the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians requires 1/4 blood quantum.

Some people miss out on tribal membership in certain tribes despite being NA because of not being to trace ancestry back to a direct ancestor who was enrolled on the Dawes Rolls - even if they can trace it back to a sibling of that ancestor who wasn't enrolled.

Tribal membership may be objective but it's not necessarily neat or 100% accurate.

[drblakedowns]

The Cherokee Nation doesn't require blood quantum for membership. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians requires 1/16th blood quantum for membership and the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians requires 1/4 blood quantum.

Some people miss out on tribal membership in certain tribes despite being NA because of not being to trace ancestry back to a direct ancestor who was enrolled on the Dawes Rolls - even if they can trace it back to a sibling of that ancestor who wasn't enrolled.

Tribal membership may be objective but it's not necessarily neat or 100% accurate.

This is very true. Because of the blood quantum laws, my mother is an enrolled member of a tribe, but her younger siblings are not eligible for enrollment.

[Iam3hunna]

What?