Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: HK on March 19, 2006, 07:41:58 AM

Title: AA "haters"
Post by: HK on March 19, 2006, 07:41:58 AM
I think it's relevant to point out that...

1) Just because someone is against AA it does not mean they are only intersted in self-advancement and worried about what school they are or aren't going to get into.

2) If a person criticizes AA, they are not necessarily AGAINST all types AA.

3) The current practice of AA in law schools was not given to adcomms on tablets from god, and may indeed not be a perfect system *gasp*.

4) Being against AA does not mean that a person is racist.

5) Just because a person does not support the current practice of AA in law schools, it does not mean that person does not acknowledge the unfortunate amount of racism that exists in the US.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: redemption on March 19, 2006, 07:49:29 AM

Here's a suggestion:

That person that you speak of should come up with an alternative and post it in the thread entitled "Construct your Own Admissions System" in the AA child board.

That would be much more constructive than posting something confused and confusing against AA when there are 10,000 such threads already.

Please find that thread; please devise your own system.

Thank you  :)

Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: fincavigia on March 22, 2006, 08:17:53 PM
So are we generally opposed to a race-blind admissions process?

I actually think it should be race-blind. If our country had not factored a person's race when they offerred jobs, education and countless other things in the past, we'd probably all be better off, no?
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: SCgrad on March 25, 2006, 05:15:44 AM
So are we generally opposed to a race-blind admissions process?

I actually think it should be race-blind. If our country had not factored a person's race when they offerred jobs, education and countless other things in the past, we'd probably all be better off, no?

you have to deal with the hand you're dealt.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: mfost on April 06, 2006, 05:37:16 PM
AA is voluntarily embraced by LSs to bolster their PC credibility. It has a negative impact on school choice for non-URMs but may not help URMS that much either. Studies support the claim that 1L performance correlates far better with LSAT score in conjunction with UGPA than any other known factor or known combination of factors. Because URM students are generally admitted to schools with LSAT scores and possible GPAs inferior to their classmates they are unlikely to perform at the top of their respective classes (at least in year one). I suspect that 1L performance is significantly related to overall LS performance.   
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: John Galt on April 06, 2006, 05:43:07 PM
So are we generally opposed to a race-blind admissions process?

I actually think it should be race-blind. If our country had not factored a person's race when they offerred jobs, education and countless other things in the past, we'd probably all be better off, no?

why should it be race-blind? If your work experience and obstacles overcome are relevant to the admissions process, it seems deplorable to take off the table race which is a very significant factor in many people's lives in terms of what they acheived and how it has affected them.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: fincavigia on April 06, 2006, 06:00:57 PM
First of all, race plays a much greater role than any work experience in your law application.

Second of all, please explain some of this awful racism and discrimination you experienced at the Ivy League school you wen to.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: John Galt on April 06, 2006, 06:09:32 PM
First of all, race plays a much greater role than any work experience in your law application.

Second of all, please explain some of this awful racism and discrimination you experienced at the Ivy League school you wen to.

First of all, this isn't about me. Race should have had a greater effect on my law school application than WE because my application was centered around experiences I've had in the still racist South.

Second of all, not everything that influences you happens inside the classroom. I thought this was obvious?
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: SCgrad on April 07, 2006, 02:33:07 AM
The fact is those who hate "AA" really just hate "diversity" and use bashing AA as a way to say that without thinking of themselves as a racist.  Can one of you haters please explain AA to the board, just to verify you aren't talking out of your collective asses?
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: HK on April 07, 2006, 03:18:27 AM
The fact is those who hate "AA" really just hate "diversity" and use bashing AA as a way to say that without thinking of themselves as a racist.  Can one of you haters please explain AA to the board, just to verify you aren't talking out of your collective asses?


6) Being against AA does not mean someone is against diversity. :)
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: team mvp on April 07, 2006, 10:59:57 AM

Second of all, please explain some of this awful racism and discrimination you experienced at the Ivy League school you wen to.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb06/stabbing.ssl.html

*gasp* racism exists?  Who would've thought?

hth
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: fincavigia on April 07, 2006, 03:27:46 PM
Maybe we should give him a scholarship. He did earn it.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: redemption on April 07, 2006, 03:34:52 PM
Maybe we should give him a scholarship. He did earn it.

Well, I'll let you respond to yourself:


Before I get a ton of responses saying this is dishonest etc, I want to make it clear I have already applied to all my schools and marked Caucasian on all of them. This is hypothetical.

How would it be possible for a law school to ever find out if somebody who marked "Latino" on their application was actually a latino. I had a friend who I knew for a long time in college before he said that he was Puerto-Rican. His last name was VERY American and he was very southern. It turns out his mom was from Puerto-Rico. For about a week, I thought he was joking.

What would happen if some dude just checked latino on his apps? What does the law school do, look at your geneology? I wouldn't be suprised if this happens A LOT. I also wouldn't be suprised if schools don't really bother checking on this because they don't want to know. I get the feeling, most schools want diversity so they can put it in their statistics (LOOK AT US WE HAVE EIGHT MILLIONS URMS!!!). Do you'll think this happens a lot?

I do so hate it when people spend time responding to people like you.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: mfost on April 07, 2006, 10:54:55 PM
The fact is those who hate "AA" really just hate "diversity" and use bashing AA as a way to say that without thinking of themselves as a racist. 

This argument is invalid
1. You assume without warrant that the motives of all who disagree with AA are both known and uniform.
2. You improperly equate rejection of mandated "diversity" with racism.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: SCgrad on April 08, 2006, 02:28:50 AM
yeah, maybe.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: redemption on April 08, 2006, 07:13:26 AM
The fact is those who hate "AA" really just hate "diversity" and use bashing AA as a way to say that without thinking of themselves as a racist.  Can one of you haters please explain AA to the board, just to verify you aren't talking out of your collective asses?

I really hate when people make emotional appeals instead of actually taking on the topic at hand.  I personally feel like AA is illogical and creates more resentment than opportunity.  But I don't go around arguing with people about it because hardly anyone on either side of the issue is able to argue in a calm, rational way without resorting to bull comments like yours.  But continue the moral superiority rant, it's great.

Nah - SC's right.

Most of the people who start threads and argue against AA are thinly-veiled racists who couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. Most of the remainder are venting their personal bitterness and disappointment at their own chances of making it into the school of their choice.

As an aside: I note that your post is also an emotional appeal and doesn't actually take on the topic at hand.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: HK on April 08, 2006, 08:11:23 AM
I don't know red., in my experience it's been the pro-AA people that are quick to make jugdements and personal attacks. I am not denying there are people who have selfish motives, but that applies to both sides. Simply accusing people who are critical of AA of being racist, or only self-interested is a very weak way to make a point.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: redemption on April 08, 2006, 10:41:28 AM
I don't know red., in my experience it's been the pro-AA people that are quick to make jugdements and personal attacks. I am not denying there are people who have selfish motives, but that applies to both sides. Simply accusing people who are critical of AA of being racist, or only self-interested is a very weak way to make a point.

Point me to an actual argument that's been made against AA, and I will reconsider my position. There are very few other ways to state the very point that I'm making; it's always better to be direct.

I myself am against very much AA as it is currently construed. I would not start a thread or argue against it on this board, however, because I do not want to even seem to be aligning myself with closet racists, as many of the people on this board who have argued against it are.

There is a thread inviting us to construct an admissions system of our own - you'll notice that not very many people have taken up the challenge. I wonder why?
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: HK on April 08, 2006, 11:38:03 AM
I don't know red., in my experience it's been the pro-AA people that are quick to make jugdements and personal attacks. I am not denying there are people who have selfish motives, but that applies to both sides. Simply accusing people who are critical of AA of being racist, or only self-interested is a very weak way to make a point.

Point me to an actual argument that's been made against AA, and I will reconsider my position. There are very few other ways to state the very point that I'm making; it's always better to be direct.

I myself am against very much AA as it is currently construed. I would not start a thread or argue against it on this board, however, because I do not want to even seem to be aligning myself with closet racists, as many of the people on this board who have argued against it are.

There is a thread inviting us to construct an admissions system of our own - you'll notice that not very many people have taken up the challenge. I wonder why?


Well, first of all, it is important not to conflate AA in general with the current way AA is practiced in law schools. In this forum, speaking for myself, I tend to criticize the latter rather then the former. There are plenty of good reasons why AA should exist, and there are good reasons why it shouldn't. An ideal world has no place for racial preferences. Of course, we don't live in an ideal world. However, I won't hijack my own thread and get into a pro/anti AA debate.

As for your second point, it basically proves my point. It is OK to bash the current practice of AA w/o being a "closet racist".

The answer to your last question is very simple. It is easier to destroy than to create.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: redemption on April 08, 2006, 11:45:06 AM


Well, first of all, it is important not to conflate AA in general with the current way AA is practiced in law schools. In this forum, speaking for myself, I tend to criticize the latter rather then the former. There are plenty of good reasons why AA should exist, and there are good reasons why it shouldn't. An ideal world has no place for racial preferences. Of course, we don't live in an ideal world. However, I won't hijack my own thread and get into a pro/anti AA debate.

As for your second point, it basically proves my point. It is OK to bash the current practice of AA w/o being a "closet racist".

The answer to your last question is very simple. It is easier to destroy than to create.

Who doubts this? Do you think that I do?

That wasn't and isn't my point.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: redemption on April 08, 2006, 01:14:35 PM

I don't disagree with what you've said here.  But SC made a blanket statement labeling any people who are against AA as racists when that's not necessarily true.  I would say that most (and all of the ones on XOXO) are resentful because they feel like some black guy took their spot at Harvard or Yale, but I know that this is not true of everyone.

Just to share, my father grew up in an extremely poor county in a Bible Belt state.  His high school didn't even offer biology or chemistry courses.  Education was a joke.  Luckily he had enough of a drive to get out of his hometown that he managed to get into a regional university, where he majored in both biology and chemistry.  It bugs me to think that under the current AA system, the son of a wealthy black lawyer would get a boost when someone in my father's former position would not get any boost.

I like to think I'm not racist in any way.  I don't deny that racism still is alive and well.  But I just think that a SES based AA system would still have the desired effect of increasing diversity without doing so by making distinctions among the races.

I read SC as meaning most, not all - but it's fair to underline that distinction.

SES is an important factor in the divergence between the outcomes/opportunities facing some Americans and others. It is not the whole story, however. Even after accounting for SES and educational achievement, there remains a divergence between the opportunities and outcomes that blacks and other Americans face. How do we explain this divergence? How do we redress it, if at all?

There is a widespread assumption that SES should be an alternative criterion, rather than a complementary one, to race/ethnicity in admissions systems. Why is that?

There seems to be a sense that merit should be narrowly and specifically defined to considerations of GPA and LSAT scores. Why is that? Why is "distance travelled" not a more accurate measure of merit? Everything has come easily to me in life - my background was comfortable, my grades were easily earned, I put a trivial amount of effort into my LSAT: how is it that a normative concept ("merit") should be more closely associated with me than with someone whose numbers are lower but whose journey - based on racial discrimination, poverty or both - has been tougher?

As I say, there may be fora where these topics can be properly worked out in intelligent and pragmatic debate, but this board is not among them.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: HK on April 08, 2006, 09:46:36 PM
Making assumptions about people being racist, or only self-interested is not right.

When you make that accusation, it would basically be the same as me discrediting an argument made by JohnGalt by just telling him he is a URM and is obviously only interested in self-advancement. Maybe some people here will try that, and that is just as bad. I just think that a group of future lawyers should be able to debate/discuss affirmitave action w/o name-calling and assuming they know more than they do about the person they are debating with. Clearly that is not possible at this point. For most people who argue it in this forum, it is just too emotional.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: SCgrad on April 09, 2006, 06:43:19 AM
The fact is those who hate "AA" really just hate "diversity" and use bashing AA as a way to say that without thinking of themselves as a racist.  Can one of you haters please explain AA to the board, just to verify you aren't talking out of your collective asses?

I really hate when people make emotional appeals instead of actually taking on the topic at hand.  I personally feel like AA is illogical and creates more resentment than opportunity.  But I don't go around arguing with people about it because hardly anyone on either side of the issue is able to argue in a calm, rational way without resorting to bull comments like yours.  But continue the moral superiority rant, it's great.

Nah - SC's right.

Most of the people who start threads and argue against AA are thinly-veiled racists who couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. Most of the remainder are venting their personal bitterness and disappointment at their own chances of making it into the school of their choice.

As an aside: I note that your post is also an emotional appeal and doesn't actually take on the topic at hand.

I don't disagree with what you've said here.  But SC made a blanket statement labeling any people who are against AA as racists when that's not necessarily true.  I would say that most (and all of the ones on XOXO) are resentful because they feel like some black guy took their spot at Harvard or Yale, but I know that this is not true of everyone.

Just to share, my father grew up in an extremely poor county in a Bible Belt state.  His high school didn't even offer biology or chemistry courses.  Education was a joke.  Luckily he had enough of a drive to get out of his hometown that he managed to get into a regional university, where he majored in both biology and chemistry.  It bugs me to think that under the current AA system, the son of a wealthy black lawyer would get a boost when someone in my father's former position would not get any boost.

I like to think I'm not racist in any way.  I don't deny that racism still is alive and well.  But I just think that a SES based AA system would still have the desired effect of increasing diversity without doing so by making distinctions among the races.

do you actually know this?

yes, my post was pretty flame-ish, but I did notice the part that wasn't (someone please explain AA to me!) was left unanswered. 

Do you think black people are advantaged in society due to AA?  Please explain how this could be the case when with the huge seperation in average wealth and income between blacks and whites?
Unless you argue that white people are just better than black people (which by definition, is racist) how can you say AA "gives black people an advantage" on the whole?  If this were true, wouldn't blacks have higher incomes? 
If you want to argue that AA hurts black people, go for it.  There are plenty of legitimate arguments on this topic of the subject.  But AA doesn't "hurt white people."  Thinking that is f-ing retarded (sorry, I couldn't get through all this without a little flame).

note- I have made this argument several times, and nobody has ever actually answered my questions, I don't expect any of you to, either.  the two underlined questions are the ones I would love an answer to.  I will try and keep an open mind to any ridiculously stupid explanations.  Just give me something...
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 09, 2006, 03:13:32 PM
This has been an interesting debate for the most part-though I'm a little confused what people are debating-it seems more like people are making random points.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: Gary Glitter on April 09, 2006, 03:21:24 PM
check out the table

http://www.answers.com/topic/iq-and-the-wealth-of-nations

thoughts?
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: plaintext on April 09, 2006, 03:55:18 PM

does it say half the world is retarded?  I can hear the chants in small countries like Equatorial Guinea... "Get Joe out of here, he's bringing down the average IQ!"
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: Gary Glitter on April 09, 2006, 04:00:10 PM
equatorial guinea coming DFL with a strong and impressive showing of FIFTY NINE

i thought 70 or so was moron status - what is 59? does this mean that the average adult person in equatorial guinea has the cognitive ability of a five year old? sounds like my kind of place....

Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: plaintext on April 09, 2006, 04:06:40 PM

in a rather perverse manner, it gives credence to the equator effect.

it's better to be dumb and in a tropical environment than smart and freezing your ass off.  i guess when you're snowed in there's nothing better to do than take IQ tests  :D
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: Gary Glitter on April 09, 2006, 04:16:05 PM
then at least ostensibly those in south korea have the best of both worlds, the high IQ of 106 and the semi-tropical weather to boot

too bad they live in a trembling fear of nuclear annihilation at the hands of their cozy-yet-draconian neighbors to the north - clearly the average IQ in north korea must be very low - i'm guessing somewhere in the 59 range


maybe north korea is best case scenario? warmish weather low IQs and potential nuclear technology wrapped up in one happy little bundle?



Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: SCgrad on April 10, 2006, 01:40:48 AM

do you actually know this?

yes, my post was pretty flame-ish, but I did notice the part that wasn't (someone please explain AA to me!) was left unanswered. 

Do you think black people are advantaged in society due to AA?  Please explain how this could be the case when with the huge seperation in average wealth and income between blacks and whites?
Unless you argue that white people are just better than black people (which by definition, is racist) how can you say AA "gives black people an advantage" on the whole?  If this were true, wouldn't blacks have higher incomes? 
If you want to argue that AA hurts black people, go for it.  There are plenty of legitimate arguments on this topic of the subject.  But AA doesn't "hurt white people."  Thinking that is f-ing retarded (sorry, I couldn't get through all this without a little flame).

note- I have made this argument several times, and nobody has ever actually answered my questions, I don't expect any of you to, either.  the two underlined questions are the ones I would love an answer to.  I will try and keep an open mind to any ridiculously stupid explanations.  Just give me something...

I don't think black people are advantaged in society due to AA.  And you are misconstruing what I said.  I never even came close to saying what you've got in quotes there either.  Did you even read my post?  There is no question that if there are a set number of admits or positions or whatever at a certain firm, and someone who otherwise wouldn't have gotten admitted or hired or whatever does so, then someone who would've otherwise been admitted won't be.  This is completely beside the point though.

Anyway, certainly you can agree with me that since black people are so much poorer in society and have lower average incomes (points I am not disputing, just reiterating), an income based system will still mainly benefit the black community.

my post was not entirely directed at you, but the general message that comes from the "haters".  If I was quoting YOU, I would have said that you said those things.

and, actually, yes, I agree with everything you said.  you didn't say what I put in quotes (I wasn't quoting you), your second point is completely beside the point (proves nothing), and an income based system would more likely benifit individual blacks than whites. 

this is only sorta directed at you.


 Did you know that there is not a single law school that takes family income into consideration when making decisions?  Not a single one!  Did you know that?  I didn't.  Did you know that the percentage of blacks in law schools is now higher than the percentage in the overall population?  Yeah, I didn't know that either.  Blacks must be getting some sort of huge advantage for these things to be true.

and i still haven't received my explanation of what AA is, and you have now admitted that blacks are not advantaged due to AA.  Boost?  I would bet a month's pay the vast majority of AA supporters would love to trade the "AA boost" for equal treatment in society.

Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 10, 2006, 12:51:49 PM
Edit: The first time I read the article I didn't bother to read the critique, now that I do, I see they already mentioned most of the points I had made in this post.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: FossilJ on April 10, 2006, 05:50:31 PM
check out the table

http://www.answers.com/topic/iq-and-the-wealth-of-nations

thoughts?

Are you kidding me?  I hope nobody is taking this study seriously.  It's littered with errors, even at the superficial level.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: psr13 on April 15, 2006, 02:12:24 AM
I'm very against AA, but I love diversity. There goes that assumption.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 16, 2006, 07:58:31 PM
I'm very against AA, but I love diversity. There goes that assumption.

Most people probably see AA and diversity as a means-ends relationship.  AA is the means to achieve the ends, diversity.  There are of course other means, such as less focus on the lsat and gpa for instance, but that is probably unrealistic-infact, other than AA is there another realistic means to achieve the ends of diversity in higher education?
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: FossilJ on April 16, 2006, 08:03:49 PM
I don't think AA and diversity need necessarily be connected at all, actually.  In fact, I prefer that the ideas are kept separate altogether.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 16, 2006, 10:02:02 PM
I don't think AA and diversity need necessarily be connected at all, actually.  In fact, I prefer that the ideas are kept separate altogether.


What are the ends/goals of AA then?
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: FossilJ on April 17, 2006, 01:44:18 AM
Addressing imbalances in the American workplace.

You see, the reason I don't like the word "diversity" is because it is almost always taken in a limited context.  People hear "diversity" and they think, "oh, that means they want more colored people on campus".    Diversity for the sake of having more people of a certain type around is bogus.  It shouldn't be a goal/end of affirmative action.

In this sense, "diversity" is taken to mean that certain ethnic groups must be exposed to different ethnic groups.  For what purpose?  What is the benefit of having different people meet?  Okay, I can think of one: you learn about others. 

However, for me, AA is about addressing larger social issues; for instance, non-white representation in the field of law.  AA is about providing slight advantages to traditionally disadvantaged groups in order to equal the playing field.  AA is about fixing the future by learning from the past and adjusting the present.

You can't have "forcibly exposing people to new races/cultures" as a valid goal of affirmative action.  In that case, HBCUs would be disbanded*.  It's simply not a legitimate reason for AA to exist. 

When it comes to universities, I can only see two reasons for AA to exist:

1.  As a potential boost for those who are historically disadvantaged to be able to attend that institution.  This is different from "diversity" in that the end goal is not to have a kaleidoscope of races on your campus, but rather to provide a method of access for those who would normally not be able to attend (because of sociohistorical reasons).   

2.  As a means to redress areas of economic or social concern in America's diverse communities.  Back to my law example.  Why do we need more black lawyers?  Because it is likely that, if there are more black lawyers, there will be better access to legal advice in most black communities, and more black kids will want to grow up and be lawyers: lawyers breed more lawyers as role models often do.  Access to legal support and poverty are major issues in many black communities -- there is a dearth of black lawyers, and a variety of socioeconomic factors conspire to keep many intelligent young black people out of university, especially at the graduate level. 

That's just one example.  You can see how point 2 builds on point 1.  Point 2, as far as I'm concerned, is the overriding goal of affirmative action.  But for sections of point 2 to work, point 1 must occur. 

In a sense, we are trying to make America's workforce more "diverse".  But it is not the notion of diversity itself that fuels affirmative action.  It is, rather, a byproduct of affirmative action. 

If any of this doesn't make sense, please let me know.  I'm really tired, so I may have left out bits and pieces. 


*said very tongue-in-cheek!!!
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: FossilJ on April 17, 2006, 03:03:57 AM
Oh, I should add that the reasoning you see above is also the reasoning behind my support of socioeconomic-based AA over race-based AA.  In fact, I hate the concept of "race" as it is commonly used. 
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 17, 2006, 07:31:13 AM
Addressing imbalances in the American workplace.

You see, the reason I don't like the word "diversity" is because it is almost always taken in a limited context.  People hear "diversity" and they think, "oh, that means they want more colored people on campus".    Diversity for the sake of having more people of a certain type around is bogus.  It shouldn't be a goal/end of affirmative action.

In this sense, "diversity" is taken to mean that certain ethnic groups must be exposed to different ethnic groups.  For what purpose?  What is the benefit of having different people meet?  Okay, I can think of one: you learn about others. 

However, for me, AA is about addressing larger social issues; for instance, non-white representation in the field of law.  AA is about providing slight advantages to traditionally disadvantaged groups in order to equal the playing field.  AA is about fixing the future by learning from the past and adjusting the present.

You can't have "forcibly exposing people to new races/cultures" as a valid goal of affirmative action.  In that case, HBCUs would be disbanded*.  It's simply not a legitimate reason for AA to exist. 

When it comes to universities, I can only see two reasons for AA to exist:

1.  As a potential boost for those who are historically disadvantaged to be able to attend that institution.  This is different from "diversity" in that the end goal is not to have a kaleidoscope of races on your campus, but rather to provide a method of access for those who would normally not be able to attend (because of sociohistorical reasons).   

2.  As a means to redress areas of economic or social concern in America's diverse communities.  Back to my law example.  Why do we need more black lawyers?  Because it is likely that, if there are more black lawyers, there will be better access to legal advice in most black communities, and more black kids will want to grow up and be lawyers: lawyers breed more lawyers as role models often do.  Access to legal support and poverty are major issues in many black communities -- there is a dearth of black lawyers, and a variety of socioeconomic factors conspire to keep many intelligent young black people out of university, especially at the graduate level. 

That's just one example.  You can see how point 2 builds on point 1.  Point 2, as far as I'm concerned, is the overriding goal of affirmative action.  But for sections of point 2 to work, point 1 must occur. 

In a sense, we are trying to make America's workforce more "diverse".  But it is not the notion of diversity itself that fuels affirmative action.  It is, rather, a byproduct of affirmative action. 

If any of this doesn't make sense, please let me know.  I'm really tired, so I may have left out bits and pieces. 


*said very tongue-in-cheek!!!

Your reasoning is good, it seems to see dual reasons for AA- one to bring urm lawyers into the profession and two to bring the profession to urm communities. 

Actually I see only the second of those as the goal of AA, having more urm lawyers is the means toward bringing the profession to urm commununities.  You kind of say that, but it your reasoning became a little circular when it appeared that part of the goal of bringing the profession/institution to the urm communities was to create more urm lawyers "Because it is likely that, if there are more black lawyers, there will be better access to legal advice in most black communities, and more black kids will want to grow up and be lawyers: lawyers breed more lawyers as role models often do."
To be its more a means ends relationship, the means is more urm lawyers, the goal to bring the institution to urm communities.

I think in our society there is a GREAT need to bring the law profession to urm communities-for example crime is higher in lots of urm communities in part because of economic reasons, but also in part because the urm communities are alientated from the law profession-to them the law seems distant, something the mainstream population uses to suppress them (Think of the Chappelle show, where he talks about how the police treat blacks and whites differently) and they have less instinct to try to play life by the values of the law.  For example, pure guess on my part, but if a urm was robbed, they would be less likely to call the police and more likely to take action on their own, precipating more crime than say a white person.  I think the ultimate end goal of AA from the law profession standpoint is to bring a legitimacy to the law to URM communities-however in my other posts I made clear that there are also other forces at work, like political factors and to a lesser extent altrustic attitudes based on the American ethos that those who overcome hardship are to be praised.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: SCgrad on April 17, 2006, 07:39:41 AM
Your reasoning is good, it seems to see dual reasons for AA- one to bring urm lawyers into the profession and two to bring the profession to urm communities. 

Actually I see only the second of those as the goal of AA, having more urm lawyers is the means toward bringing the profession to urm commununities.  You kind of say that, but it your reasoning became a little circular when it appeared that part of the goal of bringing the profession/institution to the urm communities was to create more urm lawyers "Because it is likely that, if there are more black lawyers, there will be better access to legal advice in most black communities, and more black kids will want to grow up and be lawyers: lawyers breed more lawyers as role models often do."
To be its more a means ends relationship, the means is more urm lawyers, the goal to bring the institution to urm communities.


I think it is more of a building block argument than circular.  start with a little more representation in urm communities and multiply.  if that was not the intent of his argument in this regard, it at least could be.  "planting a seed" so to speak.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 17, 2006, 07:42:37 AM
Oh, I should add that the reasoning you see above is also the reasoning behind my support of socioeconomic-based AA over race-based AA.  In fact, I hate the concept of "race" as it is commonly used. 

Why don't you write something on the socio-economic threat then, my position is that it would be too hard to adminster socio-economic AA in that thread.

Also to some extent, if the point is to bring legitimacy to the law in communities that have traditionally been alienated from it like I said in my last post, socio-economic AA just wouldn't be as good most likely.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 17, 2006, 07:44:21 AM

That was his intent I believe, but multiply what.  Only the number of urm lawyers?  Or does that also include multiplying the impact that the institution of the law has on those communities?
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: SCgrad on April 17, 2006, 07:49:59 AM
if you assume quantity most likely equals quality, i guess so.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 17, 2006, 07:55:53 AM
if you assume quantity most likely equals quality, i guess so.

They are two different things-but you may be right.  Would simply having more urm lawyers in a community automatically equal that people in the urm community use them to settle their disputes. Will their presence (hopefully well dressed and well mannered) be a reminder of the prestige of the law in urm communities.  I don't know the answer to these questions, but you might be right quantity might in itself equal quality-though I don't think the word quality is the word I would use, I mean more "greater impact."
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: FossilJ on April 17, 2006, 01:38:29 PM
You can't control quality.  You can't force a new lawyer's hand.  However, by controlling quantity, you can increase the chances that a bright new lawyer goes back to his or her disadvantaged community.  It's a numbers game -- if more are trained, more are likely to return.

The post isn't circular.  It stands.  Point 1 is necessary for Point 2.  They are not the same, but they are related. 

As for socioeconomic AA, I've hashed all this stuff out so many times on this thread, I don't really feel like doing it.  I only wrote that last post last night because I was procrastinating; technically, I'm on a post break from LSD. 
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: philibusters on April 18, 2006, 04:30:21 PM
You can't control quality.  You can't force a new lawyer's hand.  However, by controlling quantity, you can increase the chances that a bright new lawyer goes back to his or her disadvantaged community.  It's a numbers game -- if more are trained, more are likely to return.

The post isn't circular.  It stands.  Point 1 is necessary for Point 2.  They are not the same, but they are related. 

As for socioeconomic AA, I've hashed all this stuff out so many times on this thread, I don't really feel like doing it.  I only wrote that last post last night because I was procrastinating; technically, I'm on a post break from LSD. 


I shouldn't have said circular, all I meant was that I couldn't tell from your if the goal was to bring the law to urm communities for its own sake, or to bring law to urm communities for the sake of creating more urm lawyers.

Its not a question of does quantity = quality, its a quesiton of does quantity x = quantity y, in other words I think its assumed the quality of the law is good and an improvement in urm communities where the law has a weak influence, so theres no doubt that bring the any amount of the law in is an improvement in quality, I think the question is does more urm lawyers mean there will be more interaction between the urm communities and law.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: FossilJ on April 18, 2006, 04:54:22 PM
You can't control quality.  You can't force a new lawyer's hand.  However, by controlling quantity, you can increase the chances that a bright new lawyer goes back to his or her disadvantaged community.  It's a numbers game -- if more are trained, more are likely to return.

The post isn't circular.  It stands.  Point 1 is necessary for Point 2.  They are not the same, but they are related. 

As for socioeconomic AA, I've hashed all this stuff out so many times on this thread, I don't really feel like doing it.  I only wrote that last post last night because I was procrastinating; technically, I'm on a post break from LSD. 


I shouldn't have said circular, all I meant was that I couldn't tell from your if the goal was to bring the law to urm communities for its own sake, or to bring law to urm communities for the sake of creating more urm lawyers.

Its not a question of does quantity = quality, its a quesiton of does quantity x = quantity y, in other words I think its assumed the quality of the law is good and an improvement in urm communities where the law has a weak influence, so theres no doubt that bring the any amount of the law in is an improvement in quality, I think the question is does more urm lawyers mean there will be more interaction between the urm communities and law.

And I'm saying that it's the best way of doing so.  The more lawyers you have in an area, the higher the likelihood that the community will interact with them.

I'm saying that the goal of AA is to bring law to URM communities for the sake of creating more URM lawyers, the feedback loop of which brings law to URM communities for its own sake (I assume you mean for the sake of actually being useful/helpful to such communities).
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: Gary Glitter on April 19, 2006, 11:05:41 AM
too bad most of these URM candidates get sucked up into the big law machine and forever disappear into some office or cubicle writing summary judgement memos for some big time partner

there is now a dearth of URMS in most biglaw institutions and thus they are now being recruited *heavily* - not sure how this effects your trickle down to the URM communities theory
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: catamount on April 19, 2006, 11:09:38 AM
I think Alcoholics Anonymous is fine. If you need to quit drinking before law school, then why not? I don't understand how someone could hate AA.
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: dbgirl on April 19, 2006, 11:12:02 AM
I think Alcoholics Anonymous is fine. If you need to quit drinking before law school, then why not? I don't understand how someone could hate AA.

Actually most people start drinking a lot MORE once they're in law school, so the need for AA increases  ;)
Title: Re: AA "haters"
Post by: FossilJ on April 19, 2006, 02:44:00 PM
too bad most of these URM candidates get sucked up into the big law machine and forever disappear into some office or cubicle writing summary judgement memos for some big time partner

there is now a dearth of URMS in most biglaw institutions and thus they are now being recruited *heavily* - not sure how this effects your trickle down to the URM communities theory

It doesn't.  Didn't you see me explaining that it's a numbers game?