Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: TimMitchell on June 22, 2008, 08:16:10 PM

Title: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 22, 2008, 08:16:10 PM
http://www.oddee.com/item_95061.aspx

If both of these girls grow up exactly the same way and have exactly the same grades and LSAT than one will have a huge advantage over the other in terms of UG/Grad admissions and job prospects

I don't like discussing AA that much on the forums because it usually starts a flame and people aren't going to be persuaded from what they initially believe... but just had to post this after I stumbled on the article
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: pig floyd on June 22, 2008, 08:36:59 PM
God damn, you people just don't get it.

@#!* @#!* @#!* @#!* @#!* @#!* LA LALALALALALA LA LA LAAAAA!
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: mbw on June 22, 2008, 09:31:09 PM
It burns, it burns! 

OMG, please make it stop.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 22, 2008, 09:37:34 PM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 22, 2008, 09:38:29 PM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



And we're intolerant.

Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 22, 2008, 09:40:42 PM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

I thought the problem with us/them/you libs was that we/they/you are always wrong about everything?  ???

Only when it involves facts and truth.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 22, 2008, 09:41:29 PM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



And we're intolerant.



Doesn't that go without saying...
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 22, 2008, 09:44:42 PM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.

I thought the problem with us/them/you libs was that we/they/you are always wrong about everything?  ???

Only when it involves facts and truth.

You just suggested that we/they/you libs might occasionally be right about something.  Which makes you a America-hating Communazi.

TERRORIST!
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 22, 2008, 10:57:41 PM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 23, 2008, 12:29:11 AM
http://www.oddee.com/item_95061.aspx

If both of these girls grow up exactly the same way and have exactly the same grades and LSAT than one will have a huge advantage over the other in terms of UG/Grad admissions and job prospects

I don't like discussing AA that much on the forums because it usually starts a flame and people aren't going to be persuaded from what they initially believe... but just had to post this after I stumbled on the article

The bolded is false. My stance on AA has been shifted 180 degrees based on discussion of the issue on these very forums.

And yes, they can both check the same box on any form, if they choose to disclose their race.

So what were you before and what was it that changed your mind?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Somewhere on June 23, 2008, 12:33:39 AM
http://www.oddee.com/item_95061.aspx

If both of these girls grow up exactly the same way and have exactly the same grades and LSAT than one will have a huge advantage over the other in terms of UG/Grad admissions and job prospects

I don't like discussing AA that much on the forums because it usually starts a flame and people aren't going to be persuaded from what they initially believe... but just had to post this after I stumbled on the article

Throwing out that they can both check the same box.

Do you think both girls will have the exact same life experiences?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 23, 2008, 08:13:15 AM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

I get the broader point you're making, but in this individual case, it seems weird that this would bother you, since admissions offices would treat them exactly the same for AA purposes - it's not like your AA status is determined by sending a picture.

But anyway, it seems like the most typical anti-AA argument (and it seems like this might be the argument you're implicitly making - if you're not, sorry) goes something like: "if we're supposed to use AA to make up for slavery, discrimination, socio-economic differences, etc , then why should the rich black kid with a 163 get in over the poor white kid with 172?"  It just doesn't seem like this idea of remedying past wrongs, making up for current differences, etc is the justification law schools are giving for AA in 2008 - from what I remember when looking at law school admissions websites, they talk about "diversity" as something that benefits everyone, and benefits law school and the legal profession as a whole, not something that is meant to make life fairer for that twin with the darker skin. 

It seems like the "its not fair to similarly situated or worse off white kids" argument makes up a huge part of the anti-AA arguments, but it's an attack on one of the weaker justifications for AA, and that justification doesn't really seem to be used by pro-AA people as much anymore anyway.

But even forgetting what I just said, I agree with Somewhere - you seem to be implying (again, if you're not, sorry) that since they are twins, growing up in the same house, leading pretty similar lives, etc, it's not fair that one is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to college/grad school admissions.  But just because they are going to have similar lives in many ways, doesn't mean the color of their skin won't affect their lives substantially.

Ah, finally I well thought out arguement on the other side of the AA discussion!

As for the bolded part of your quote, that is not the point I was making but I do disagree with people who stick up with AA to correct past social ills such as slavery. Jews have been slaves for centuries as well. On top of that, almost all Europeans races have been forced into systematic slavery at one time or another. Finally, in Russia the serf system was practically the same as slavary and was abolished around the same time as American slavery. However, that wasn't what I was implying.

For your last paragraph, that is the brunt of the point I was trying to make. Although the color of their skin guarantees that they won't have the exact same experience growing up, is it neccessarily true that the black girl will be faced with more adversary than the white girl? What if they grow up in a poor, black neighboorhood. I did, and I can tell you that racism swings both ways. If you are a white person do you feel comforatble walking down the streets of a poor black neighboorhood? When I did I had things said to me that are just as bad as what you would expect would happen to a black person walking down the streets of Savanah in 1890.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 23, 2008, 08:14:45 AM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

Try reading, oh I don't know, the entire AA forum.

Newbies always pop in here thinking they have some damning or definitive argument regarding affirmative action - something new and novel to say. They create a new thread, and then get annoyed when other posters don't rehash their arguments for the millionth time.

It doesn't work that way. Read the forum first, champ.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 23, 2008, 08:29:07 AM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

Try reading, oh I don't know, the entire AA forum.

Newbies always pop in here thinking they have some damning or definitive argument regarding affirmative action - something new and novel to say. They create a new thread, and then get annoyed when other posters don't rehash their arguments for the millionth time.

It doesn't work that way. Read the forum first, champ.

uugggh... I wasen't suggesting that they should repost or rehash old stuff, I was just pointing out the irony that you criticized them for mocking instead of taking on the arguement and they next few posts just continued with mocking.

I have read the old posts. If that specific article was posted somewhere else, than sorry for the repost, but I doubt it was. I wasn't annoyed that the arguments weren't rehased just pointing out a little slice of irony.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 23, 2008, 08:33:22 AM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

Try reading, oh I don't know, the entire AA forum.

Newbies always pop in here thinking they have some damning or definitive argument regarding affirmative action - something new and novel to say. They create a new thread, and then get annoyed when other posters don't rehash their arguments for the millionth time.

It doesn't work that way. Read the forum first, champ.

uugggh... I wasen't suggesting that they should repost or rehash old stuff, I was just pointing out the irony that you criticized them for mocking instead of taking on the arguement and they next few posts just continued with mocking.

I have read the old posts. If that specific article was posted somewhere else, than sorry for the repost, but I doubt it was. I wasn't annoyed that the arguments weren't rehased just pointing out a little slice of irony.

The egg's on your face here.

What are the odds that I was in any way serious with that post (re: mocking)?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: mbw on June 23, 2008, 10:24:26 AM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

Try reading, oh I don't know, the entire AA forum.

Newbies always pop in here thinking they have some damning or definitive argument regarding affirmative action - something new and novel to say. They create a new thread, and then get annoyed when other posters don't rehash their arguments for the millionth time.

It doesn't work that way. Read the forum first, champ.

uugggh... I wasen't suggesting that they should repost or rehash old stuff, I was just pointing out the irony that you criticized them for mocking instead of taking on the arguement and they next few posts just continued with mocking.

I have read the old posts. If that specific article was posted somewhere else, than sorry for the repost, but I doubt it was. I wasn't annoyed that the arguments weren't rehased just pointing out a little slice of irony.

What, you think life as a poor white boy in teh Hood wasn't addressed in that thread?  Did you skip over 90% of it?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: jack24 on June 23, 2008, 10:37:08 AM
When do you guys think AA will disappear?  10, 25, 50 years?  What measurable changes will have to be made before our society no longer has a need for AA?

Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 23, 2008, 10:42:09 AM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.

I get the broader point you're making, but in this individual case, it seems weird that this would bother you, since admissions offices would treat them exactly the same for AA purposes - it's not like your AA status is determined by sending a picture.

But anyway, it seems like the most typical anti-AA argument (and it seems like this might be the argument you're implicitly making - if you're not, sorry) goes something like: "if we're supposed to use AA to make up for slavery, discrimination, socio-economic differences, etc , then why should the rich black kid with a 163 get in over the poor white kid with 172?"  It just doesn't seem like this idea of remedying past wrongs, making up for current differences, etc is the justification law schools are giving for AA in 2008 - from what I remember when looking at law school admissions websites, they talk about "diversity" as something that benefits everyone, and benefits law school and the legal profession as a whole, not something that is meant to make life fairer for that twin with the darker skin. 

It seems like the "its not fair to similarly situated or worse off white kids" argument makes up a huge part of the anti-AA arguments, but it's an attack on one of the weaker justifications for AA, and that justification doesn't really seem to be used by pro-AA people as much anymore anyway.

But even forgetting what I just said, I agree with Somewhere - you seem to be implying (again, if you're not, sorry) that since they are twins, growing up in the same house, leading pretty similar lives, etc, it's not fair that one is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to college/grad school admissions.  But just because they are going to have similar lives in many ways, doesn't mean the color of their skin won't affect their lives substantially.

When I did I had things said to me that are just as bad as what you would expect would happen to a black person walking down the streets of Savanah in 1890.


Hmmm, said, maybe. But the likelihood of you getting kidnapped, lynched, then the case brought against your African American killers, being tried by a black judge, with an all black jury and ending in an acquittal with the judge patting the black sherrif on the back with a smile, is, I dunno, slightly less than the same thing happening to a black person in 1890 Savanna.

Iím really tired of this poor white argument anyway, you people are the biggest recipients of AA, its called student loans, and it means I have to sit next to you socially climbing povs in class. Great, what a wonderful society we live in, we encourage and reward people for being POOR and WHITE. Huh? If you have been in the US for more than two generations, are white, and are still poor, you did something wrong. Buy a 7-11 and become middle class in one generation like the Indians do. Taking my tax money to educate your poor white offspring is AA, its wealth redistribution, its punishing me for being successful to pull your sprogs out of poverty. Thatís what pisses me off about this whole system, there are poor whites taking my spots at top schools because they can borrow the money to go there instead of having to pay for it themselves the way it used to be. You people should know your class, youíre supposed to work for us, not go to school with us. YOU WHITE POORS ARE TAKING MY SPOTS!
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 23, 2008, 10:54:11 AM
When do you guys think AA will disappear?  10, 25, 50 years?  What measurable changes will have to be made before our society no longer has a need for AA?



That's a great question. I don't think it'll be ending for a long, long time. Although, the changes AA set out to accomplish are here so the system should be abandoned.

Anyway, like other posters have said, this post wasn't meant to rehash what has been said in other posts. I just wanted to post an article I found interesting
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 23, 2008, 10:57:18 AM
EDIT: In my above post when I said "Indians" I meant dot not feather, I would not want to offend anyone with my remarks, so I thought I should be culturally sensitive and point out which one of those people I was refering too.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Thistle on June 23, 2008, 11:44:47 AM
you're supposed to work for us, not go to school with us. YOU WHITE POORS ARE TAKING MY SPOTS!


seriously.  you cant even GET good domestic help anymore.  even my gardener has a master's from MIT. 
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 23, 2008, 11:49:25 AM
you're supposed to work for us, not go to school with us. YOU WHITE POORS ARE TAKING MY SPOTS!


seriously.  you cant even GET good domestic help anymore.  even my gardener has a master's from MIT. 

Landscaping is very complicated... you have to check soil pH and all kinds of stuff
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: The Artist on June 23, 2008, 01:26:13 PM
@#!* race based AA.

The end.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 23, 2008, 03:11:28 PM
@#!* race based AA.

The end.

Angsty.

Did you read that on a t-shirt at a Young College Republicans meeting somewhere?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 23, 2008, 03:32:29 PM
Where are the real conservatives on this thread? You know, not the ones that just jummped on the band wagon when Bush made it cool to be conservative (and now you call yourselfs "liberatrians" cuase your loosing) I guess I'm the only one willing to speak the truth: There is a simple way to end this whole AA debate. Do as Regan said he would (but never did) and as true conservatives still believe we should, and abolish the department of education. No more federal subsidized student loans for anyone. You only go to college if you can afford to pay for it. You make success on your own, not on the g-ment dole.

There is no ďrightĒ to education in this country beyond k-12. End that, end loans, and federal help to schools, and there would be no need to give preference to anyone for anything. We created a generation that thinks they deserve something higher education wise. As if everyone, regardless of any factors, has the ďrightĒ to go to the best schools. And if some takes ďtheirĒ place they get all pissy about it.

 We started making lazy kids when we started giving them trophies just for playing the game, even though they lost miserably. They now think someone else has taken their ďspotĒ at some school, as if they deserved that spot in the first place. As if they are saying I played the game gimmie my trophy even though I did not win. God forbid they have to go to a lesser ranked school and try being actually good at being a lawyer to be successful. Thatís too much work, gimme my trophy for just playing the game, my diploma is from X that means I'm deverse riches even if I suck at my job. There is a political philosophy for you people, and its not republicanism, its communism where everyone gets an equal chance at success becuase we are all "equal" even the lazy ones.   
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 23, 2008, 03:44:51 PM
We started making lazy kids when we started giving them trophies just for playing the game, even though they lost miserably. They now think someone else has taken their ďspotĒ at some school, as if they deserved that spot in the first place. As if they are saying I played the game gimmie my trophy even though I did not win. God forbid they have to go to a lesser ranked school and try being actually good at being a lawyer to be successful. Thatís too much work, gimme my trophy for just playing the game, my diploma is from X that means I'm deverse riches even if I suck at my job. There is a political philosophy for you people, and its not republicanism, its communism where everyone gets an equal chance at success becuase we are all "equal" even the lazy ones.   

I agree with you about this, but I don't think that is more a liberal mentality than a conservative one.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Thistle on June 23, 2008, 04:06:09 PM
you're supposed to work for us, not go to school with us. YOU WHITE POORS ARE TAKING MY SPOTS!


seriously.  you cant even GET good domestic help anymore.  even my gardener has a master's from MIT. 

You're joking. You need to come to AZ. Mine doesn't even have a green card. Plus, his whole family pitches in to help and it only costs $3 a week.


$3 each or $3 for all of them?  yours dont steal, do they?  i caught mine taking my weeds home to brew tea out of.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Thistle on June 23, 2008, 04:11:59 PM
you're supposed to work for us, not go to school with us. YOU WHITE POORS ARE TAKING MY SPOTS!


seriously.  you cant even GET good domestic help anymore.  even my gardener has a master's from MIT. 

You're joking. You need to come to AZ. Mine doesn't even have a green card. Plus, his whole family pitches in to help and it only costs $3 a week.


$3 each or $3 for all of them?  yours dont steal, do they?  i caught mine taking my weeds home to brew tea out of.

$3 for the lot. And no, there's nothing they could take from my yard that would be worth anything. The only valuable object is a 6' saguaro cactus, and good luck trying to sneak that anywhere!


but they could be taking the cactus needles in order to shoot up the crack cocaine.  you should search them before they leave your property.  they might have sand in their pockets too, dont forget, theres only so much of that to go around.  once its gone, its gone.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Thistle on June 23, 2008, 04:52:43 PM
Going to a lesser-ranked school totally ignores the reality of major debt and employment prospects.  Without saying anything about AA, I think Matthies's post simplifies what can be a career-making (or breaking) deal for many students.  Median at T25 won't get the same firm -- and possible partnership -- that median at GULC might.

This is an emotional issue not because people are complaining about not getting into Yale, but because it's a financial hot-button.

feh on your attempt to bring this back on topic
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: The Artist on June 23, 2008, 07:53:05 PM
@#!* race based AA.

The end.

Angsty.

Did you read that on a t-shirt at a Young College Republicans meeting somewhere?

No, actually I grew up as a first generation immigrant with parents from a third-world country who didn't go to college and still managed to do well along with every single other person in our immigrant community, all the while listening to lazy members of so-called 'oppressed' group complain and whine like little bitches while arrogant white liberals who don't know *&^% about the minority experience try to defend them. Oh, btw, I'm not a Republican, and all the members of my race, including the super liberal ones, think race based AA is a piece of *&^%.

Give those advantages to the poor (regardless of race) or no1 at all. I hope Obama becomes prez so that lazy minorities stop playing the race card.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 23, 2008, 08:43:35 PM
Why is it that everyone that opposes AA has that story (well, that or growing up as a poor white in the inner city)?

Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: StevePirates on June 23, 2008, 08:59:51 PM
Why is it that everyone that opposes AA has that story (well, that or growing up as a poor white in the inner city)?

Because poor white children face many of the same disadvantages from a purely socioeconomic perspective, while AA ignores the socioeconomic realities of CLASS and resources, but instead focuses solely on a few genes or a country of origin.

Think about it this way, who do you think needs more help obtaining an education, an African American living in Beverly Hills with two parents, one a lawyer and the other a doctor?  Or a Caucasian living in Compton with only a single mother who is an alcoholic stripper.

Personally, I'm not specifically against AA, I just wish there was an analogous program that looked more into family background and socioeconomic status than just a few genes.


Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: The Artist on June 23, 2008, 09:03:07 PM
Why is it that everyone that opposes AA has that story (well, that or growing up as a poor white in the inner city)?



Because it's damn good counter-evidence.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: t... on June 23, 2008, 09:06:06 PM
It misses the point of affirmative action.

Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Rehash-O-Bot on June 23, 2008, 09:16:28 PM
Why is it that everyone that opposes AA has that story (well, that or growing up as a poor white in the inner city)?



Because it's damn good counter-evidence.



*************REHASH WARNING*************
*************REHASH WARNING*************
*************REHASH WARNING*************
*************REHASH WARNING*************
*************REHASH WARNING*************
*************REHASH WARNING*************
*************REHASH WARNING*************
*************REHASH WARNING*************
*************REHASH WARNING*************

NONE OF THE PROMINENT SUPPORTERS OF AA ON THIS FORUM DISAGREE THAT ECONOMIC STATUS IS A FACTOR THAT SHOULD ENTER INTO A COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

RACE AND ECONOMICS BASED AA ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS WHICH SOMETIMES OVERLAP.

THE TWO SHOULD BE DISCUSSED INDIVIDUALLY FOR GREATER CLARITY.

*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
*************REHASH FINISHED************
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: pig floyd on June 23, 2008, 09:25:50 PM
lol
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 24, 2008, 08:11:51 AM
Simple difference between race based and economic based AA:
Being born a URM is genetic

Being poor is a choice (barring physical or metal disability, which are sometimes genetic)

Being a URM your more likely to face more challenges to overcoming poverty than a typical white poor person. Either way, either because of choices of profession, spending habits, having children before your finically ready, enjoying a job even though it does not pay well, choosing to work one job, choosing not to work and go to school, bad spending/saving habits, whatever the reason being poor is a choice. In the US today, through hard work and sacrifice, almost anyone can bring themselves out of poverty. Does that mean you may have to forgo some of lifeís luxuries, yes, of course.

Yet today we have a society that thinks, even if they are poor, they deserve the same privileges of the rich. The people before them who started out poor and became, through hard work, rich, and whose children then get those benefits. Poor people think they should be able to go to college right after HS, because thatís what middle class kids do. They want AA to give them what others have, they want an advantage they are not willing to work for, or those that preceded them where not willing to work for. In my view economic AA is worse than race based AA, because we are rewarding bad choices. The American dream is not creating a new middle class through handouts, its encouraging a new middle class through hard work.

Hence I do not support economic AA, poorness is a choice, I donít think we should hand out slots at schools or tax payer money to people who chose (for whatever, even good, reasons) to be poor.  I donít think we should reward or encourage poor people simply becuase they are poor. Thatís not what our country was built on. We did not inherit a landed aristocracy, where you only other choice was to be a peasant. We are a nation of immigrants who came here with nothing and became successful through hard work, and at times, sacrificing things for themselves so their children could have a better life. The government did not hand out $ to try and make poor and rich equal, it was up to the individual to do that. If your white and poor all you got is poor holding you back. Itís a choice so change it, work harder, if that means you canít go to the best school or right away because you canít afford it, so be it, work harder it builds character. We should not be trying to redistribute wealth by giving poor people a preference in schools. If you work hard enough to get the stats to get in, great, if not, we should not reward you because your parents (not you) have a low income.

Life is not fair folks, and life should not, at least based on the principles of rugged individualism that America was built on, try to be made fair or equal just because by birth you did not end up in a rich family. Thatís a choice, you can change that on your own, you can becomes rich, maybe not by going to Harvard, but most rich people did not either. There is no right to equality in education based on income, there is not right to higher education just because your family got handed a rough deal. You become what you make of yourself, and if your white and poor, its only the poorness you have to overcome.

If your poor and you want your kids to be able to go to the best schools, work hard and sacrifice so they can, even if that means your personal goals have to be set aside. I donít think the country owes you anything if your poor BUT the chance to be free from discrimination and policies that try to keep you poor (like you canít enter this profession at all because your female). You donít, in America, deserve a trophy just for playing the game, you deserve a trophy for winning the game. 
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Thistle on June 24, 2008, 08:43:17 AM
wait though, if one is born into a poor family, could that not be considered a genetic cause?  luck of the draw for distribution of souls?  or, what if scientists identified a gen for laziness?  would they then be covered under the ADA?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 24, 2008, 09:30:40 AM
wait though, if one is born into a poor family, could that not be considered a genetic cause?  luck of the draw for distribution of souls?  or, what if scientists identified a gen for laziness?  would they then be covered under the ADA?

We could just abort based on taxable income
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Thistle on June 24, 2008, 09:31:24 AM
wait though, if one is born into a poor family, could that not be considered a genetic cause?  luck of the draw for distribution of souls?  or, what if scientists identified a gen for laziness?  would they then be covered under the ADA?

We could just abort based on taxable income


standard deduction?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 24, 2008, 09:55:07 AM
Here is what I don't get, I'm paying an assload of propertyy taxes for public schools I never used, nor will every use, and they give free lunchs to poor kids. WTF if you can afford a PBJ sammich for your kid you should not be having them. I mean when I take my dog to doggie day care, I gotta pay for food, the g-ment does not subsidise my dogs food while he's at school (I've been pet sitting a freinds dog for three weeks now).
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: vjm on June 24, 2008, 08:50:23 PM
^Dude, you are going to sprain something trying that hard. Good one though! I like the whole poor kids=animals thing ya did there.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: kono on June 25, 2008, 07:17:59 AM
AA is racial discrimnation (by definition). Most people in this country believe that racial discrimination is wrong and there is no circumstance that can justify racial discrimination. For those that believe there are places where racial discrimination is proper, this begs the question of when else is racial discrimination acceptable? Many believe that AA promotes racial discrimination and heads the country in the wrong direction. Thus, acceptance of racial discrimination leads to racism.

Has there ever been a court case challenging who checks the little box designating race? If you are Obama and 50% black can you designate yourself black? If you are 10% can you designate yourself? How about if you believed the human race evolved in Africa and some ancient ancestor must have been black? I am quite sure that more and more people are checking the little box to get a boost, regardless of their ethnic background.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 25, 2008, 07:43:28 AM
AA is racial discrimnation (by definition). Most people in this country believe that racial discrimination is wrong and there is no circumstance that can justify racial discrimination. For those that believe there are places where racial discrimination is proper, this begs the question of when else is racial discrimination acceptable? Many believe that AA promotes racial discrimination and heads the country in the wrong direction. Thus, acceptance of racial discrimination leads to racism.

Has there ever been a court case challenging who checks the little box designating race? If you are Obama and 50% black can you designate yourself black? If you are 10% can you designate yourself? How about if you believed the human race evolved in Africa and some ancient ancestor must have been black? I am quite sure that more and more people are checking the little box to get a boost, regardless of their ethnic background.

Exactly
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 25, 2008, 08:33:58 AM
AA is racial discrimnation (by definition). Most people in this country believe that racial discrimination is wrong and there is no circumstance that can justify racial discrimination. For those that believe there are places where racial discrimination is proper, this begs the question of when else is racial discrimination acceptable?

So its ok for whites to reap the benefits of laws enforcing racial discrimination for 250 years, then defacto discrimination for another 100 years until the late 1960s. A legacy the practically kept all blacks out of the law school, much less top law schools, and almost entirely out of the legal profession until the last 30. All that discrimination was OK, but reverse discrimination is not. Because now the discrimination is against whites so its bad? So, what your saying is it cool for whites to discriminate, but not for blacks. We have moved away from that, all discrimination, even if it helped us in the past is bad now, if it hurts us now.

Besides, its not like the 10-20% of all applicants who are minorities who check that box are taking your spots in reality, you should be far more angry at all those poor white kids and women who donít know their place taking your spots, they are the ones driving up the applications and filling the schools, not minorities. 30 years ago it was easy to get into any law school, no minorities to worry about, no women to worry about, and no mass of social climbing povs applying to the schools. Higher education was for white males of higher social class only. Now everyone thinks they ďdeserveĒ a legal education, so we have so many applicants, so many law schools, precisely because every coal miners daughter from a Tennessee trailer park thinks she deserves the right to try being a lawyer.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: kono on June 25, 2008, 02:45:04 PM
I am arguing that racial discrimination is wrong. I am saying that if we accept racial discrimination for education, we open the door for other forms of racial discrimination. We cannot heal the past, but we can move in the right direction. Clearly, you believe in racial discrimination. I do not share your view. 
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: john jacob on June 25, 2008, 02:52:17 PM
The diversity argument is stupid.

Historical restitution is a very valid reason.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 25, 2008, 03:06:51 PM
I am arguing that racial discrimination is wrong. I am saying that if we accept racial discrimination for education, we open the door for other forms of racial discrimination. We cannot heal the past, but we can move in the right direction. Clearly, you believe in racial discrimination. I do not share your view. 

So would you be willing to give up everything that, even tangentially you or your  ancestors gained while racial discrimination was the norm for it cease today? Sell your house, take part of your income to pay reparations for the past injustices done to blacks by whites in this country, if it meant AA ended today?

Or are you only willing to say reverse discrimination is bad now as a way to make up for past discrimination only because you itís affecting you as a white person now. We canít change the past, just like we canít change the fact that we have benefited as whites, even if remotely, even if before our births, from the discrimination of blacks in the past.

That today there are far more white lawyers than black lawyers precisely because for a long time you could not be a black lawyer. We have a large old boy network of whites to hire new white lawyers, whites running firms, whites as judges, when shock of shock whites are barely a majority of the population in the country, yet still the far majority in the legal profession. Simply saying ďoh poo discrimination was bad, so letís just end it now that Iím feeling the sting because 1% of the applicants get an advantage over me as a white doodĒ is not an argument against AA. Your hands are not as clean as you would like them to be and your argument is overly simplistic.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 25, 2008, 03:08:10 PM
I am arguing that racial discrimination is wrong. I am saying that if we accept racial discrimination for education, we open the door for other forms of racial discrimination. We cannot heal the past, but we can move in the right direction. Clearly, you believe in racial discrimination. I do not share your view. 

I think he's joking about a lot of what he says - don't get too worked up.

Yea I was joking about the stimuls check part, but the womenz and the poors screwing up the leagl admission process is totally serious stuff.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: vjm on June 25, 2008, 03:18:17 PM
Totally.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: pig floyd on June 25, 2008, 11:24:49 PM
AA is racial discrimnation (by definition). Most people in this country believe that racial discrimination is wrong and there is no circumstance that can justify racial discrimination. For those that believe there are places where racial discrimination is proper, this begs the question of when else is racial discrimination acceptable? Many believe that AA promotes racial discrimination and heads the country in the wrong direction. Thus, acceptance of racial discrimination leads to racism.

Has there ever been a court case challenging who checks the little box designating race? If you are Obama and 50% black can you designate yourself black? If you are 10% can you designate yourself? How about if you believed the human race evolved in Africa and some ancient ancestor must have been black? I am quite sure that more and more people are checking the little box to get a boost, regardless of their ethnic background.

Exactly

Two things, different from each other:

1.  Majority powerful group fucks over minority powerless group.
2.  Majority powerful group fucks itself over.

Think about it.

And @#!* off.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Netopalis on June 26, 2008, 07:37:52 AM
If I may..I wasn't around in the 1960s or the 1860s or the 1760s, when all of this racial discrimination against blacks happened.  Why should I be held accountable for those factors?  I am not a racist, I think that *everyone* deserves an equal shot.  To be perfectly fair, yes, I will probably be hurt by AA - I have little to no shot at the T14 (because I can't afford it), when someone who is a URM would probably get very generous scholarships there with my numbers.  Did they work harder to get where they are?  It depends on the situation.  I am sure that some URMs came from seriously economically depressed backgrounds where they were discriminated against and had to pull themselves out of the mire.  I have the utmost respect for those people, and have no problem with them getting a bit of extra consideration.  That being said, I grew up in a single-wide trailer in the middle of West Virginia.  I didn't exactly have an easy shot at where I am now, much less at graduating law school.  The color of my skin does not mean that I should be discriminated against any more than it means that a URM should be discriminated against.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: TimMitchell on June 26, 2008, 07:55:03 AM
If I may..I wasn't around in the 1960s or the 1860s or the 1760s, when all of this racial discrimination against blacks happened.  Why should I be held accountable for those factors?  I am not a racist, I think that *everyone* deserves an equal shot.  To be perfectly fair, yes, I will probably be hurt by AA - I have little to no shot at the T14 (because I can't afford it), when someone who is a URM would probably get very generous scholarships there with my numbers.  Did they work harder to get where they are?  It depends on the situation.  I am sure that some URMs came from seriously economically depressed backgrounds where they were discriminated against and had to pull themselves out of the mire.  I have the utmost respect for those people, and have no problem with them getting a bit of extra consideration.  That being said, I grew up in a single-wide trailer in the middle of West Virginia.  I didn't exactly have an easy shot at where I am now, much less at graduating law school.  The color of my skin does not mean that I should be discriminated against any more than it means that a URM should be discriminated against.

Sorry, even though you were actually disadvantaged the schools are still going to put Carlton Banks ahead of you everytime.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Netopalis on June 26, 2008, 08:03:16 AM
My point was that even if I was accepted, I still couldn't afford it.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Netopalis on June 26, 2008, 08:13:32 AM
Well, my point is that this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and that you're just trolling for reactions.  HTH.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 26, 2008, 08:44:35 AM
My point was that even if I was accepted, I still couldn't afford it.

That in no way means a black student is taking your spot. Even if you could get in, your still not a minority, there will be lots of other poor whites kids going there. You wonít we the only disadvantaged white kid in the top 14, in fact there will be lots of you, far more than blacks or Mexicans. Just because a black student gets aid money does not mean that a poor white studnt wonít, if anything its likely that because there are so many poor whites going to the top 14 there is just not enough $ to give you as much. Itís the other poor whites screwing you over, not the balcks. In the end when you graduate the poor whites will still far outnumber the blacks, poor or rich. Youíre a majority in law school applications, your over represented.

Look everyone wants to go to the top law schools (well everyone but me I guess) but we all canít do it. Just because a handful of blacks gets an edge because thousands of them got screwed in the past does not mean youíre getting screwed over now. And even if it did, lifeís not fair, itís not equal, and you donít solve that by blaming others for your misfortune. Your just likes lots of people, economically disadvantaged white folks, youíre going to be well represented (even if not you individually) at the top law schools. You can still go to law school, and with your LSAT getting money or even a free ride at several. So its not Yale. So I donít want to be bald, but thatís life, I am, Iím not blaming all the folks with hair from taking that from me or thinking its unfair some folks can afford plugs but I can't.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 26, 2008, 09:06:49 AM
My point was that even if I was accepted, I still couldn't afford it.

That in no way means a black student is taking your spot. Even if you could get in, your still not a minority, there will be lots of other poor whites kids going there. You wonít we the only disadvantaged white kid in the top 14, in fact there will be lots of you, far more than blacks or Mexicans. Just because a black student gets aid money does not mean that a poor white studnt wonít, if anything its likely that because there are so many poor whites going to the top 14 there is just not enough $ to give you as much. Itís the other poor whites screwing you over, not the balcks. In the end when you graduate the poor whites will still far outnumber the blacks, poor or rich. Youíre a majority in law school applications, your over represented.

Look everyone wants to go to the top law schools (well everyone but me I guess) but we all canít do it. Just because a handful of blacks gets an edge because thousands of them got screwed in the past does not mean youíre getting screwed over now. And even if it did, lifeís not fair, itís not equal, and you donít solve that by blaming others for your misfortune. Your just likes lots of people, economically disadvantaged white folks, youíre going to be well represented (even if not you individually) at the top law schools. You can still go to law school, and with your LSAT getting money or even a free ride at several. So its not Yale. So I donít want to be bald, but thatís life, I am, Iím not blaming all the folks with hair from taking that from me or thinking its unfair some folks can afford plugs but I can't.

And what the @#!* are they still doing in a single-wide trailer? Exactly how long does it take to get their poo together, especially on the backs of minorities? You'd think even his parents (how many generations of Americans?) would have gotten organized by the 1960s when discrimination against blacks stopped*.

* it didn't

I know! Things were tough in the late 60ís for grandpa Matthies, when we started having to pay blacks the real minimum wage and with the crash in cotton prices due to the popularity of polyester we had to sell off part of the family plantation. Luckily by the mid 70s Pappy Matthies had discovered the joys of employing illegal Mexicans for pennies a day and since then our tobacco fields and the asbestos plant we built have been thriving. The key, I think, and where many whites lost out after the racial ďequalizationĒ of the late 60s was not grasping soon enough that they needed to move on to exploit another minority quickly. I for one have learned from that mistake and am now eyeing the anti-Hispanic immigration movement with some trepidation. Iím not sure who we can exploit next, possible east Asian immigrants or the Irish if they get kicked out of the EU for not ratifying the new Constitution.

Iím just glad that the majority of white folks out there can still say with a straight face they have not benefitted from the exploitation of illegal Mexican slave labor when they buy a watermelon or pears in December grown and picked in California for 25 cents. Because we all know it would still cost that if we had to pay white people the minimum wage to pick it.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Jamie Stringer on June 26, 2008, 10:14:05 AM
If I may..I wasn't around in the 1960s or the 1860s or the 1760s, when all of this racial discrimination against blacks happened.  Why should I be held accountable for those factors?  I am not a racist, I think that *everyone* deserves an equal shot.  To be perfectly fair, yes, I will probably be hurt by AA - I have little to no shot at the T14 (because I can't afford it), when someone who is a URM would probably get very generous scholarships there with my numbers.  Did they work harder to get where they are?  It depends on the situation.  I am sure that some URMs came from seriously economically depressed backgrounds where they were discriminated against and had to pull themselves out of the mire.  I have the utmost respect for those people, and have no problem with them getting a bit of extra consideration.  That being said, I grew up in a single-wide trailer in the middle of West Virginia.  I didn't exactly have an easy shot at where I am now, much less at graduating law school.  The color of my skin does not mean that I should be discriminated against any more than it means that a URM should be discriminated against.

Yes, good thing you're around in 2008 when all of that racial discrimination is just a thing of the (distant) past.

Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Netopalis on June 26, 2008, 10:18:00 AM
It's enough in the past that I don't see it being a problem in everyday life. When's the last time you saw someone being asked to give up their bus seat because they were black or the last time that you saw segregated water fountains?  Certainly, there are some idiot holdouts, but AA just drives that wedge in deeper.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Jamie Stringer on June 26, 2008, 10:19:54 AM
It's enough in the past that I don't see it being a problem in everyday life. When's the last time you saw someone being asked to give up their bus seat because they were black or the last time that you saw segregated water fountains?  Certainly, there are some idiot holdouts, but AA just drives that wedge in deeper.

I sincerely hope you're f-ing around or just flame.

Just spitballing ideas here, but maybe you don't see it being a problem because you're not the target.  HTH!
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 26, 2008, 10:49:13 AM
It's enough in the past that I don't see it being a problem in everyday life. When's the last time you saw someone being asked to give up their bus seat because they were black or the last time that you saw segregated water fountains?  Certainly, there are some idiot holdouts, but AA just drives that wedge in deeper.

Maybe your not looking hard enough, or in the right places, or have enough "life experince" yet to see it (not atcking, just saying the farther away from shelltered home/school/collge the more visable it really is)

I mean you really donít think that you or your family have personally gained, albeit indirectly and unintentionally, from the systemized racism of the past? I mean if one could seriously make that argument with clean hands then I might be willing to give more credence to that same person being upset about AA at a school they are not even going to attend about an issue that really has so little baring on thier lives. Otherwise its making an argument that while you have benefited, indirectly, by the racism of the past, no one should befit to make up for it, even if its indirectly to you, of AA as racism in the present.

I mean I own a house in an almost completely white, predominantly upper middle class neighborhood. Blacks can move in here now, but they used to be forbidden from doing so all the way up till the late 70s though lending habits, redlining etc. So there is no history of blacks living in my neighborhood. Sure they can buy here now, but they would stand out like a sore thumb. I would welcome them, but I donít know if I would want to be the only person of my race on a block that had been all white since the first house was built here in 1880. That's more guts then I got.

Likewise because its mostly white, and gone upper income, we pay more in property taxes, our schools are better funded, or hospitals better funded, or police better funded than the predominantly black neighborhood just six blocks north of me. I have, although I never owned slaves, never beat up a black person, never discriminated against anyone, still indirectly, and unintentionally benefited from the systematic racism that kept, and to a large degree has still keeps my neighborhood predominantly white and the other neighborhood predominantly black. I have bett acess to services, my kids better schools, my health care is better, no lines in ER.

Iím no so blind as to think just because I never did it myself, I have not benefited from it, nor am I willing to concede that just because I never did it, it did not happen and that we should not try now to make up for the fact that blacks could not for far longer than they could, be lawyers. Or the fact that black lawyers in no way are represented in proportion to the black community precisely because there was a history of keeping them out of the profession until very, very recently. Or that even now it tgakes a lot guts to be the one balck guy in a section of 100 white law students in a freakishly white state and school like Iowa.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: vjm on June 26, 2008, 10:52:27 AM
Matties, I think I love you.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 26, 2008, 11:10:14 AM
Matties, I think I love you.

Your not black are you?  :P
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: vjm on June 26, 2008, 01:30:42 PM
Only in your dreams!  ;)
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Freak on June 26, 2008, 03:58:12 PM

So its ok for whites to reap the benefits of laws enforcing racial discrimination for 250 years, then defacto discrimination for another 100 years until the late 1960s. A legacy the practically kept all blacks out of the law school, much less top law schools, and almost entirely out of the legal profession until the last 30. All that discrimination was OK, but reverse discrimination is not. Because now the discrimination is against whites so its bad? So, what your saying is it cool for whites to discriminate, but not for blacks. We have moved away from that, all discrimination, even if it helped us in the past is bad now, if it hurts us now.

So two wrongs make a right? You endorse that principal with that argument. Life is not fair, it never has been fair, and until the hearafter, life will never be fair. Justice means correcting wrongs by making individual wrongdoers pay. Does a thief's son have to repay the victims of his father's crimes? Of course, not that would be absurd. AA means a thief's grandson or even great-grandson or even a recent white immigrant whose ancestors never owned slaves or tolerated slavery, must pay.

Go read Fredrick Douglas - he knew what he was talking about.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: vjm on June 26, 2008, 07:02:39 PM
Do think that might be because many of the applicants to the "top schools" may have just a wee feeling of entitlement?

I think for some of them it is the first time they haven't been able to get something they want.

I hope this isn't utterly offensive, but I also get the feeling that many applicants to the "top schools" have grown up in environments where diversity is not a priority. They go from a wealthy, predominantly white private school to an expensive, predominantly white private college. They really don't get the argument that fostering true diversity is valuable, because they have no significant experience with diversity.

And can everybody pay attention here--I don't think anyone has argued that poverty should not be a basis for additional AA programs. Can we please stop conflating the two issues?

That is all.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 26, 2008, 07:19:02 PM
lol @ merit based
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: pikey on June 26, 2008, 07:24:10 PM
Did a post just disappear while I was reading it?  That was fast.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: vjm on June 26, 2008, 07:29:52 PM
Yes. Wally, if you want to have a discussion you need to leave them up for longer than a few minutes.

And it makes an interesting thread unreadable.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: vjm on June 26, 2008, 07:44:08 PM
Symbolic Racism: beliefs about individualism and meritocracy become racialized and motivate opposition to policies designed to benefit racial and ethnic minorities. http://repositories.cdlib.org/crisp/1/

Modern Racism: Moderating contexts provide justification for negative responses to minorities (e.g., a previous negative decision about a comparable white job candidate justifies a negative decision about a black job candidate). (can't find a very informative link).

Implicit Bias: Unconscious biases, particularly against out-groups, rooted in normal cognitive functions related to categorization, confirmation, and memory biases. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/index.jsp

Would someone kindly quote me so I can delete out? I hate pointless AA conversations but I wanted to share.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 27, 2008, 09:23:15 AM

So its ok for whites to reap the benefits of laws enforcing racial discrimination for 250 years, then defacto discrimination for another 100 years until the late 1960s. A legacy the practically kept all blacks out of the law school, much less top law schools, and almost entirely out of the legal profession until the last 30. All that discrimination was OK, but reverse discrimination is not. Because now the discrimination is against whites so its bad? So, what your saying is it cool for whites to discriminate, but not for blacks. We have moved away from that, all discrimination, even if it helped us in the past is bad now, if it hurts us now.

So two wrongs make a right? You endorse that principal with that argument. Life is not fair, it never has been fair, and until the hearafter, life will never be fair. Justice means correcting wrongs by making individual wrongdoers pay. Does a thief's son have to repay the victims of his father's crimes? Of course, not that would be absurd. AA means a thief's grandson or even great-grandson or even a recent white immigrant whose ancestors never owned slaves or tolerated slavery, must pay.

Go read Fredrick Douglas - he knew what he was talking about.

Social justice and criminal justice are two very diffrent things not to mention the macro or micro levels of the issue its not a zero sum game.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 27, 2008, 09:25:46 AM

And can everybody pay attention here--I don't think anyone has argued that poverty should not be a basis for additional AA programs.
That is all.

I've agruged that, but I'm a classest through and through
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Freak on June 27, 2008, 09:37:36 AM

So its ok for whites to reap the benefits of laws enforcing racial discrimination for 250 years, then defacto discrimination for another 100 years until the late 1960s. A legacy the practically kept all blacks out of the law school, much less top law schools, and almost entirely out of the legal profession until the last 30. All that discrimination was OK, but reverse discrimination is not. Because now the discrimination is against whites so its bad? So, what your saying is it cool for whites to discriminate, but not for blacks. We have moved away from that, all discrimination, even if it helped us in the past is bad now, if it hurts us now.

So two wrongs make a right? You endorse that principal with that argument. Life is not fair, it never has been fair, and until the hearafter, life will never be fair. Justice means correcting wrongs by making individual wrongdoers pay. Does a thief's son have to repay the victims of his father's crimes? Of course, not that would be absurd. AA means a thief's grandson or even great-grandson or even a recent white immigrant whose ancestors never owned slaves or tolerated slavery, must pay.

Go read Fredrick Douglas - he knew what he was talking about.

Social justice and criminal justice are two very diffrent things not to mention the macro or micro levels of the issue.

Ok - social justice - torts. Driver A negligently rear-ends Driver B, but A lacks the money to pay because B now needs surgery and regardless will be in a wheelchair for life. So, clearly, A's son and grandson must pay. Clearly B's life is now shot and this adversely affects his children as he lacks the energy to raise them properly. They go on to become uneducated without job skills.

Furthermore, the laws do not require A to have insurance (see Wisconsin), so all the citizens of Wisconsin are now responsible, right? In fact, not only the living citizens, but also the future citizens have responsibility to B's children and children's children because the laws in place screwed up their lives by allowing A to drive without insurance. This despite the fact that new law, passed by the future citizens, require each driver to have a million dollars in insurance.

Two wrongs do not make a right - unless, justice is not your goal.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 27, 2008, 09:57:31 AM

So its ok for whites to reap the benefits of laws enforcing racial discrimination for 250 years, then defacto discrimination for another 100 years until the late 1960s. A legacy the practically kept all blacks out of the law school, much less top law schools, and almost entirely out of the legal profession until the last 30. All that discrimination was OK, but reverse discrimination is not. Because now the discrimination is against whites so its bad? So, what your saying is it cool for whites to discriminate, but not for blacks. We have moved away from that, all discrimination, even if it helped us in the past is bad now, if it hurts us now.

So two wrongs make a right? You endorse that principal with that argument. Life is not fair, it never has been fair, and until the hearafter, life will never be fair. Justice means correcting wrongs by making individual wrongdoers pay. Does a thief's son have to repay the victims of his father's crimes? Of course, not that would be absurd. AA means a thief's grandson or even great-grandson or even a recent white immigrant whose ancestors never owned slaves or tolerated slavery, must pay.

Go read Fredrick Douglas - he knew what he was talking about.

Social justice and criminal justice are two very diffrent things not to mention the macro or micro levels of the issue.

Ok - social justice - torts. Driver A negligently rear-ends Driver B, but A lacks the money to pay because B now needs surgery and regardless will be in a wheelchair for life. So, clearly, A's son and grandson must pay. Clearly B's life is now shot and this adversely affects his children as he lacks the energy to raise them properly. They go on to become uneducated without job skills.

Furthermore, the laws do not require A to have insurance (see Wisconsin), so all the citizens of Wisconsin are now responsible, right? In fact, not only the living citizens, but also the future citizens have responsibility to B's children and children's children because the laws in place screwed up their lives by allowing A to drive without insurance. This despite the fact that new law, passed by the future citizens, require each driver to have a million dollars in insurance.

Two wrongs do not make a right - unless, justice is not your goal.

Change the hypo to a large magority of Drivers rear end driver B, and the law says becuase he's a B you don't have to pay for his damages. This is not as simple as tying it to torts. And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Freak on June 27, 2008, 10:21:20 AM
Change the hypo to a large magority of Drivers rear end driver B, and the law says becuase he's a B you don't have to pay for his damages. This is not as simple as tying it to torts.

Do you have any idea how many car crashes occur? And unfortunately, no insurance really means most people without insurance don't pay. Likewise, Jim Crow laws required reading exams and poll taxes, those did not overtly prohibit blacks from voting, but had the same effect. Ask a crash victim what they want more, a normal life physically or the right to vote. Answer - a normal life, probably right up there with freedom.

Quote
And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

 ;D
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Thistle on June 27, 2008, 11:00:53 AM
And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?


really!  join the f-ing peace corps or something  :D


hiya freak, whereya been?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 27, 2008, 11:13:59 AM
And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?


really!  join the f-ing peace corps or something  :D


hiya freak, whereya been?

He's been busy sueing the man and oppressing minorties  :P
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Freak on June 27, 2008, 01:43:18 PM
And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

really!  join the f-ing peace corps or something  :D

hiya freak, whereya been?

Hey rev. I'm one of those ambulance chasers   :P now and usually lack the time for the board. Although when I'm on here I generally just annoy people.

Currently, I have the secretaries so backed up that there's little point to giving them more dictation to transcribe.

How about you?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: The Artist on June 27, 2008, 11:32:13 PM
Asians, Indians and Persians DESTROYED the false assumption that poor minority groups cannot rise from poverty to upper-middle class/rich without AA type help. Chinese and Japanese citizens showed that even when unfairly oppressed by the US, they could still quickly overcome this and became among the most successful groups in America. We are about to (hopefully) have a Black president.

Like I said earlier, the only people who support AA are (1) Blacks, Latinos, etc (2) Liberal white kids who usually don't fully understand the true implications of AA. Even the most liberal Asian and Indian kids I know are STRONGLY opposed to race based AA. Do you realize it is harder for an Asian to get into a good school than a WHITE person (no, that is not a typo. There has been research on this involving Ivy league schools)? America is NOT Black and White. It's also Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Irani, Arabic, Israeli, Vietnamese (you get the picture). Almost all the first generation immigrants from these countries come with little money. Many of them don't speak English well (or at all). Yet they have to climb a higher hill than even the white student! WTF! My URM roommate in college had an SAT score 200 points lower than mine and a lower GPA (no, he didn't have great ECs). Not only did he get accepted to my dream school (which I got rejected from while being in their target range), he got a FULL RIDE to our school. I didn't get any scholarships at all.

Honestly, if AA was a case of "in a tie, give the Black/Latino person the edge" I wouldn't have a problem with it. But look at the URMs on LSN. It's total horseshit the schools these URMs get into with low numbers. URMs with my numbers got into Columbia this year. I couldn't even get into Notre Dame!

So seriously, @#!* race based AA. It IS racism.

Now where are the cliche "300 year head start" responses at?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Thistle on June 28, 2008, 05:00:24 AM
And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

really!  join the f-ing peace corps or something  :D

hiya freak, whereya been?

Hey rev. I'm one of those ambulance chasers   :P now and usually lack the time for the board. Although when I'm on here I generally just annoy people.

Currently, I have the secretaries so backed up that there's little point to giving them more dictation to transcribe.

How about you?


 :D  i'm not ruling out any type of law practice.  there is only one thing i'm concerned with -- does the check clear?

me, aside from drastically changing pretty much EVERYTHING, i'm finishing up 3L next fall.  was supposed to go subjugate colorado with matthies, but it looks like the funding is falling through on that deal...one shot left, though.

working this summer actually defending the man against civil rights suits and constitutional law stuff. will finally get to use my student practice certificate IF they follow through on their promise to let me argue the summary judgment motion i spent a month writing.

other than that, life goes on  :)
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Somewhere on June 28, 2008, 06:35:40 AM
Asians, Indians and Persians DESTROYED the false assumption that poor minority groups cannot rise from poverty to upper-middle class/rich without AA type help. Chinese and Japanese citizens showed that even when unfairly oppressed by the US, they could still quickly overcome this and became among the most successful groups in America. We are about to (hopefully) have a Black president.

Like I said earlier, the only people who support AA are (1) Blacks, Latinos, etc (2) Liberal white kids who usually don't fully understand the true implications of AA. Even the most liberal Asian and Indian kids I know are STRONGLY opposed to race based AA. Do you realize it is harder for an Asian to get into a good school than a WHITE person (no, that is not a typo. There has been research on this involving Ivy league schools)? America is NOT Black and White. It's also Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Irani, Arabic, Israeli, Vietnamese (you get the picture). Almost all the first generation immigrants from these countries come with little money. Many of them don't speak English well (or at all). Yet they have to climb a higher hill than even the white student! WTF! My URM roommate in college had an SAT score 200 points lower than mine and a lower GPA (no, he didn't have great ECs). Not only did he get accepted to my dream school (which I got rejected from while being in their target range), he got a FULL RIDE to our school. I didn't get any scholarships at all.

Honestly, if AA was a case of "in a tie, give the Black/Latino person the edge" I wouldn't have a problem with it. But look at the URMs on LSN. It's total horseshit the schools these URMs get into with low numbers. URMs with my numbers got into Columbia this year. I couldn't even get into Notre Dame!

So seriously, @#!* race based AA. It IS racism.

Now where are the cliche "300 year head start" responses at?

I am guessing you are Asian or Indian. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

The only people who are hurt by the use of AA by law schools are high (not extremely high) number candidates, and possibly the students who are admitted via AA (that is a whole different debate, though).

If we could magically go back in time to last year, and there was no AA in the law school admissions process, your life would be no different than it currently is. There are some minority students that probably wouldn't get into Harvard or Yale--many still would. Any minority student admitted through AA at a T6 school is still extremely qualified, AA is not a huge boost in most cases, so the students who benefited from AA would simply shift down a level or two. This would happen all the way down the ladder. There wouldn't be any openings at Notre Dame, or anywhere else.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: The Artist on June 28, 2008, 11:45:32 AM
URMs with my numbers got into Columbia this year. I couldn't even get into Notre Dame!


Why do you care though....you had no shot at Columbia anyway.

You are pretty stupid if you can't see what I'm trying to say.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: The Artist on June 28, 2008, 12:25:50 PM
URMs with my numbers got into Columbia this year. I couldn't even get into Notre Dame!


Why do you care though....you had no shot at Columbia anyway.

You are pretty stupid if you can't see what I'm trying to say.

Nah I get what you're saying - I just don't think the URMs getting into Columbia with your numbers have any actual effect on you, other than maybe causing you jealousy and a sense of "injustice".  Those URMs don't seem relevant - unless maybe you're going to talk about some trickle down effect.  There's a good chance AA didn't have an effect on you in terms of getting into schools.  Even if it did, it maybe dropped you from a school ranked 22 to a school ranked 25.  But it seems like the relevant URMs you should be pissed about are the ones with lower numbers than you that got into Notre Dame (I'm making the assumption that you think you deserved to get into Notre Dame)

It's not the fact that I didn't get into (or bother applying to) Columbia. It's the fact that if I was born Mexican I would have gotten into a T5 instead of a T40. That's almost an entire Tier. And I'm a minority to top things off, though non-URM.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: The Artist on June 28, 2008, 12:49:22 PM

It's not the fact that I didn't get into (or bother applying to) Columbia. It's the fact that if I was born Mexican I would have gotten into a T5 instead of a T40. That's almost an entire Tier. And I'm a minority to top things off, though non-URM.

I'm not sure it's that big a boost, but I'll take your word for it (seriously, that wasn't sarcasm)

But I understand what you're saying better now - you're more pissed about the sense of injustice because you didn't get a boost some other people got.  You're not pissed because of any loss you actually suffered (because if you felt any real effects of AA, they were probably small) - you're pissed because others got some gain.

But for some reason I just can't get worked up about the supposed injustice to the victimized non-URMs.

I looked at LSN to get the numbers of URMs admitted to Columbia.

I do not want special treatment, actually. I want equal treatment. Right now, it is harder for an asian/indian than a WHITE person. Yet nobody ever publicizes this when talking about AA.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Somewhere on June 28, 2008, 03:05:45 PM

It's not the fact that I didn't get into (or bother applying to) Columbia. It's the fact that if I was born Mexican I would have gotten into a T5 instead of a T40. That's almost an entire Tier. And I'm a minority to top things off, though non-URM.

I'm not sure it's that big a boost, but I'll take your word for it (seriously, that wasn't sarcasm)

But I understand what you're saying better now - you're more pissed about the sense of injustice because you didn't get a boost some other people got.  You're not pissed because of any loss you actually suffered (because if you felt any real effects of AA, they were probably small) - you're pissed because others got some gain.

But for some reason I just can't get worked up about the supposed injustice to the victimized non-URMs.

I do not want special treatment, actually. I want equal treatment. Right now, it is harder for an asian/indian than a WHITE person. Yet nobody ever publicizes this when talking about AA.

This is simply not true in law school admissions.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 03:40:43 PM
I find it's useful to step back for a minute and think about the cosmic insignificance of these programs.

Although I'll be attending law school in the fall, I currently work in the information technology field, which fails to recognize AA in any way, shape, or form.  On one hand, I can count the number of times in which a minority applicant earned a boost on the basis of his background:

Zero.  You either have SQL Server and Sharepoint, or you don't have a job.

This problem, as I see it, is mostly confined to the legal field, and the related issues of "fairness" and "justice" that hover around the profession like a smoke screen.  I think it's more important to take a step back in order to see that we're in a bubble.  Business doesn't reward AA.  IT doesn't reward AA.  And fast food doesn't reward AA.

Once you realize that you're angry over something so minor, you might understand its greater significance, or lack thereof.  Why does AA exist specifically in the legal field, and where does it exist there?  Do firms put you on a quicker track to partner?  Do clients trust you?  Are you a better judge?  Pondering that question might help you understand why AA might be all right after all, even if it means you won't be going to CLS with a sub-165 LSAT.

law schools are the only ones that engage in AA?

Also, if there were professional schools that were required to learn and be certified in the skills necessary to have an IT job, the landscape would probably be different. (And yes, I'm well aware that in CA you can sit for the bar without attending an accredited law school/attending law school at all, but that is a minor exception to the general rule, and not generally a reasonable alternative to attending an accredited law school).

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that underrepresented candidates don't get a boost. Many, many employers seek diversity in their workplace.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 04:03:02 PM
No, the landscape wouldn't be different.  Most of the companies which work with us require a BA or even Master's, but it doesn't matter from where because skills are valued.  Law can be the same way: high-profile lawyers are hired because they've won cases in the past, not because they attended a school.

Again, I think that, as law students, we suffer from myopia.  I wonder where some of these "unqualified" AA admits end up in ten years.   ::)

Law is a porous profession.  What makes advocate A better than advocate B?  One may be smarter or harder-working.

Finally, I can tell you that our IT firm doesn't care about AA.  At all.  And I work with the boss who determines these practices.

I'm a little unsure what point you're trying to make here, Wally.

A few things about the IT field in particular, since you insist on using it as a comparison:

Colleges also engage in AA.

The skills required by the IT field are, in ways, more particularized and concrete than the skills required by the legal field. That's not to say that there isn't variation among individuals who have those skills as to how good they are at what they do, but they probably are, in ways, more measurable.

As to the point about how the landscape would be different...perhaps it wouldn't be different for employers (although I'm only conceding that point for the sake of argument), but if the mechanism for gaining the skills to work in IT was as highly regulated as the legal education industry, unless there simply weren't enough people who wanted to get those skills that it was an issue. This is certainly not the case with the legal field, and it behooves an institution that regulates admission in this way to be cognizant of the ways it includes and excludes people. Whether or not you agree with the particular ways AA does that, the general principle remains. If the requirements for working in IT are not similarly regulated, it's hardly a good comparison.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that "unqualified" AA admits must not be very successful lawyers? If you're going to make assertions like that, you're going to need to back it up with facts and statistics. I hope I'm misunderstanding you there.

Finally, if that's the case where you where, okay then. That's the case where you work. That's not necessarily representative of the industry as a whole, or the business landscape as a whole. Further, companies and industries may engage in diversity-minded hiring practices without engaging in what we might qualify as AA.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 04:17:22 PM
I'm a little unsure what point you're trying to make here, Wally.

A few things about the IT field in particular, since you insist on using it as a comparison:

Colleges also engage in AA.

The skills required by the IT field are, in ways, more particularized and concrete than the skills required by the legal field. That's not to say that there isn't variation among individuals who have those skills as to how good they are at what they do, but they probably are, in ways, more measurable.

As to the point about how the landscape would be different...perhaps it wouldn't be different for employers (although I'm only conceding that point for the sake of argument), but if the mechanism for gaining the skills to work in IT was as highly regulated as the legal education industry, unless there simply weren't enough people who wanted to get those skills that it was an issue. This is certainly not the case with the legal field, and it behooves an institution that regulates admission in this way to be cognizant of the ways it includes and excludes people. Whether or not you agree with the particular ways AA does that, the general principle remains. If the requirements for working in IT are not similarly regulated, it's hardly a good comparison.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that "unqualified" AA admits must not be very successful lawyers? If you're going to make assertions like that, you're going to need to back it up with facts and statistics. I hope I'm misunderstanding you there.

Finally, if that's the case where you where, okay then. That's the case where you work. That's not necessarily representative of the industry as a whole, or the business landscape as a whole. Further, companies and industries may engage in diversity-minded hiring practices without engaging in what we might qualify as AA.

You're missing the point of my comparison.  I'm saying that, AA or not, almost everyone can get into a law school.  As law students, we suffer from a myopia that doesn't allow us to see what happens after we graduate.  Regulation or not, everyone can be a lawyer, and, after a few years, I would expect the skills to matter more.  Whether they matter as much as they do in the IT field is open to argument, but I think that they matter as much.  Wouldn't you hire a lawyer with deposition skills for a deposition, regardless of where they learned the law?  In this way, Law becomes more IT-like by the time that graduates reach the ten or twenty year mark.  That's why my comparison is valid.

Skills take over, degree no longer matters.  That's IT and, hopefully, Law after a few years.  And, once degree no longer matters, then AA isn't as significant. 

"make assertions like that."

(see rolling eyes)

"where you work"

Yes, NYC.  The heart of the IT industry, the bowels of the finance world.  I'm fairly sure that my perspective is vast enough to be taken seriously.

FFS, Wally.

Okay - I missed where you were going with all of that. I don't agree with your point, but whatever. I don't care enough to argue with you, if that's what you're trying to say.

Re: "make assertions like that": @#!* off with the rolling eyes. IF that is what you were trying to say, then that is something that needs support - idle speculation like that is at best useless and at worst harmful. I fully acknowledged that I may be misunderstanding where you were going with that.

Re: "where you work." FFS, Wally. OMG YOU WORK IN NEW YORK! You still work at one company. You've had what, one job since graduating college? I'm not saying that your experience there is unrepresentative of your company, just that your company is not fully representative of the entire industry or the workforce in general. (As a corollary, I know female computer science types who are drooled over by some employers because they are female and so few females enter the field)

Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 04:26:57 PM
You're comparing apples and kittens.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: mugatu on June 28, 2008, 04:30:11 PM
Fine.  I'll make this point very simple.

A: It's not fair that I didn't get into CLS!

B: Wait a minute, why don't you just beef up your skillz and get the same legal job?  I work in IT and we're all fine, provided you have SQL Server.

A: Never thought of that.  Cuz that would be wierd and IT-like.  I thought that CLS was the most important thing.  It's not like I can advertise myself as a crack deposition guy.

B: I earned my degree from CUNY.  Nobody cares.  I'm some dude who knows SQL.  Stop focusing so much on the AA and CLS; it's not like you can't use the deposition skill like I use SQL.  Just tell them, "I can do good deposition work."

A: NO!!!!  AA makes me mad!!!  I didn't get into CLS ten years ago because of AA!!!  ::throws bucket a la Donkey Kong::  Bah, my career is ruined because schools use AA.

eh

it depends. 

some/many things in law depend on your school. 

---

i think there are many people who would disagree that NYC is the center of IT.  Ha. 

You're comparing apples and kittens.

Can you explain why depositions and SQL server are "apples and kittens"?

Again, you're being myopic.  Ten years from now, nobody will care where we learned if we can't bring the skillz to the house.  We'll have a track record.

LS students can't see that; they're blinded by the fact that you go to a top school and they don't.  Years from now, I doubt that'll be the case.

i.e. - your opinion works in IT.  differing law schools open up different/bigger/shinier doors for people.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: goaliechica on June 28, 2008, 04:35:11 PM
You're comparing apples and kittens.

Both of which taste great in pie.

Too much?

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, but now I want pie.

Incidentally, the pie sampler at kramerbooks is excellent. Pumpkin, pecan, key lime, flourless chocolate, and peanut butter all together on one delicious plate!

/helpful addition to thread
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: goaliechica on June 28, 2008, 04:36:27 PM
That doesn't make any sense.

Ten years from now, they'll need a complex securities guy to work in-house.  Who are they going to take?  The guy with lots of experience and a less shiny degree, or the dude who went to Chicago and has fewer of the necessary skills?

I think you underestimate the extent to which prestige-whoring carries on past law school and into the actual profession. They will judge your skills mostly based on where you've worked, which depends a lot on where you went to school.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: goaliechica on June 28, 2008, 04:37:45 PM
You're comparing apples and kittens.

Both of which taste great in pie.

Too much?

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, but now I want pie.

Incidentally, the pie sampler at kramerbooks is excellent. Pumpking, pecan, key lime, flourless chocolate, and peanut butter all together on one delicious plate!

/helpful addition to thread

No kitten pie?

I forgot to ask. Next time!

::makes embarrassing joke about killing kittens::
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: mugatu on June 28, 2008, 04:39:20 PM
That doesn't make any sense.

Ten years from now, they'll need a complex securities guy to work in-house.  Who are they going to take?  The guy with lots of experience and a less shiny degree, or the dude who went to Chicago and has fewer of the necessary skills?

I saw your original post (came in the auto update).  Fancy!

The counterfactual situation to this point, however, does not hold up.  Who is going to more easily get all that juicy experience?  The guy from Chicago or the guy with the less shiny degree?

Furthermore, you seem to be arguing completely against your life decisions when accepting enrollment.  If what you are postulating is really true, I expect that you would have gotten money from a less shiny school, and thus it is better, long term, to go there.

(But, see, that's not how it works...is it?)
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: goaliechica on June 28, 2008, 04:41:29 PM
Dammit. Why is it that my arguments are always inscrutable and derailed by talk of pie?

I hope this doesn't carry over into the exam book.   :-\

 :D

::talks of pie::
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: mugatu on June 28, 2008, 04:45:45 PM
I concede defeat, so long as the defeat package comes with pie.   :P

Speaking of which, I have some tiramisu to attend to.

You should be flattered.  Your statement just sparked a possible era for SFLSD.

Here's my other point.  Is it more convincing?

"My point is ultimately a simple one: people try to show that, somehow, the legal world is unfair when its schools admit AA students with lower numbers.

But.  But.  In making that point, they miss the entire absurdity of the system in the first place!  In comparison to other fields, the legal one is a bubble.  Among other things, we 1) are fixated on degree to the point of insanity, but you rarely hear anyone talk about the quality of their legal education 2) pay people with the "right" credentials 160k before know anything (something that would never happen in IT; there's a ladder) 3) huge disparity between BigLaw and small law 4) rely almost SOLELY on numbers in order to make admissions decisions 5) thousands of other minor points I could make.

The system is incoherent in the first place.  You can't pick one thing and say, "Gee, this is somewhat odd."  It's unfair.  Why don't you complain about how, on account of a four hour test, young people with no worthwhile understanding of the world can get into a top school over a thirty-year-old Tibetian refugee?"

to a certain extent, i agree with this statement completely.  I think it's absolutely silly to pay a first year associate something utterly incommensurate with their ability. 

however, this "bigger problem" over here warrants attention while the "systemic problems" over there exist.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: goaliechica on June 28, 2008, 04:47:01 PM
I concede defeat, so long as the defeat package comes with pie.   :P

Speaking of which, I have some tiramisu to attend to.

You should be flattered.  Your statement just sparked a possible era for SFLSD.

Sweet!

Get it, get it?

 :-[
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: mugatu on June 28, 2008, 04:48:00 PM
I concede defeat, so long as the defeat package comes with pie.   :P

Speaking of which, I have some tiramisu to attend to.

You should be flattered.  Your statement just sparked a possible era for SFLSD.

Sweet!

Get it, get it?

 :-[

lol
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 04:55:44 PM
You're comparing apples and kittens.

Both of which taste great in pie.

Too much?

I'm about to eat some pie. It's one of those varieties.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 05:06:05 PM
Wally, just a few more reasons it doesn't really hold up:

As mu (I think) mentioned - you have to get the relevant experience for it to matter.

I recently attended a meeting at my firm talking about the direction we're taking and their goals for development, etc. In talking about hiring laterals, there's a lot of emphasis on bringing in people with a book of business. That's not something you develop easily, if at all, in many of the career paths open to people who don't attend shiny schools.*

Finally, being fantastic at taking depositions, or having another particular skill, is rarely going to translate into a prestigious or highly paying job. Being a f-ing awesome trial attorney might, but that's a little different than being an awesome deposition taker, at least in terms of the variety of skills necessary and the ability to develop them.

As to your second point...eh. The system is odd, yes, but it's also highly predictable. I find that you can agitate against a system in general and still point to individual bits that don't make sense to you, especially when the system is so predictable.

And now you've put me in the somewhat awkward position of supporting, at least in theory, the arguments of people who are against AA. Thanks for that.

*As always, for the record, statements of this sort should be be understood as constituting approval of the system, or as suggesting that it isn't possible for people who attend lower-ranked schools to be successful. Also, I acknowledge that this discussion is firm-centric.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
You are being entirely inconsistent, Wally, which is why I think you're also either being disingenuous or haven't thought this through.

And I don't think it's much of a problem being firmcentric in this discussion because, quite frankly, that's primarily what people get upset about when they complain about AA. Perhaps to a lesser extent academia, big government positions, high profile business positions - but for much of that it's really the same deal.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 07:31:31 PM
I already expressed my disagreements with that argument, and you weren't able to refute them adequately.

Also, it's not so much that you're arguing both sides as it is that you're entirely changing the foundation of your argument.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: goaliechica on June 28, 2008, 07:34:33 PM
The only, and I say only, AA argument that seems to hold any type of water is the diversity at firms argument.  But firms could as easily go down to BU and find some minority candidates, instead of picking them up at CLS.

DUDE.

Diversity at the schools themselves. That is the argument. See 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

" However, in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court affirmed Powell's opinion, rejecting "quotas," but allowing race to be one "factor" in college admissions to meet the compelling interest of "diversity.""

ETA: The "compelling interest of "diversity" reasoning is that everyone benefits from the experience of going to school in a diverse environment, and that schools have the right to use race as one admissions factor among others in order to meet that goal. To benefit everyone. That is the argument.


Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 07:37:40 PM
What goalie said.

Also, here's the difference. On an exam, if your professor wants you to argue both sides, you don't take a new set of facts to argue the other side. You use the same set of facts and make the counter-argument. Here, at one point you're saying "the school you go to matters! It makes a huge difference!" and to make the counter-argument you're saying "the school you go to doesn't really matter"
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 07:39:15 PM
Oh, please.  Like it matters whether an AA or non-AA admit recites the facts of the case.

I'm sorry, but that is a bad argument when you compare the professional advantages of sitting at the right place and reciting those facts.

Um.

Yeah, except a. that's not all that law school classes consist of and b. that's not all that the law school environment/experience consists of.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: goaliechica on June 28, 2008, 07:40:59 PM
Oh, please.  Like it matters whether an AA or non-AA admit recites the facts of the case.

You are becoming more petulant, mean-spirited, pointless, and intellectually dishonest as you go on. In case you were wondering. Getting in someone's face in an argument and then alternatively claiming that you are just playing devil's advocate, but not, but yes, but not is effing lame.


I'm sorry, but that is a bad argument when you compare the professional advantages of sitting at the right place and reciting those facts.

I am not telling you that the argument is a winner. I am telling you that you are mischaracterizing the argument. I don't know whether you're doing it intentionally or not, but you are.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 07:47:37 PM
Yeah, that didn't really work so well.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: goaliechica on June 28, 2008, 07:52:31 PM
The only, and I say only . . . argument that seems to hold any type of water is . . .

You probably also want to avoid statements like this on an exam where you're supposedly arguing both sides of a question  :P
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on June 28, 2008, 07:55:31 PM
Depends on the professor and the exam, like absolutely everything else.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: Matthies on June 30, 2008, 11:30:51 AM
Cady and Mu ruined the thread with their intellectual discussion of AA.   >:(

The simple fact of the matter is AA would not be an issue if not for the poors and the womenz taking all the spots from the rich but under qualified white males. Thatís the real problem, you have no one to blame but yourself for being born poor and not a white male.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: ssas on August 24, 2008, 10:05:17 PM
Cady and Mu ruined the thread with their intellectual discussion of AA.   >:(

The simple fact of the matter is AA would not be an issue if not for the poors and the womenz taking all the spots from the rich but under qualified white males. Thatís the real problem, you have no one to blame but yourself for being born poor and not a white male.

Actually, taking the spots from the overqualified Asian males.

Which reminds me, why does Yale have so many fewer Asian men than women?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: rhesusman on October 11, 2008, 08:53:09 AM
http://www.oddee.com/item_95061.aspx

If both of these girls grow up exactly the same way and have exactly the same grades and LSAT than one will have a huge advantage over the other in terms of UG/Grad admissions and job prospects

I don't like discussing AA that much on the forums because it usually starts a flame and people aren't going to be persuaded from what they initially believe... but just had to post this after I stumbled on the article

I'll answer in a non-flaming way.

It's important to keep in mind that affirmative action is predicated on the idea that black and white students don't grow up in exactly the same way.  When you're growing up white, there are some things you just won't have to deal with.  For example, your parents probably didn't have to tell you how to interact with the police so as to avoid getting shot.  You don't have to worry about being followed around in stores to make sure you won't steal anything.  You don't have to worry about every mistake or misjudgment you make reflecting on your race as a whole.  I think that Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy is an excellent example of this.  If she were black and had a pregnant teenage daughter, people would use it as an example of the how irresponsible black people are, but because she's white, it's off limits as a topic of discussion.  There are all sorts of subtle privileges that come with growing up white and they add up to a lot in the end.  The fact is that most black people in this country are inevitably going to face challenges and obstacles growing up - challenges that wouldn't even occur to white people to consider.  And this even goes for blacks and whites of the same social class.  I don't see it as at all unreasonable that law schools be cognizant of this when they make their admissions decisions.

And that's related to the second rationale for affirmative action, which has less to do with merit than it does with the educational experience during law school.  My constitutional law and criminal procedure classes would have been less interesting had there been no URMs in them because URMs often grow up having very different experiences with the police and criminal justice system than do white students.  They often have meaningful insights on cases concerning race in constitutional law classes that white students are less likely to have.

As an Asian American, I have grown up with a lot of advantages and privileges.  More people worked harder to make sure I succeeded in school because that's what was expected of me.  People assume I'm intelligent and hard working.  I'm more socially accepted by white people than I would be if I were black, which in turn gives me more access to valuable networking opportunities than I would have if I were black.  That's not to say that I didn't work hard, but it did mean that my hard work was also more likely to be noticed.  I'm willing to accept that this translated to my having to work a little harder to get into good schools than a black or Latino student.

That's not to say that there aren't reasonable arguments in opposition to affirmative action.  For example, you could argue that its costs with regard to race relations outweigh the benefits to URMs.  You could argue that only rich, well-connected URMs actually benefit from it in practice.  You could argue that there are bad career consequences for URMs who get into a school for which they're unqualified.  And there are definitely plenty of blacks and Latinos out there who, individually, don't merit affirmative action treatment as much as some individual poor whites.  But the argument that affirmative action unfairly disadvantages white students who are equally situated with black students has little practical application because there are so few who are equally situated.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: shana2077 on October 11, 2008, 11:10:29 AM
If racism did not exist affirmative action would not be necessary. Unfortunately that is not the case and until racism ceases to exist I will be a strong proponent of Affirmative Action.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: archival on October 11, 2008, 11:16:12 AM
It's important to keep in mind that

underrated post

Yeah it hit the highlights without getting too preachy. 

One of your alts?
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: aelevine on November 11, 2008, 03:20:46 PM
http://www.oddee.com/item_95061.aspx

If both of these girls grow up exactly the same way and have exactly the same grades and LSAT than one will have a huge advantage over the other in terms of UG/Grad admissions and job prospects

I don't like discussing AA that much on the forums because it usually starts a flame and people aren't going to be persuaded from what they initially believe... but just had to post this after I stumbled on the article

I'll answer in a non-flaming way.

It's important to keep in mind that affirmative action is predicated on the idea that black and white students don't grow up in exactly the same way.  When you're growing up white, there are some things you just won't have to deal with.  For example, your parents probably didn't have to tell you how to interact with the police so as to avoid getting shot.  You don't have to worry about being followed around in stores to make sure you won't steal anything.  You don't have to worry about every mistake or misjudgment you make reflecting on your race as a whole.  I think that Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy is an excellent example of this.  If she were black and had a pregnant teenage daughter, people would use it as an example of the how irresponsible black people are, but because she's white, it's off limits as a topic of discussion.  There are all sorts of subtle privileges that come with growing up white and they add up to a lot in the end.  The fact is that most black people in this country are inevitably going to face challenges and obstacles growing up - challenges that wouldn't even occur to white people to consider.  And this even goes for blacks and whites of the same social class.  I don't see it as at all unreasonable that law schools be cognizant of this when they make their admissions decisions.

And that's related to the second rationale for affirmative action, which has less to do with merit than it does with the educational experience during law school.  My constitutional law and criminal procedure classes would have been less interesting had there been no URMs in them because URMs often grow up having very different experiences with the police and criminal justice system than do white students.  They often have meaningful insights on cases concerning race in constitutional law classes that white students are less likely to have.

As an Asian American, I have grown up with a lot of advantages and privileges.  More people worked harder to make sure I succeeded in school because that's what was expected of me.  People assume I'm intelligent and hard working.  I'm more socially accepted by white people than I would be if I were black, which in turn gives me more access to valuable networking opportunities than I would have if I were black.  That's not to say that I didn't work hard, but it did mean that my hard work was also more likely to be noticed.  I'm willing to accept that this translated to my having to work a little harder to get into good schools than a black or Latino student.

That's not to say that there aren't reasonable arguments in opposition to affirmative action.  For example, you could argue that its costs with regard to race relations outweigh the benefits to URMs.  You could argue that only rich, well-connected URMs actually benefit from it in practice.  You could argue that there are bad career consequences for URMs who get into a school for which they're unqualified.  And there are definitely plenty of blacks and Latinos out there who, individually, don't merit affirmative action treatment as much as some individual poor whites.  But the argument that affirmative action unfairly disadvantages white students who are equally situated with black students has little practical application because there are so few who are equally situated.

Great post, I couldn't agree with you more.
Title: Re: Why I don't agree with AA
Post by: drfaiso1 on December 18, 2008, 05:03:19 PM
The problem with you libs is that you are always mocking instead of taking on the argument itself.



The biggest irony is that after your post none of them took on the argument like you criticized.
Either way the sun will set on this policy in 2028...no sense in wastin energy on explaining ur beliefs on this issue...save ur energy 4 the LSAT EVERYONE!