How do law schools even KNOW YOUR RACE? Forum

[sophia.olive]

careers, especially careers that hold power in society, should represent that society.

[JazzOne]

The thing is, I have no skin in the game. I'm already in law school. In fact, I probably benefited from the URM boost. But I have never been discriminated against, and I grew up in a fairly affluent family. If there was ever someone who didn't deserve the boost, it was me. But yet here I am with my full scholarship, and my white friends are up to their necks in debt. Something about that strikes me as unfair.

But the system isn't about any one individual person. Your personal anecdote is just that.

Everyone should really stop thinking about AA on the micro-level. That's where the" injustice" seems most palpable. That was not how it was meant to be viewed, and doing so, conflates the good and equitable reasons behind it.

But those injustices at the micro level are real, and they affect real people (my friends). Why shouldn't we examine both levels of this policy?

Feel free to examine them. But I fail to see how micro-level would ever be a more important goal, and thus a more influential role, when affirmative action is directed toward entire races of people and not just some minorities who happened to luck out. I guess the issue I have with the micro-level is the inherent arbitrariness. Yeah I know some white people who are poorer than some black people. But I'm thinking of the bigger picture. And I think, so was the legislature.

Some liberties should be protected even if there is a net benefit to violating them. Perhaps this is not one of those cases, but we need to know the magnitude of the injustices to compare them. On that note, it does seem like there is a more compelling interest to diversifying the legal profession than there is to guaranteeing that law school admissions is a pure meritocracy.

[JazzOne]

careers, especially careers that hold power in society, should represent that society.

I agree, but the question is whether AA is the best policy to achieve that goal. I maintain that it is not, and I have stated my reasons. But the counterarguments are not frivolous, so I admit that the issue is dicey.

[20121109]

Some liberties should be protected even if there is a net benefit to violating them. Perhaps this is not one of those cases, but we need to know the magnitude of the injustices to compare them. On that note, it does seem like there is a more compelling interest to diversifying the legal profession than there is to guaranteeing that law school admissions is a pure meritocracy.

Yeah I don't really dispute any of this. I just feel that macro policy > micro policy, in terms of probative value.

Our views are more convergent than divergent at this point

[LAWLAW09]

I think we're talking past each other because you ascribe a negative connotation to the word discriminate. I simply mean "choose." AA is as system of "choosing" applicants based on race, and it is a system that disfavors the majority.

AA is not a system of "choosing" applicants based on race. It is a policy that allows for race to be a consideration, among many, in determining who gets "in."[/quote]

I don't see how folks can argue for the dismantling of AA without arguing simultaneously for the dismantling of any system that uses additional factors outside of just test scores. To assume that discrimination doesn't take place when considering who can pay for school, who lived in a certain region, who went to a particular type of school, etc., or to be silent about all of that, while complaining about/challenging race-inclusive AA is an inconsistent argument to me.

The thing is, I have no skin in the game. I'm already in law school. In fact, I probably benefited from the URM boost. But I have never been discriminated against, and I grew up in a fairly affluent family. If there was ever someone who didn't deserve the boost, it was me. But yet here I am with my full scholarship, and my white friends are up to their necks in debt. Something about that strikes me as unfair.

When I encounter White ppl that feel bad about or that give back the advantages they get when they apply for a mortgage or business loans, walk into a hospital, are approached by an officer, or when their name isn't discarded from a stack of employment applications b/c their name isn't ethnic sounding, then that's when I'll start worrying about whether or not I'm getting an "unfair" advantage in an admissions process that very few people have the means to enter. The message that those White ppl (described above) will pass on to their children when they tuck them in bed will simply be: "I got here b/c I worked hard and earned it. That is why we live the way that we do." Sharing bed time and classroom stories regarding unearned advantages is not how your White friends will spend their time.

I wish you felt differently about who did and didn't "earn" their way into those schools.

[sophia.olive]

of course not, we should not ignore them. But i dont see this as a strong support for policy removal.
If the issue is students not getting into law school, or the school of their choice, there are a bunch of causes that could be approached that are not, the aa cases.

[NZA]

Some liberties should be protected even if there is a net benefit to violating them. Perhaps this is not one of those cases, but we need to know the magnitude of the injustices to compare them. On that note, it does seem like there is a more compelling interest to diversifying the legal profession than there is to guaranteeing that law school admissions is a pure meritocracy.

Yeah I don't really dispute any of this. I just feel that macro policy > micro policy, in terms of probative value.

Our views are more convergent than divergent at this point

I think at the bare minimum, most everyone here has at least recognized that there is a serious problem right now when it comes to race and race relations in this country.

The only point at which people seem to disagree is what exactly ought to be done.

I don't think that the point being raised about socioeconomic factors being a more just standard is wrong by any means...it makes a lot of sense. But I also understand that the issue is deeper than mere material circumstances. You know?

[d34d9823]

Some liberties should be protected even if there is a net benefit to violating them.

But that's Pareto inefficient

[LAWLAW09]

I'm checking out.


It's been fun.

[20121109]

Some liberties should be protected even if there is a net benefit to violating them. Perhaps this is not one of those cases, but we need to know the magnitude of the injustices to compare them. On that note, it does seem like there is a more compelling interest to diversifying the legal profession than there is to guaranteeing that law school admissions is a pure meritocracy.

Yeah I don't really dispute any of this. I just feel that macro policy > micro policy, in terms of probative value.

Our views are more convergent than divergent at this point

I think at the bare minimum, most everyone here has at least recognized that there is a serious problem right now when it comes to race and race relations in this country.

The only point at which people seem to disagree is what exactly ought to be done.

I don't think that the point being raised about socioeconomic factors being a more just standard is wrong by any means...it makes a lot of sense. But I also understand that the issue is deeper than mere material circumstances. You know?

Like you said, I opined as to what should be done and others did too.

I see both sides. I just think that if the issue is race representation, race-based action is a more efficient means to the goal. I can see the "injustice"....but I use quotation marks because I have a hard time thinking that such an initiative is unjust when so many overtly and undeniably unjust laws have been utilized for antithetical purposes in history. If race based law caused the problem, I think it can also fix it, or at least help ameliorate it.

But again...meh. Opinions are opinions.

And this...

I'm checking out.


It's been fun.

[moopness]

I'm checking out.


It's been fun.

+1, even though I didn't contribute much

[mrmangs]

Holy shit, did we just have an overwhelmingly calm and rational AA debate in the URM forum?

Not so much at first. But yeah, ended up that way.

[NZA]

Holy shit, did we just have an overwhelmingly calm and rational AA debate in the URM forum?

Miracles happen.

[Kohinoor]

they'll make you suck a dick

[Blindc1rca]

Okay so lets recap:

Putting unquantifiable discrimination aside (not because it isn't there, but because it can't be quantified)...

Black people, on average, are a whole lot poorer than white people. X black person's salary is 60% of that of X white person. What's even more telling is net worth, where X black person's net worth is 10% of that of X white person. This = fewer resources, expounded by the fact that public education is paid for in many states by property taxes from the school district, and where the property values in the school district are low, such is the funding for the schools. Also, people fail to consider the familial safety net. Your average white person is 20x as likely to have a family member who earns over 100,000 per year -- translation: if times get rough economically, white people are much more likely to have a fallback.

Standardized tests: LSAT/SAT/ACT are written mostly by white people with white vocabularies and white upbringings. So people with similar backgrounds will likely have the same verbal/experiential repertoire to draw from, and thus will have a huge advantage when taking these test. Since de facto segregation exists more re: black/white than any other dichotomy, blacks are further insulated and therefore separated from building such repertoires than essentially any other ethnic group (although in the SW Mexican Americans definitely experience this as well... hence MA=URM).

These are clear, irrefutable facts. As such, I have little patience for those who bemoan the URM boost.

A footrace is only fair if everyone starts at the same line; and as long as that fails to be the case for America's youth, a handicap at later points is absolutely essential to check the ample head start of being white in America against the aforementioned disadvantages.

[Mike12188]

Okay so lets recap:

Putting unquantifiable discrimination aside (not because it isn't there, but because it can't be quantified)...

Black people, on average, are a whole lot poorer than white people. X black person's salary is 60% of that of X white person. What's even more telling is net worth, where X black person's net worth is 10% of that of X white person. This = fewer resources, expounded by the fact that public education is paid for in many states by property taxes from the school district, and where the property values in the school district are low, such is the funding for the schools. Also, people fail to consider the familial safety net. Your average white person is 20x as likely to have a family member who earns over 100,000 per year -- translation: if times get rough economically, white people are much more likely to have a fallback.

Standardized tests: LSAT/SAT/ACT are written mostly by white people with white vocabularies and white upbringings. So people with similar backgrounds will likely have the same verbal/experiential repertoire to draw from, and thus will have a huge advantage when taking these test. Since de facto segregation exists more re: black/white than any other dichotomy, blacks are further insulated and therefore separated from building such repertoires than essentially any other ethnic group (although in the SW Mexican Americans definitely experience this as well... hence MA=URM).

These are clear, irrefutable facts. As such, I have little patience for those who bemoan the URM boost.

A footrace is only fair if everyone starts at the same line; and as long as that fails to be the case for America's youth, a handicap at later points is absolutely essential to check the ample head start of being white in America against the aforementioned disadvantages.

I don't think its fair in the fact that there are plenty of white kids at more of a disadvantage than a well off black kid. I think there should be a URM boost, because not everyone has the same opportunities, but to base it off of race alone is ridiculous.

The bolded though really? It's called English, if anyone is at a disadvantage it would be those with a first language other than English.

[Blindc1rca]

Okay so lets recap:

Putting unquantifiable discrimination aside (not because it isn't there, but because it can't be quantified)...

Black people, on average, are a whole lot poorer than white people. X black person's salary is 60% of that of X white person. What's even more telling is net worth, where X black person's net worth is 10% of that of X white person. This = fewer resources, expounded by the fact that public education is paid for in many states by property taxes from the school district, and where the property values in the school district are low, such is the funding for the schools. Also, people fail to consider the familial safety net. Your average white person is 20x as likely to have a family member who earns over 100,000 per year -- translation: if times get rough economically, white people are much more likely to have a fallback.

Standardized tests: LSAT/SAT/ACT are written mostly by white people with white vocabularies and white upbringings. So people with similar backgrounds will likely have the same verbal/experiential repertoire to draw from, and thus will have a huge advantage when taking these test. Since de facto segregation exists more re: black/white than any other dichotomy, blacks are further insulated and therefore separated from building such repertoires than essentially any other ethnic group (although in the SW Mexican Americans definitely experience this as well... hence MA=URM).

These are clear, irrefutable facts. As such, I have little patience for those who bemoan the URM boost.

A footrace is only fair if everyone starts at the same line; and as long as that fails to be the case for America's youth, a handicap at later points is absolutely essential to check the ample head start of being white in America against the aforementioned disadvantages.

I don't think its fair in the fact that there are plenty of white kids at more of a disadvantage than a well off black kid. I think there should be a URM boost, because not everyone has the same opportunities, but to base it off of race alone is ridiculous.

The bolded though really? It's called English, if anyone is at a disadvantage it would be those with a first language other than English.

Go take intro to linguistics and get back to me. Meanwhile, look up AAV, SAE, etc. They are called dialects, and the exclusivity of one's surroundings plays a huge role in one's proficiency in X dialect. I bet you a million dollars if these tests were written in AAV you'd be at a huge disadvantage.

[20121109]

Holy shit, did we just have an overwhelmingly calm and rational AA debate in the URM forum?

You're welcome.

[JazzOne]

Okay so lets recap:

Putting unquantifiable discrimination aside (not because it isn't there, but because it can't be quantified)...

Black people, on average, are a whole lot poorer than white people. X black person's salary is 60% of that of X white person. What's even more telling is net worth, where X black person's net worth is 10% of that of X white person. This = fewer resources, expounded by the fact that public education is paid for in many states by property taxes from the school district, and where the property values in the school district are low, such is the funding for the schools. Also, people fail to consider the familial safety net. Your average white person is 20x as likely to have a family member who earns over 100,000 per year -- translation: if times get rough economically, white people are much more likely to have a fallback.

Standardized tests: LSAT/SAT/ACT are written mostly by white people with white vocabularies and white upbringings. So people with similar backgrounds will likely have the same verbal/experiential repertoire to draw from, and thus will have a huge advantage when taking these test. Since de facto segregation exists more re: black/white than any other dichotomy, blacks are further insulated and therefore separated from building such repertoires than essentially any other ethnic group (although in the SW Mexican Americans definitely experience this as well... hence MA=URM).

These are clear, irrefutable facts. As such, I have little patience for those who bemoan the URM boost.

A footrace is only fair if everyone starts at the same line; and as long as that fails to be the case for America's youth, a handicap at later points is absolutely essential to check the ample head start of being white in America against the aforementioned disadvantages.

That's not a fair recap of this thread at all. That's just an outline of your position.

[JazzOne]

Some liberties should be protected even if there is a net benefit to violating them.

But that's Pareto inefficient

I thought about this comment for a while last night. So, I should perhaps amend my position a little bit.

Some liberties should be protected even if it seems like there is a net benefit to violating them because there can be unintended and unforeseen consequences that swing the calculus to a net loss. For instance, the URM boost seems to create a net benefit by diversifying the field of law (despite the injustices it creates for whites at the margins), but if the URM boost has the effect of creating a public perception of discrimination against the majority and illegitimacy of minority accomplishments, then these effects may actually outweigh the benefit of diversity.

[jarofsoup]

By definition wouldn't AA eventually lead to reverse discrimination?

Think about it. If you are giving one group of people a leg up. Eventually they get the leg up and disadvantage the other group by having a leg up arbitrarily.

So wouldn't these practices eventually lead to an unfair society?

[Mike12188]

Okay so lets recap:

Putting unquantifiable discrimination aside (not because it isn't there, but because it can't be quantified)...

Black people, on average, are a whole lot poorer than white people. X black person's salary is 60% of that of X white person. What's even more telling is net worth, where X black person's net worth is 10% of that of X white person. This = fewer resources, expounded by the fact that public education is paid for in many states by property taxes from the school district, and where the property values in the school district are low, such is the funding for the schools. Also, people fail to consider the familial safety net. Your average white person is 20x as likely to have a family member who earns over 100,000 per year -- translation: if times get rough economically, white people are much more likely to have a fallback.

Standardized tests: LSAT/SAT/ACT are written mostly by white people with white vocabularies and white upbringings. So people with similar backgrounds will likely have the same verbal/experiential repertoire to draw from, and thus will have a huge advantage when taking these test. Since de facto segregation exists more re: black/white than any other dichotomy, blacks are further insulated and therefore separated from building such repertoires than essentially any other ethnic group (although in the SW Mexican Americans definitely experience this as well... hence MA=URM).

These are clear, irrefutable facts. As such, I have little patience for those who bemoan the URM boost.

A footrace is only fair if everyone starts at the same line; and as long as that fails to be the case for America's youth, a handicap at later points is absolutely essential to check the ample head start of being white in America against the aforementioned disadvantages.

I don't think its fair in the fact that there are plenty of white kids at more of a disadvantage than a well off black kid. I think there should be a URM boost, because not everyone has the same opportunities, but to base it off of race alone is ridiculous.

The bolded though really? It's called English, if anyone is at a disadvantage it would be those with a first language other than English.

Go take intro to linguistics and get back to me. Meanwhile, look up AAV, SAE, etc. They are called dialects, and the exclusivity of one's surroundings plays a huge role in one's proficiency in X dialect. I bet you a million dollars if these tests were written in AAV you'd be at a huge disadvantage.

So you agree with me? It is one's surroundings not their race that should be considered.

This is what I got for AAV - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle

BUT, if you mean AAVE then I got it. I've seen Forrest Gump I'm sure I'd do fine. And by the way no one in my surrounding area actually talks like how the LSAT is written. Context clues are your friends.

[Blindc1rca]

So you agree with me? It is one's surroundings not their race that should be considered.

This is what I got for AAV - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle

BUT, if you mean AAVE then I got it. I've seen Forrest Gump I'm sure I'd do fine. And by the way no one in my surrounding area actually talks like how the LSAT is written. Context clues are your friends.

You have a valid point. However we're talking about timed tests here, and rapid recall is certainly related to the frequency with which one is exposed to certain words/phrases. Regardless, this part of my argument was mainly to support corrections for test scores. I'm a bit less zealous about correcting when it comes to URM vs. non-URM college GPAs.


Regardless, the strongest issue for me is the economic disparity (income, net worth, fallback network), but not as it stands alone. It's the source of this disparity and the government's (and other societal institutions') active and subsequently passive roles in promoting this disparity throughout much of our nation's history that warrants the boost.

White poverty, while deplorable, is not so much a result of a 400 year history of phenotype-targeted deprivation.


edit: woops, caught me, forgot the final E (although in all fairness "vernacular" can be both an adjective and a noun). funny about the amphibious assault vehicle...

[JazzOne]

Regardless, the strongest issue for me is the economic disparity (income, net worth, fallback network), but not as it stands alone. It's the source of this disparity and the government's (and other societal institutions') active and subsequently passive roles in promoting this disparity throughout much of our nation's history that warrants the boost.

See, this is where I think the argument for URM boost starts to lose traction.

We can basically agree that historical racism and institutionalized racism are real. We can agree that the educational opportunities for minorities are limited as a result. We can agree that it would be beneficial to implement policies that counter these inequalities.

A socioeconomic boost would have all the positive effects we're seeking. Namely, it would tend to increase diversity in the legal profession since minorities tend to have less wealth than whites. Socioeconomic boost has the added benefit that it does not involve overt racial discrimination. That is, whatever racial discrimination results from a socioeconomic boost is purely the result of real social inequalities, not generalizations that apply in some cases but not others.

Yet, the proponents of URM boost say this is not enough. It's not enough to enact a policy that achieves all the goals because this policy does not directly rebuke the government and social institutions that promote the disparity. I can understand the desire for such a rebuke, but the URM boost rebukes young whites who cannot be said to have actively or passively participated in the social systems. College folks, by and large, are simply too young and uninfluential to justify imposing on them the burdens of the URM boost. I think it would be wise for minorities to acknowledge that the URM boost does create some injustices and that these injustices can be profound. If the goals of the URM boost can be achieved without these injustices, minorities would be wise to take the position that we want social equality, but not at the expense of direct racial discrimination against whites. After all, isn't racial discrimination what we're arguing against in the first place?

Basically, I think this whole issue should be analyzed with a balancing test similar to the due process test in Matthews v. Eldrige. The following factors are important in deciding whether to implement a policy like AA or URM boost:

1. The magnitude of the injustice combated by the policy. (The institutionalized racism against minorities is extensive, so this factor weighs heavily in favor of URM boost.)
2. The magnitude of injustice created by the policy. (Some poor whites are disadvantaged by the URM boost, and some wealthy minorities are unfairly advantaged. These injustices are real, but the magnitude is smaller than that of factor 1. So this factor weighs against the URM boost, but it does not outweigh factor 1.)
3. The existence of acceptable alternatives to the policy. (Here is where I think my opinion diverges from those of most minorities. I see the socioeconomic boost as a perfect alternative because it entails a vast majority of the advantages of the URM boost without the disadvantages. So, factor 3 weighs against the URM boost.)

Conclusion: The existence of an acceptable alternative to the URM boost makes it unjustifiable to enforce a policy of overt racial discrimination against whites. The liberties at stake are too important. We should not violate the liberties of one group for the benefit of another group unless (1) the reasons to do so are very compelling (which they are in this case) and (2) there is no alternate policy that achieves the goals without violating the liberties in question.

Out.

[firemed]

By definition wouldn't AA eventually lead to reverse discrimination?

Think about it. If you are giving one group of people a leg up. Eventually they get the leg up and disadvantage the other group by having a leg up arbitrarily.

So wouldn't these practices eventually lead to an unfair society?

Hasn't yet. Are you really arguing we should get rid of something correcting an unfairness NOW... because it will become unfair LATER?

@ NR: Yeah... freaky, huh?