Because the topic seems to be coming up in so many threads as of late, I thought it would be useful to emphasize the distinction between a "diversity" applicant and a URM applicant.
Fairly or not, the only groups currently recognized as URM's are African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics. (If you wish to discuss the validity or fairness of the system, please go to threads which are more relevant. This is not the place to flame about it.) URM's are the only groups that get the benefit of AA admission. (Again, take your flames elsewhere.
)
A number of threads have started regarding whether someone who is not a member of one of these groups can benefit from AA or be considered a URM. People seem to get very testy when they are told they are not. They cite disadvantage, cultural distinction, and various other elements which they believe entitle them to special consideration during the admission process. What they often do not realize is that certain applicants, not technically URM's, can still get the benefit of special consideration, although not the benefits of AA. These are people with special qualities and experiences that schools feel add to the intellectual and social climate of their institution. These are "diversity" applicants and although they are not eligible to benefit from AA, their applications are considered on the merits in light of these special circumstances.
I suppose the point I am trying to make is that you don't have to be a URM to have your SES considered. If you are not a URM, but have these special qualities, emphasize them in your application and you will receive consideration.
Perhaps this will alieviate some of the tension between URM's and those who attempt to make their case for that status.
Let's please remember that we are all going to have to learn to work together. The earlier we begin to understand and respect one another the better our law school and professional experiences will be.
Discussion
Resources
