Most favorable URM for affirmative action?
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:32 pm
.
I suspect I'll need to keep the hammer handy.
No debating AA. You can discuss how it works, but not why or whether it's "right". Just keep that in mind.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=166355
Wart wrote:Not sure how you thought my question was inducing debate. to be clear, that's not my goal. So, your thoughts Van?vanwinkle wrote:I suspect I'll need to keep the hammer handy.
No debating AA. You can discuss how it works, but not why or whether it's "right". Just keep that in mind.
Why, do you have the ability to claim all 5?Wart wrote:Just curious, what order would you put native american, African American, Mexican, Latino, pacific islander in as far as biggest boost in chances of acceptance? Include any other URMs I'm missing.
In this forum, we don't talk about AA. We only talk about talking about it. Then we freak out.admisionquestion wrote:I don't understand. What is everyone freaking out about. Genuinely not familiar. seems odd that everyone is freaking out about the possibility of a debate...clearly there is some history here...
Your naïveté is somewhat insulting, even if you are not a longtime/experienced TLSer. For all we know, you and OP are probably "alts" who were once banned for starting conflicts and getting way out of line.kahechsof wrote:In this forum, we don't talk about AA. We only talk about talking about it. Then we freak out.admisionquestion wrote:I don't understand. What is everyone freaking out about. Genuinely not familiar. seems odd that everyone is freaking out about the possibility of a debate...clearly there is some history here...
hmm. You can choose to read a debate in cyberspace about affirmative action. Stop acting like a victim. The marketplace of ideas kinda loses its purpose if we close down threads like this.PDaddy wrote:Wart wrote:vanwinkle wrote:I suspect I'll need to keep the hammer handy.
Please shut this thread down. I am really sick of anti-AA threads on this board, and feel that TLS should ban or call a moratorium on them for a few years.
The short answer is that the powers that be have deemed AA debates off topic, I'd imagine because they tend to be incredibly incisive and ugly, even when people are not purposefully projecting prejudice (try saying that ten times fast . . .).admisionquestion wrote:You literally just said that I am not smart enough to go to law school. Please apologize.
I really honestly do not understand why you could possibly not want "this" topic raised. Especially since I do not even know what "this topic" is.
I can imagine two possible things "this" could be:
1. Trolls or racists talking shit about black people.
2. An endless and unproductive discussion on the fairness of the URM boost system.
1. Is obviously bad news, but not a reason to censure a topic. In person I would say its a reason to bring up a topic, so that the racist idiots will expose themselves...and then can be either educated or avoided.
2. Seems annoying but not worthy of all this hurrah.
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0&t=146657admisionquestion wrote:Can someone please link me to the policy regarding this. I don't want to break any TLS rools...
I feel like this is pretty unnecessary. While debating the merits of Affirmative Action is clearly off-topic for this entire forum, discussing URMs in the context of law school admissions is very necessary. Anti-AA comments are simply an inevitable evil that comes along with that discussion. But that's why we have mods who can deal with the situation when it comes up. We don't need to preemptively shut down a thread for fear of an anti-AA comment.PDaddy wrote: Please shut this thread down. I am really sick of anti-AA threads on this board, and feel that TLS should ban or call a moratorium on them for a few years.
I just said the opposite: that you are smart enough to both go to law school and figure out why people don't want AA debates. No apology warranted for that.admisionquestion wrote:You literally just said that I amnotsmart enough to go to law school.
Please apologize.
I really honestly do not understand why you could possibly not want "this" topic raised. Especially since I do not even know what "this topic" is.
Yeah...if the thread gets out of control the mods will handle it. Someone making a request in bold type will not induce any mod to lock a thread, or make any other moderation decision.birdlaw117 wrote:I feel like this is pretty unnecessary. While debating the merits of Affirmative Action is clearly off-topic for this entire forum, discussing URMs in the context of law school admissions is very necessary. Anti-AA comments are simply an inevitable evil that comes along with that discussion. But that's why we have mods who can deal with the situation when it comes up. We don't need to preemptively shut down a thread for fear of an anti-AA comment.PDaddy wrote: Please shut this thread down. I am really sick of anti-AA threads on this board, and feel that TLS should ban or call a moratorium on them for a few years.
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Below is the relevant information for this thread.
A (non-exclusive) list of highly bannable offenses:
(1-7)
8. Anything that incites AA debates in on-topic forums. Ban length varies by intent, but obvious things can prompt very long bans.
Reasons for having a strict AA policy:
On-topic forums are for people to seek help, and constant flamewars about whether AA/diversity boosts are politically or morally right don't help anybody. The OP would end up never getting help, so this is strictly prohibited now. This includes comments that you find AA disgusting, offensive, etc. The on-topic forums are not the right place to share these political views. How long a ban you get will depend on how intentionally flaming your comment is, but even borderline/unintentional statements might still get a short ban in order to halt any potential debate.
Not good enough for you?
People have complained about this before and frankly, the mods have decided that although we hear your concerns, this is not community moderation. We make the final decisions and our policy has not changed. Sorry. Below are some thoughts that I think sum it up quite nicely.
aschup wrote: Speaking only for myself here:
I tend to be far on the free speech side of things, but there is no TLS Constitution, and there are no fundamental rights here that people can wave around to combat mod team decisions with. Also I take issue with acting like this is the mods punishing the intellectually curious. We treat racial topics differently because we've seen this happen consistently, over several years, and frankly we're sick of dealing with the bullshit and fallout. If that means sacrificing some marginal bit of freedom for poster x to detail how reverse racism is the worst thing evar, so be it, but we have community standards/dynamics to worry about, and we've decided that that's worth more than letting these kinds of threads degenerate into the inevitably fruitless flamewar in the name of some phantom intellectual freedom.If you still have an issue with it, feel free to complain using the link provided earlier in the thread.SBL wrote:Posting a thread that will probably devolve into an aa debate used to get your thread kicked to the lounge, but years ago the mods got sick of reading the same tired arguments and just started locking. It's hardly thought policing; we all have very different views on aa, the only thing we have in common is that we don't care about any of your views on aa.
I don't play the victim, and I am all for the "marketplace of ideas". I just don't like old, stale, "spoiled" ideas. The AA debate is played out.lsatisevil wrote:hmm. You can choose to read a debate in cyberspace about affirmative action. Stop acting like a victim. The marketplace of ideas kinda loses its purpose if we close down threads like this.PDaddy wrote:Wart wrote:vanwinkle wrote:I suspect I'll need to keep the hammer handy.
Please shut this thread down. I am really sick of anti-AA threads on this board, and feel that TLS should ban or call a moratorium on them for a few years.
Yes, you sound exactly like someone who is bored a discussion. Not at all like someone who is offended by a line of reasoning.PDaddy wrote:
I don't play the victim, and I am all for the "marketplace of ideas". I just don't like old, stale, "spoiled" ideas. The AA debate is played out.
Also, I see the tactic: bait, bait, and bait again. If you cannot bait people into an AA discussion, bait them into discussing why they won't debate AA, thereby baiting thewm into a discussion about AA.
Goodbye...