Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 08:05:14 AM

Title: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 08:05:14 AM
I am not trying to start a controversy here, just trying to create equality since there is a Black Law Student Discussion Board.  Apparently, we are taking steps back into time and segregating by race.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 24, 2007, 08:08:38 AM
lol...brilliant idea. ::)
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 24, 2007, 08:16:10 AM
I like your spirit 3 reich er rsieg 10.  why dont you continue your desegragation campaign concerning something useful, like say our public schools or the U.S. Senate.  Thanks
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 24, 2007, 10:51:41 AM
I am not trying to start a controversy here

lol. ;D
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: jillibean on April 24, 2007, 05:39:48 PM
Isn't a majority of this site a white law student discussion board?
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: dbgirl on April 24, 2007, 06:11:26 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 06:25:38 PM
I'm white and going to law school, so I guess I can discuss law on this post. Sounds good to me...

It is a joke folks, lets be honest.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 07:46:33 PM
Isn't a majority of this site a white law student discussion board?


The rest of this site's topics are not race-specific, as is the "Black Law Student Discussion Board".
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Will Hunting on April 24, 2007, 08:23:13 PM
How about "White Entertainment Television" or the NAAWP instead of the NAACP?  Personally, I don't think either of these are necessary, but then again I don't think it's necessary to have a seperate area for black students to talk about law school.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we are probably going to the exact same law schools and will be sitting right next to each other in class.  We don't have seperated law schools; why have seperated law school forums?
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 08:46:05 PM
How about "White Entertainment Television" or the NAAWP instead of the NAACP?  Personally, I don't think either of these are necessary, but then again I don't think it's necessary to have a seperate area for black students to talk about law school.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we are probably going to the exact same law schools and will be sitting right next to each other in class.  We don't have seperated law schools; why have seperated law school forums?

I like that answer..
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 08:55:00 PM
Excellent answer...I've always felt that it is inappropriate to have "Black Entertainment Television" because there is no need to segregate by race any longer.  And, if there were "White Entertainment Television", there would surely be a huge outcry and it would definitely not be allowed.

You're exactly right--separate things for blacks ended decades ago, so why try to bring it back by creating separate forums for black students?

Personally, it bothers me that law schools still ask for our race on their applications.  If everyone shall be treated equally, regardless of race, why is this even relevant?  I checked "decline to answer" on all of mine, perhaps for fear of being discriminated against for being white--honestly.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 08:55:56 PM
It is really so hard to understand that black students have unique concerns/experiences/questions that may warrent discussing with other black students in a focused context?  Non-trads have their own board for the same reason but I don't see anyone posting threads like this over there

Please explain these unique concerns in detail.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 09:05:54 PM
Please explain these unique concerns in detail.

My concern is that you're a very weak troll.  You should work on that.

Weak troll?  I'm not familiar with that term.  I'm simply trying to discover what exactly warrants the need for a racially-biased forum.  The last time I checked, the Black Law Student Discussion Board entailed conversations of the Virginia Tech shooting, the Los Angeles Lakers, online banking, and several meaningless YouTube links.  My point is, if there are supposedly explicit concerns that need to be addressed, I have yet to see them.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 09:12:00 PM
How about "White Entertainment Television" or the NAAWP instead of the NAACP?  Personally, I don't think either of these are necessary, but then again I don't think it's necessary to have a seperate area for black students to talk about law school.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we are probably going to the exact same law schools and will be sitting right next to each other in class.  We don't have seperated law schools; why have seperated law school forums?

It's called Country Music Television, and why would there be an association for the advancement of white people?  How much more can we advance? 
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 09:16:41 PM
It is really so hard to understand that black students have unique concerns/experiences/questions that may warrent discussing with other black students in a focused context?  Non-trads have their own board for the same reason but I don't see anyone posting threads like this over there

Please explain these unique concerns in detail.

I'll give you an example.  When I visited Harvard, I heard some very discouraging things about race relations there.  As a black student, I had to ask myself if I wanted to go to a school where I would have to choose between ignoring racist incidents or fighting for three years to combat them.  BLSD is a good place to ask black students what their experiences were like at a place like Harvard and if they felt the racial charge of the institution was worth the benefits of going there.  I also personally sought advice on this board about deciding between Harvard and Howard.  On the other boards, Howard is so often completely written off, and no one there seems to have any real respect for the institution.  I had my own very personal reasons for considering Howard, and it helped to come to a board where people (mostly black people), did not completely write Howard off simply because of its rank.  It's also a place where people can talk about the state of race in the legal field and what challenges they may be able to expect in their career of choice.

Additionally, BLSD could be a place for URMs or black students to get information to help them gauge their chances at various law schools without being attacked and ridiculed by people the way that may occur on the other boards.  I remember when I posted in a thread on the other boards about getting into long-shots, and when I mentioned that I was a URM, people started using the eye-rolling emoticon and turned it into an AA discussion.  I don't get ridiculed on BLSD.  

There are other instances, and I'd suggest you peruse some of the questions and answers on this site if your'e really interested.  

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,54625.msg1067474.html#msg1067474

Well I have some questions that I want to ask white law school students. I understand that you have some questions that you want to target at Black law applicants and students, but why is it not okay for me to target some of my questions to students that are white?. Again it is fine to have the black discussion forum but why can we not have a white one?
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 09:18:47 PM
I am not trying to start a controversy here, just trying to create equality since there is a Black Law Student Discussion Board.  Apparently, we are taking steps back into time and segregating by race.

The point is to discuss things that are of concern to the African American race.  White people post on the Black Discussion Board all of the time.  How is that segregating?  If white people couldn't post on the board, then that would be segregation.  Would you be complaining if there was a Jewish Law Discussion Board?  Or an Asian Discussion Board?  You can post on the board if you want, so quit complaining.  Thanks :)
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 09:19:36 PM
That link you provided served me well in answering my questions:

yiplong said "white or black, we can all discussion law school related stuff together.  No need for a separate forum."

team mvp said "...and having such a board in place makes discussion about these things is much easier. For example, the scholarships thread on BLSD."  Shall we start a thread in the "White Law Student Discussion Board" conferring about the fact that there are no scholarships open to only white students?  Don't you feel that this is a bit discriminatory to award someone or exclude someone from a scholarship based solely on the color of their skin? 

Stephon Devante said "Well if black people have their own section, and gay people should..why not straight people? Why not republicans? Why not Christians?  It amazes me how everybody hates on segregation/discrimination until it is beneficial to them."

I could continue, but I shall not.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 09:22:50 PM
How about "White Entertainment Television" or the NAAWP instead of the NAACP?  Personally, I don't think either of these are necessary, but then again I don't think it's necessary to have a seperate area for black students to talk about law school.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we are probably going to the exact same law schools and will be sitting right next to each other in class.  We don't have seperated law schools; why have seperated law school forums?

It's called Country Music Television, and why would there be an association for the advancement of white people?  How much more can we advance? 

So if County Music Television was to be renamed "White Music Television", there would not be a outrage?

I often watch 106 & Park on BET, but I feel that the network should be renamed something like "Hip-hop Entertainment Television" instead of being racially specific.  It insinuates that the network is for blacks only.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 09:26:10 PM
I would voice my opinion about racial discrimination (Bakke dot dot dot) but don't want to afford people attacking with weak arguements about how blacks are aloud to have separate advanteges that whites cannot be given. (I am all for equal protection so don't give me any BULL)
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 24, 2007, 09:27:50 PM
Okay, I'm going to roll my eyes YET AGAIN, and say that there's a double standard.  With good reason.  Black people with racial consciousness is not as threatening as white people with racial consciousness. 

But hey, I'm just an affluent white anglo-saxon protestant from the upper east side.  What do I know?
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Elephant Lee on April 24, 2007, 09:28:06 PM
How about "White Entertainment Television" or the NAAWP instead of the NAACP?  Personally, I don't think either of these are necessary, but then again I don't think it's necessary to have a seperate area for black students to talk about law school.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we are probably going to the exact same law schools and will be sitting right next to each other in class.  We don't have seperated law schools; why have seperated law school forums?
It's really a shame that they only let black people watch BET or post on BLSD. They should start letting everyone in.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 09:28:35 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 09:28:51 PM
Okay, I'm going to roll my eyes YET AGAIN, and say that there's a double standard.  With good reason.  Black people with racial consciousness is not as threatening as white people with racial consciousness. 

But hey, I'm just an affluent white anglo-saxon protestant from the upper east side.  What do I know?

Fair enough
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 24, 2007, 09:29:50 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

spoken like a true right-handed person.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 09:30:39 PM
It's really a shame that they only let black people watch BET or post on BLSD. They should start letting everyone in.

It IS a shame, however, that certain scholarships are open ONLY to black people.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 09:30:51 PM
I would voice my opinion about racial discrimination (Bakke dot dot dot) but don't want to afford people attacking with weak arguements about how blacks are aloud to have separate advanteges that whites cannot be given. (I am all for equal protection so don't give me any BULL)

Well, spelling mistakes aside, in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court said diveristy is a compelling governmental interest and will withstand an Equal Protection attack...
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 24, 2007, 09:32:06 PM
It's really a shame that they only let black people watch BET or post on BLSD. They should start letting everyone in.

It IS a shame, however, that certain scholarships are open ONLY to black people.

Good thing that no one racial group has most of the economic and political resources in this country.

Oh wait a second...
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 09:32:16 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

spoken like a true right-handed person.

Thank you for that
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 09:32:51 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 09:33:25 PM
I would voice my opinion about racial discrimination (Bakke dot dot dot) but don't want to afford people attacking with weak arguements about how blacks are aloud to have separate advanteges that whites cannot be given. (I am all for equal protection so don't give me any BULL)

Well, spelling mistakes aside, in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court said diveristy is a compelling governmental interest and will withstand an Equal Protection attack...

I figured someone would attack the spelling of a person that has been drinking since 5:30. Sweet dude
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawschoolboundlady on April 24, 2007, 09:34:06 PM
If you want to post on the BLSD board I'm sure you would be welcome. Black law students aren't trying to "segregate" themselves, it's just that there are few black law students and few black people in the field of law in general. It's nice to have support and be able to talk about perspectives that deviate from the norm. Networking is key in law and it's also a way to make up for a lack of a networking base.  As stated above, non-traditional students have a similar forum. As I'm sure do some older students, hispanic students,asian students etc... If you wanted to make a American white male wealthy law student forum.. hey whatever.. i don't care lol..But I doubt you would feel the need as that is the majority in the field of law and thus,these  "traditional" students  probably wouldn't be looking for the same kind of support of those that may feel somewhat like outsiders. I'm sure the creators of such forums as the black law student forum intentions are not to alienate white students, it's just a source of support for members of a community. If you wished to learn about the community, you're more than welcome to join in.

Also, as another example...  students from the south going to northern schools might start up a forum to know what support is available for them while adjusting to a new environment.As would students from a foreign country, etc And, "white" groups could be considered groups like a German student group, Polish student group, etc etc...

I don't see the problem here, and I hope someday you won't see one either.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Elephant Lee on April 24, 2007, 09:34:31 PM
It's really a shame that they only let black people watch BET or post on BLSD. They should start letting everyone in.

It IS a shame, however, that certain scholarships are open ONLY to black people.
See, if WLSD existed I suspect it would consist almost exclusively of gripes about AA. It turns out there's already a forum for that crowd.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 09:34:58 PM
I would voice my opinion about racial discrimination (Bakke dot dot dot) but don't want to afford people attacking with weak arguements about how blacks are aloud to have separate advanteges that whites cannot be given. (I am all for equal protection so don't give me any BULL)

Well, spelling mistakes aside, in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court said diveristy is a compelling governmental interest and will withstand an Equal Protection attack...

Also in bakke they stated the same thing. Race is ONE factor... ONE
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 24, 2007, 09:36:31 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

spoken like a true right-handed person.

Thank you for that

no problem.  ;)

listen, i've said it before and i'll say it again, there's more racism than most white people think there is, and less racism than most black people think there is.  that's because black people come into contact with/are subjected to a disproportionate amount of the racial discrimination that exists, while white people see very little of it.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 24, 2007, 09:37:35 PM
PUPPIES!!!!

(http://umoja.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/puppy.jpg)

(http://www.mooseyscountrygarden.com/cats-dogs/puppy-sausages-toy.jpg)

(http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/40/husky_puppy_T3211.jpg)

(http://www.kloudiia.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/Puppy.JPG)

(http://www.tranquilpc-shop.co.uk/acatalog/puppy2_400.jpg)

::appreciates the puppying of thread::
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 09:39:19 PM
If you want to post on the BLSD board I'm sure you would be welcome. Black law students aren't trying to "segregate" themselves, it's just that there are few black law students and few black people in the field of law in general. It's nice to have support and be able to talk about perspectives that deviate from the norm. Networking is key in law and it's also a way to make up for a lack of a networking base.  As stated above, non-traditional students have a similar forum. As I'm sure do some older students, hispanic students,asian students etc... If you wanted to make a American white male wealthy law student forum.. hey whatever.. i don't care lol..But I doubt you would feel the need as that is the majority in the field of law and thus,these  "traditional" students  probably wouldn't be looking for the same kind of support of those that may feel somewhat like outsiders. I'm sure the creators of such forums as the black law student forum intentions are not to alienate white students, it's just a source of support for members of a community. If you wished to learn about the community, you're more than welcome to join in.

Also, as another example...  students from the south going to northern schools might start up a forum to know what support is available for them while adjusting to a new environment.As would students from a foreign country, etc And, "white" groups could be considered groups like a German student group, Polish student group, etc etc...

I don't see the problem here, and I hope someday you won't see one either.

Well said.  Furthermore, walk into a law school classroom and look around.  Chances are more than 90% of the people in the class are white.  That must feel a little uncomfortable for a minority.  I mean, it really takes some nerve to complain about how white people don't get scholarships and how there should be no law school discussion board when almost all of the legal profession is white!  If you're white you're only seeing things from one side, but yet you complain.  How can you possibly know what it feels like to be a minority in this country.  White people have everything and have had everything since this country was founded, but yet you complain that there are a few scholarships for black people and they have their own discussion board??  At times like this I become embarassed to be white.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 09:40:20 PM


Also in bakke they stated the same thing. Race is ONE factor... ONE

Ok...?
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 09:42:25 PM
If you want to post on the BLSD board I'm sure you would be welcome. Black law students aren't trying to "segregate" themselves, it's just that there are few black law students and few black people in the field of law in general. It's nice to have support and be able to talk about perspectives that deviate from the norm. Networking is key in law and it's also a way to make up for a lack of a networking base.  As stated above, non-traditional students have a similar forum. As I'm sure do some older students, hispanic students,asian students etc... If you wanted to make a American white male wealthy law student forum.. hey whatever.. i don't care lol..But I doubt you would feel the need as that is the majority in the field of law and thus,these  "traditional" students  probably wouldn't be looking for the same kind of support of those that may feel somewhat like outsiders. I'm sure the creators of such forums as the black law student forum intentions are not to alienate white students, it's just a source of support for members of a community. If you wished to learn about the community, you're more than welcome to join in.

Also, as another example...  students from the south going to northern schools might start up a forum to know what support is available for them while adjusting to a new environment.As would students from a foreign country, etc And, "white" groups could be considered groups like a German student group, Polish student group, etc etc...

I don't see the problem here, and I hope someday you won't see one either.

Well said.  Furthermore, walk into a law school classroom and look around.  Chances are more than 90% of the people in the class are white.  That must feel a little uncomfortable for a minority.  I mean, it really takes some nerve to complain about how white people don't get scholarships and how there should be no law school discussion board when almost all of the legal profession is white!  If you're white you're only seeing things from one side, but yet you complain.  How can you possibly know what it feels like to be a minority in this country.  White people have everything and have had everything since this country was founded, but yet you complain that there are a few scholarships for black people and they have their own discussion board??  At times like this I become embarassed to be white.

I'm Latino American??? Umm Ok
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 09:45:19 PM
If you want to post on the BLSD board I'm sure you would be welcome. Black law students aren't trying to "segregate" themselves, it's just that there are few black law students and few black people in the field of law in general. It's nice to have support and be able to talk about perspectives that deviate from the norm. Networking is key in law and it's also a way to make up for a lack of a networking base.  As stated above, non-traditional students have a similar forum. As I'm sure do some older students, hispanic students,asian students etc... If you wanted to make a American white male wealthy law student forum.. hey whatever.. i don't care lol..But I doubt you would feel the need as that is the majority in the field of law and thus,these  "traditional" students  probably wouldn't be looking for the same kind of support of those that may feel somewhat like outsiders. I'm sure the creators of such forums as the black law student forum intentions are not to alienate white students, it's just a source of support for members of a community. If you wished to learn about the community, you're more than welcome to join in.

Also, as another example...  students from the south going to northern schools might start up a forum to know what support is available for them while adjusting to a new environment.As would students from a foreign country, etc And, "white" groups could be considered groups like a German student group, Polish student group, etc etc...

I don't see the problem here, and I hope someday you won't see one either.

Well said.  Furthermore, walk into a law school classroom and look around.  Chances are more than 90% of the people in the class are white.  That must feel a little uncomfortable for a minority.  I mean, it really takes some nerve to complain about how white people don't get scholarships and how there should be no law school discussion board when almost all of the legal profession is white!  If you're white you're only seeing things from one side, but yet you complain.  How can you possibly know what it feels like to be a minority in this country.  White people have everything and have had everything since this country was founded, but yet you complain that there are a few scholarships for black people and they have their own discussion board??  At times like this I become embarassed to be white.

I'm Latino American??? Umm Ok

Actually in an earlier post on this thread you said you were white.  I'm done talking to you.  Idiot.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawchick09 on April 24, 2007, 09:52:59 PM
If you want to post on the BLSD board I'm sure you would be welcome. Black law students aren't trying to "segregate" themselves, it's just that there are few black law students and few black people in the field of law in general. It's nice to have support and be able to talk about perspectives that deviate from the norm. Networking is key in law and it's also a way to make up for a lack of a networking base.  As stated above, non-traditional students have a similar forum. As I'm sure do some older students, hispanic students,asian students etc... If you wanted to make a American white male wealthy law student forum.. hey whatever.. i don't care lol..But I doubt you would feel the need as that is the majority in the field of law and thus,these  "traditional" students  probably wouldn't be looking for the same kind of support of those that may feel somewhat like outsiders. I'm sure the creators of such forums as the black law student forum intentions are not to alienate white students, it's just a source of support for members of a community. If you wished to learn about the community, you're more than welcome to join in.

Also, as another example...  students from the south going to northern schools might start up a forum to know what support is available for them while adjusting to a new environment.As would students from a foreign country, etc And, "white" groups could be considered groups like a German student group, Polish student group, etc etc...

I don't see the problem here, and I hope someday you won't see one either.

Well said.  Furthermore, walk into a law school classroom and look around.  Chances are more than 90% of the people in the class are white.  That must feel a little uncomfortable for a minority.  I mean, it really takes some nerve to complain about how white people don't get scholarships and how there should be no law school discussion board when almost all of the legal profession is white!  If you're white you're only seeing things from one side, but yet you complain.  How can you possibly know what it feels like to be a minority in this country.  White people have everything and have had everything since this country was founded, but yet you complain that there are a few scholarships for black people and they have their own discussion board??  At times like this I become embarassed to be white.

I'm Latino American??? Umm Ok

Actually in an earlier post on this thread you said you were white.  I'm done talking to you.  Idiot.

PWN3D! ;D
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 09:53:07 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: katluva33 on April 24, 2007, 09:53:34 PM
I'm white and going to law school, so I guess I can discuss law on this post. Sounds good to me...

It is a joke folks, lets be honest.

Just so it doesn't get edited...
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 24, 2007, 09:54:38 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Awesome.  White person to black people: "Hey there's no more discrimination.  You're all just imagining it."
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 09:57:43 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Awesome.  White person to black people: "Hey there's no more discrimination.  You're all just imagining it."

Personally, I've never witnessed racial discrimination, nor have I heard any of my non-white friends discuss it.  I'm just making a wild assumption about rural areas, but I could be wrong.  After all, we know that black people still have separate water fountains and must sit in the back of the bus  ::)
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawchick09 on April 24, 2007, 10:01:11 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Just a hypo, what if you were white and i was black and you and i had the same skills and qualifications for a job. but because i was black, you got the job instead, because as you conceded, racism still exists. now say stuff like this happens throughout every stage of our lives and you keep getting the upper hand because you're white and i'm black. wouldn't this now make you more qualified than me? so now when we both apply to law school, are you telling me my race shouldn't be considered as a reason why your resume has more stuff on it than mine? or as a reason why you, because of all the jobs you were getting ahead of me, now have the money and resources to better prepare for the lsats and go to the better schools and thus have better stats than me?

just my thoughts.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 24, 2007, 10:02:10 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Awesome.  White person to black people: "Hey there's no more discrimination.  You're all just imagining it."

Personally, I've never witnessed racial discrimination, nor have I heard any of my non-white friends discuss it.  I'm just making a wild assumption about rural areas, but I could be wrong.  After all, we know that black people still have separate water fountains and must sit in the back of the bus  ::)

So you're basing this incredibly broad generalization on anecdotal evidence?  Great job.

And discrimination was ingrained in this nation for centuries.  If you honestly think that social engineering can change all that in the space of 30-40 years, you must be some kind of communist.

Now I'm just making personal attacks.  I apologize.  I shouldn't do that.

We are not, of course, talking about public discrimination, which has been illegalized to a large degree.  We're talking about private discrimination- the hundreds of minor slights to which members of racial minorities are subjected on a daily basis.  Think it doesn't happen?  If so, ask yourself if you don't believe it because you have evidence to the contrary or because it's convenient for you not to believe it.

I'm done here.

Affluent white anglo-saxon protestant from the upper east side, leaving thread.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 10:03:42 PM
If you want to post on the BLSD board I'm sure you would be welcome. Black law students aren't trying to "segregate" themselves, it's just that there are few black law students and few black people in the field of law in general. It's nice to have support and be able to talk about perspectives that deviate from the norm. Networking is key in law and it's also a way to make up for a lack of a networking base.  As stated above, non-traditional students have a similar forum. As I'm sure do some older students, hispanic students,asian students etc... If you wanted to make a American white male wealthy law student forum.. hey whatever.. i don't care lol..But I doubt you would feel the need as that is the majority in the field of law and thus,these  "traditional" students  probably wouldn't be looking for the same kind of support of those that may feel somewhat like outsiders. I'm sure the creators of such forums as the black law student forum intentions are not to alienate white students, it's just a source of support for members of a community. If you wished to learn about the community, you're more than welcome to join in.

Also, as another example...  students from the south going to northern schools might start up a forum to know what support is available for them while adjusting to a new environment.As would students from a foreign country, etc And, "white" groups could be considered groups like a German student group, Polish student group, etc etc...

I don't see the problem here, and I hope someday you won't see one either.

Well said.  Furthermore, walk into a law school classroom and look around.  Chances are more than 90% of the people in the class are white.  That must feel a little uncomfortable for a minority.  I mean, it really takes some nerve to complain about how white people don't get scholarships and how there should be no law school discussion board when almost all of the legal profession is white!  If you're white you're only seeing things from one side, but yet you complain.  How can you possibly know what it feels like to be a minority in this country.  White people have everything and have had everything since this country was founded, but yet you complain that there are a few scholarships for black people and they have their own discussion board??  At times like this I become embarassed to be white.

I'm Latino American??? Umm Ok

Actually in an earlier post on this thread you said you were white.  I'm done talking to you.  Idiot.

Yeah because the ??? ment I was making a statement
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 10:04:51 PM
and by the unhappy face I ment question mark.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 10:07:59 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Oh boy.  This one takes the cake.  It's very easy for you to say that there's no more discrimination except in rural areas, because you would have no reason to feel it.  You're white.  You only see things through the eyes of someone who is white.  If you ask a black person who would have occassion to feel discrimination if they think that we have eradicated it, I'm sure you would get a different response.  You haven't seen things from the other side (and neither have I, but I know there is another side), and until you have, I would advise you not to make generlizations that are nowhere near reality.  Thank you.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 10:09:03 PM


I'm Latino American??? Umm Ok
[/quote]

Actually in an earlier post on this thread you said you were white.  I'm done talking to you.  Idiot.
[/quote]

Idiot!
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawschoolboundlady on April 24, 2007, 10:09:30 PM


I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.
[/quote]

I can see why you feel this way and have heard many voice opinions similar to yours. However, there are many “separate” things for many different groups. There are separate scholarships for women, Hispanics, bilinguals,  international students, legacy, etc. Truth be told, Blacks are disproportionately poor in this country. And many may feel legal scholarships are a way to make up for this problem. I feel maybe this effort is misplaced because giving minority students legal scholarships is not going to solve for the problem of poverty. But, it does not seem that your argument above shows any recognition of the fact that blacks in this country are disproportionately poor and in many cases face different circumstances than whites. ( albeit, this is not always the case) I think law schools look to race because race can be a  value. People of different races can view the world through a different lens, perhaps sympathize with a cause others wouldn’t ( again not always the case) , expose students to a new viewpoint and expand their mind. ( I’m sure some students would be more than happy to keep their mind where its at )  . Furthermore, you stated that an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or acceptance to law school based on qualifications and accomplishments without regard to race, but sometimes these may be intertwined. If a student has had very harsh life circumstances and was able to overcome these it shows a great amount of strength and conviction that could be utilized in a law career. It is not that this student is given a handout, but the admissions committee saw a strength of character or person that they feel is just as capable as a traditional student with straight gpa/lsat. If a “white” student were to show the same strength of character I’m sure it would be rewarded as well. Also, in some ways for a “minority” student, there are added pressures/situations that the average traditional wealthy white student may not have to deal with. It may have taken a lot more for that student to get to the position they are at.  Just something to think about. I know one point isn’t going to completely change your world.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:10:14 PM
All things aside, I still have one burning thought I would like someone to address:

We all know that getting accepted into law school is difficult.  There are economically disadvantaged whites applying to law school, just as there are economically disadvantaged blacks suffering the same dreadful admissions process.  We've all worked extremely hard to get to this point.  So, why should "black only" scholarships be allowed since we've all put forth the same effort to get into law school?  It is clear that "white only" scholarships are socially unaccepted--point recently proved when a group of Boston students tried to create such a scholarship.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: BriGuy1818 on April 24, 2007, 10:12:45 PM
I think people are mad because of situations like Lather rinse repeats. They think she only got into a top 25 school like wisconsin with a 154, her best out of 4 scores 1 of which she cancled; because she is Iranian. What do you think your chances are at if your white and american with her situation?    
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 10:16:12 PM


I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

I can see why you feel this way and have heard many voice opinions similar to yours. However, there are many “separate” things for many different groups. There are separate scholarships for women, Hispanics, bilinguals,  international students, legacy, etc. Truth be told, Blacks are disproportionately poor in this country. And many may feel legal scholarships are a way to make up for this problem. I feel maybe this effort is misplaced because giving minority students legal scholarships is not going to solve for the problem of poverty. But, it does not seem that your argument above shows any recognition of the fact that blacks in this country are disproportionately poor and in many cases face different circumstances than whites. ( albeit, this is not always the case) I think law schools look to race because race can be a  value. People of different races can view the world through a different lens, perhaps sympathize with a cause others wouldn’t ( again not always the case) , expose students to a new viewpoint and expand their mind. ( I’m sure some students would be more than happy to keep their mind where its at )  . Furthermore, you stated that an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or acceptance to law school based on qualifications and accomplishments without regard to race, but sometimes these may be intertwined. If a student has had very harsh life circumstances and was able to overcome these it shows a great amount of strength and conviction that could be utilized in a law career. It is not that this student is given a handout, but the admissions committee saw a strength of character or person that they feel is just as capable as a traditional student with straight gpa/lsat. If a “white” student were to show the same strength of character I’m sure it would be rewarded as well. Also, in some ways for a “minority” student, there are added pressures/situations that the average traditional wealthy white student may not have to deal with. It may have taken a lot more for that student to get to the position they are at.  Just something to think about. I know one point isn’t going to completely change your world.
[/quote]

TITCR!
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:17:19 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Oh boy.  This one takes the cake.  It's very easy for you to say that there's no more discrimination except in rural areas, because you would have no reason to feel it.  You're white.  You only see things through the eyes of someone who is white.  If you ask a black person who would have occassion to feel discrimination if they think that we have eradicated it, I'm sure you would get a different response.  You haven't seen things from the other side (and neither have I, but I know there is another side), and until you have, I would advise you not to make generlizations that are nowhere near reality.  Thank you.

Take a look into my perspective for one moment:

Suppose you and I apply to the same law schools, with the same GPA and LSAT score.  You are accepted simply because the law school feels it needs more "diversity" to keep up with other law schools.  I am denied because there are "too many white people", although this is never explicitly stated.  I'm economically disadvantaged, as you are, but scholarships are only open to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, left-handed people, people with green eyes, people who don't own televisions, and people who don't like pizza.  There's nothing for the average white person.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawschoolboundlady on April 24, 2007, 10:18:44 PM
lol no one responds to my posts :( .... I'm out.. this isn't a place of engaging conversation.. its a place for angry people to voice their opinions  in isolation with no intention of listening to what the other side has to say and no intention of ever changing their views.. I'm out...

If all you want to see are "stupid minorities" with crappy lsat scores stealing your "right" to a law school education... that's all you're ever going to see and there's no way for anyone to change your mind. So have a fun and angry life full of false beliefs and misdirected anger.  
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:19:01 PM
Yeah, seriously.  It's about time top 14 schools started admitting some white people with sub 3.0 GPAs.

Oh, wait a second...

 :D

Heh, point proven.  :D
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 10:20:06 PM
All things aside, I still have one burning thought I would like someone to address:

We all know that getting accepted into law school is difficult.  There are economically disadvantaged whites applying to law school, just as there are economically disadvantaged blacks suffering the same dreadful admissions process.  We've all worked extremely hard to get to this point.  So, why should "black only" scholarships be allowed since we've all put forth the same effort to get into law school?  It is clear that "white only" scholarships are socially unaccepted--point recently proved when a group of Boston students tried to create such a scholarship.

There are white only scholarships.  There are Italian American Scholarships, Irish American Scholarships, and so on.  Also there are Asian Scholarships, Indian Scholarships (yes, my friend got one), etc...  Why do you not have a problem with these, but yet you are opposed to black scholarships?  Why do you have a problem if, for instance, the NAACP wants to give a black person a scholarship?  
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 24, 2007, 10:20:42 PM
hell I hate pizza
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 10:21:12 PM
lol no one responds to my posts :( .... I'm out.. this isn't a place of engaging conversation.. its a place for angry people to voice their opinions  in isolation with no intention of listening to what the other side has to say and no intention of ever changing their views.. I'm out...

If all you want to see are "stupid minorities" with crappy lsat scores stealing your "right" to a law school education... that's all you're ever going to see and there's no way for anyone to change your mind. So have a fun and angry life full of false beliefs and misdirected anger.  

What?! I gave you a TITCR!  Now my feelings are hurt :(
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:21:48 PM
All things aside, I still have one burning thought I would like someone to address:

We all know that getting accepted into law school is difficult.  There are economically disadvantaged whites applying to law school, just as there are economically disadvantaged blacks suffering the same dreadful admissions process.  We've all worked extremely hard to get to this point.  So, why should "black only" scholarships be allowed since we've all put forth the same effort to get into law school?  It is clear that "white only" scholarships are socially unaccepted--point recently proved when a group of Boston students tried to create such a scholarship.

There are white only scholarships.  There are Italian American Scholarships, Irish American Scholarships, and so on.  Also there are Asian Scholarships, Indian Scholarships (yes, my friend got one), etc...  Why do you not have a problem with these, but yet you are opposed to black scholarships?  Why do you have a problem if, for instance, the NAACP wants to give a black person a scholarship? 

First of all, please find me a white-only law school scholarship.  I do not have a problem with the NAACP giving a black person a scholarship, but it is not equal.  There is no NAAWP to give a white person a scholarship.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawchick09 on April 24, 2007, 10:21:54 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Oh boy.  This one takes the cake.  It's very easy for you to say that there's no more discrimination except in rural areas, because you would have no reason to feel it.  You're white.  You only see things through the eyes of someone who is white.  If you ask a black person who would have occassion to feel discrimination if they think that we have eradicated it, I'm sure you would get a different response.  You haven't seen things from the other side (and neither have I, but I know there is another side), and until you have, I would advise you not to make generlizations that are nowhere near reality.  Thank you.

Take a look into my perspective for one moment:

Suppose you and I apply to the same law schools, with the same GPA and LSAT score.  You are accepted simply because the law school feels it needs more "diversity" to keep up with other law schools.  I am denied because there are "too many white people", although this is never explicitly stated.  I'm economically disadvantaged, as you are, but scholarships are only open to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, left-handed people, people with green eyes, people who don't own televisions, and people who don't like pizza.  There's nothing for the average white person.

The thing is, simply being born white puts you at an advantage in life. It's better to be a poor white person than a poor black person.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:22:53 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Oh boy.  This one takes the cake.  It's very easy for you to say that there's no more discrimination except in rural areas, because you would have no reason to feel it.  You're white.  You only see things through the eyes of someone who is white.  If you ask a black person who would have occassion to feel discrimination if they think that we have eradicated it, I'm sure you would get a different response.  You haven't seen things from the other side (and neither have I, but I know there is another side), and until you have, I would advise you not to make generlizations that are nowhere near reality.  Thank you.

Take a look into my perspective for one moment:

Suppose you and I apply to the same law schools, with the same GPA and LSAT score.  You are accepted simply because the law school feels it needs more "diversity" to keep up with other law schools.  I am denied because there are "too many white people", although this is never explicitly stated.  I'm economically disadvantaged, as you are, but scholarships are only open to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, left-handed people, people with green eyes, people who don't own televisions, and people who don't like pizza.  There's nothing for the average white person.

The thing is, simply being born white puts you at an advantage in life. It's better to be a poor white person than a poor black person.

How so?  Poor is poor.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 10:23:53 PM
All things aside, I still have one burning thought I would like someone to address:

We all know that getting accepted into law school is difficult.  There are economically disadvantaged whites applying to law school, just as there are economically disadvantaged blacks suffering the same dreadful admissions process.  We've all worked extremely hard to get to this point.  So, why should "black only" scholarships be allowed since we've all put forth the same effort to get into law school?  It is clear that "white only" scholarships are socially unaccepted--point recently proved when a group of Boston students tried to create such a scholarship.


There are white only scholarships.  There are Italian American Scholarships, Irish American Scholarships, and so on.  Also there are Asian Scholarships, Indian Scholarships (yes, my friend got one), etc...  Why do you not have a problem with these, but yet you are opposed to black scholarships?  Why do you have a problem if, for instance, the NAACP wants to give a black person a scholarship? 

First of all, please find me a white-only law school scholarship.  I do not have a problem with the NAACP giving a black person a scholarship, but it is not equal.  There is no NAAWP to give a white person a scholarship.

Oh Jesus.  First of all, why would there be a NAAWP?!  How much more can white people advance?  Secondly, I just gave you some examples.  For instance, the local Italian American association in my couty has a scholarship for Italian kids.  There are numerous instances of this.  
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:25:51 PM
What gives people the right to discriminate like that based upon race?  We all work equally.  No one needs to be given preferential treatment based upon his or her race.  It only causes segregation.  Jesus.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawchick09 on April 24, 2007, 10:25:58 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Oh boy.  This one takes the cake.  It's very easy for you to say that there's no more discrimination except in rural areas, because you would have no reason to feel it.  You're white.  You only see things through the eyes of someone who is white.  If you ask a black person who would have occassion to feel discrimination if they think that we have eradicated it, I'm sure you would get a different response.  You haven't seen things from the other side (and neither have I, but I know there is another side), and until you have, I would advise you not to make generlizations that are nowhere near reality.  Thank you.

Take a look into my perspective for one moment:

Suppose you and I apply to the same law schools, with the same GPA and LSAT score.  You are accepted simply because the law school feels it needs more "diversity" to keep up with other law schools.  I am denied because there are "too many white people", although this is never explicitly stated.  I'm economically disadvantaged, as you are, but scholarships are only open to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, left-handed people, people with green eyes, people who don't own televisions, and people who don't like pizza.  There's nothing for the average white person.

The thing is, simply being born white puts you at an advantage in life. It's better to be a poor white person than a poor black person.

How so?  Poor is poor.

Yes poor is poor. But I just said, being white in this country is better than being black. So I'd rather be a white poor person because chances are, I'd be getting that job at Mickey D's before a black poor person.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:27:26 PM
http://www.americanswedishinst.org/scholarship.htm

HTFH.

Was this serious?  This scholarship is for people wishing to study in SWEDEN!  It does not specify that the applicant be white or Swedish.  Nice try.  Keep looking.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:29:13 PM
Agreed.  I am for equality--nothing more and nothing less.  There is no need to segregate any more.  Race is about as relevant as what hand a person writes with or what type of car they drive.

You must be white and you must live in the suburbs to think that race isn't relevant anymore.  You think society can change that much in fifty years?

I am sure that in certain rural areas of the country, racial discrimination exists.  However, I still don't feel the need to have "separate" things for blacks, like scholarships.  Of course there are fewer blacks than whites in law school because the number of whites in America significantly outnumbers blacks.  I think it could be agreed that law schools only ask for an applicant's race for one reason--and that is not to give white students the advantage.  All races should be treated equally: an applicant should be awarded a scholarship or an acceptance to law school based on their qualifications and accomplishments.  Race should not be considered in any way.

Oh boy.  This one takes the cake.  It's very easy for you to say that there's no more discrimination except in rural areas, because you would have no reason to feel it.  You're white.  You only see things through the eyes of someone who is white.  If you ask a black person who would have occassion to feel discrimination if they think that we have eradicated it, I'm sure you would get a different response.  You haven't seen things from the other side (and neither have I, but I know there is another side), and until you have, I would advise you not to make generlizations that are nowhere near reality.  Thank you.

Take a look into my perspective for one moment:

Suppose you and I apply to the same law schools, with the same GPA and LSAT score.  You are accepted simply because the law school feels it needs more "diversity" to keep up with other law schools.  I am denied because there are "too many white people", although this is never explicitly stated.  I'm economically disadvantaged, as you are, but scholarships are only open to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, left-handed people, people with green eyes, people who don't own televisions, and people who don't like pizza.  There's nothing for the average white person.

The thing is, simply being born white puts you at an advantage in life. It's better to be a poor white person than a poor black person.

How so?  Poor is poor.

Yes poor is poor. But I just said, being white in this country is better than being black. So I'd rather be a white poor person because chances are, I'd be getting that job at Mickey D's before a black poor person.

Probably not, because Mickey D's would likely have just gotten criticized by the NAACP for not hiring enough black employees.  There would be 30 white applicants and 2 black ones, and the black one would get the job solely to meet the race quota Mickey D's now has to make.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawchick09 on April 24, 2007, 10:29:21 PM
What gives people the right to discriminate like that based upon race?  We all work equally.  No one needs to be given preferential treatment based upon his or her race.  It only causes segregation.  Jesus.

Yes we may all work equally, but if you read my earlier hypo, because of the vast majority of racist shmucks out there in positions of power, we are not viewed as equal. So you will be treated better than me, for the most part, for the rest of our lives because you're white and i'm not.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 10:30:55 PM
http://www.americanswedishinst.org/scholarship.htm

HTFH.

Was this serious?  This scholarship is for people wishing to study in SWEDEN!  It does not specify that the applicant be white or Swedish.  Nice try.  Keep looking.

Umm, it's really not that hard to find any.  http://www.multiculturaladvantage.com/opportunity/scholarships/diversity/ehtnic-white-scholarships.asp
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:35:53 PM
http://www.americanswedishinst.org/scholarship.htm

HTFH.

Was this serious?  This scholarship is for people wishing to study in SWEDEN!  It does not specify that the applicant be white or Swedish.  Nice try.  Keep looking.

Umm, it's really not that hard to find any.  http://www.multiculturaladvantage.com/opportunity/scholarships/diversity/ehtnic-white-scholarships.asp

Let's see...I am not Polish, Jewish, Irish, Polish-American, Italian, Ukrainian, Irish-American, or German.  I believe that leaves me with nothing.  These scholarships are not open to all whites, as many, many black scholarships are.  Keep looking.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 24, 2007, 10:36:02 PM
Hypo:

12,000 applicants
11,000 white applicants
500 Black applicants
500 other minority applicants.

Say 100 Blacks are numerically qualified or otherwise qualified.

Also say race cannot play a role at all in the decision process

Would a race blind system allow those qualified blacks a chance to reasonably compete for the slots at the school or would the odds dictate that they would be shut out?

What is worse, allowing race to be one factor and perhaps allowing a few people with somewhat lower numerical qualifications that may be explained by good reasons or forcing an entire group to be over-qualified (near 75%) to be able to reasonably compete for a spot in schools?



Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:38:10 PM
Hypo:

12,000 applicants
11,000 white applicants
500 Black applicants
500 other minority applicants.

Say 100 Blacks are numerically qualified or otherwise qualified.

Also say race cannot play a role at all in the decision process

Would a race blind system allow those qualified blacks a chance to reasonably compete for the slots at the school or would the odds dictate that they would be shut out?

What is worse, allowing race to be one factor and perhaps allowing a few people with somewhat lower numerical qualifications that may be explained by good reasons or forcing an entire group to be over-qualified (near 75%) to be able to reasonably compete for a spot in schools?





Race should NOT matter.  Qualified is qualified.  Enough said.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:39:37 PM
Obviously none of the above.  ;D
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 24, 2007, 10:43:27 PM
Vad i helvete?  :)

And basically, I'm a mutt.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 24, 2007, 10:52:14 PM
http://www.americanswedishinst.org/scholarship.htm

HTFH.

Was this serious?  This scholarship is for people wishing to study in SWEDEN!  It does not specify that the applicant be white or Swedish.  Nice try.  Keep looking.

Umm, it's really not that hard to find any.  http://www.multiculturaladvantage.com/opportunity/scholarships/diversity/ehtnic-white-scholarships.asp

Let's see...I am not Polish, Jewish, Irish, Polish-American, Italian, Ukrainian, Irish-American, or German.  I believe that leaves me with nothing.  These scholarships are not open to all whites, as many, many black scholarships are.  Keep looking.

Listen, if you are white you can get these scholarships.  If you are black you cannot.  This back and forth is really going nowhere; you have your views and I have mine.  It's been nice talking to everyone and I'm sure I'll see you on other threads, but remember this; It is so easy to hate and criticize, but yet so hard to understand, tolerate, and love.  To understand, you need to look at the other side; this is common sense.  We are so quick to come to conclusions, but these conclusion involves only our views and what we think is right.  I implore you, instead of repeating your mantras of "This isn't fair"  "Blacks shouldn't have their own scholarships; what about equality?" look at things from a different point of view.  Anyway, much love!
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 24, 2007, 10:52:46 PM
Hypo:

12,000 applicants
11,000 white applicants
500 Black applicants
500 other minority applicants.

Say 100 Blacks are numerically qualified or otherwise qualified.

Also say race cannot play a role at all in the decision process

Would a race blind system allow those qualified blacks a chance to reasonably compete for the slots at the school or would the odds dictate that they would be shut out?

What is worse, allowing race to be one factor and perhaps allowing a few people with somewhat lower numerical qualifications that may be explained by good reasons or forcing an entire group to be over-qualified (near 75%) to be able to reasonably compete for a spot in schools?





Race should NOT matter.  Qualified is qualified.  Enough said.

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. End/thread.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: lawchick09 on April 24, 2007, 10:58:23 PM
Hypo:

12,000 applicants
11,000 white applicants
500 Black applicants
500 other minority applicants.

Say 100 Blacks are numerically qualified or otherwise qualified.

Also say race cannot play a role at all in the decision process

Would a race blind system allow those qualified blacks a chance to reasonably compete for the slots at the school or would the odds dictate that they would be shut out?

What is worse, allowing race to be one factor and perhaps allowing a few people with somewhat lower numerical qualifications that may be explained by good reasons or forcing an entire group to be over-qualified (near 75%) to be able to reasonably compete for a spot in schools?





Race should NOT matter.  Qualified is qualified.  Enough said.

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. End/thread.

TITCR. Dude refuses to open his mind to the ideas being thrown at him. He refuses to believe that things, pardon the pun, aren't so black and white. WE DON'T LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE QUALIFIED IS QUALIFIED- RACISM HAS DICTATED SUCH.

Erwin, your posts have been much appreciated.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 24, 2007, 11:14:32 PM
Hypo:

12,000 applicants
11,000 white applicants
500 Black applicants
500 other minority applicants.

Say 100 Blacks are numerically qualified or otherwise qualified.

Also say race cannot play a role at all in the decision process

Would a race blind system allow those qualified blacks a chance to reasonably compete for the slots at the school or would the odds dictate that they would be shut out?

What is worse, allowing race to be one factor and perhaps allowing a few people with somewhat lower numerical qualifications that may be explained by good reasons or forcing an entire group to be over-qualified (near 75%) to be able to reasonably compete for a spot in schools?





Race should NOT matter.  Qualified is qualified.  Enough said.

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. End/thread.

TITCR. Dude refuses to open his mind to the ideas being thrown at him. He refuses to believe that things, pardon the pun, aren't so black and white. WE DON'T LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE QUALIFIED IS QUALIFIED- RACISM HAS DICTATED SUCH.

Erwin, your posts have been much appreciated.

This is a really interesting thread.  But it's not quite as simple as it's being made out to be on here.  Maybe it's because its being typed.  I hope thats why.

But for all of the legitimacy that many posters in favor of AA have here, many are essentially calling the opposition blind or ignorant while ignoring their own short-sightedness.  And that is sad.

BTW, I disagree with this last post for a bunch of different reasons; namely, racism is not the only cause of global inequality. 

But it could it also be that this guy has grown up not thinking along racial lines, only to have it thrust upon him later in his life?  He appreciate where he comes from, and quite frankly, I think that so much of the black, hispanic, and other ethnic minority leaders bring it down upon ourselves by reminding generation after generation of kids that they are different, that they are and will be judged by the color of their skin, and to never forget that fact.  That leads to suspicion of people who think that AA is bad and causes them to be ridiculed for their ignorance or intolerence.  And that is just sickening.

Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on April 24, 2007, 11:16:57 PM
I'm just here for the egregiously bad quoting on pages 3, 4, and 5.  Carry on.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 24, 2007, 11:34:51 PM
Hypo:

12,000 applicants
11,000 white applicants
500 Black applicants
500 other minority applicants.

Say 100 Blacks are numerically qualified or otherwise qualified.

Also say race cannot play a role at all in the decision process

Would a race blind system allow those qualified blacks a chance to reasonably compete for the slots at the school or would the odds dictate that they would be shut out?

What is worse, allowing race to be one factor and perhaps allowing a few people with somewhat lower numerical qualifications that may be explained by good reasons or forcing an entire group to be over-qualified (near 75%) to be able to reasonably compete for a spot in schools?





Race should NOT matter.  Qualified is qualified.  Enough said.

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. End/thread.

TITCR. Dude refuses to open his mind to the ideas being thrown at him. He refuses to believe that things, pardon the pun, aren't so black and white. WE DON'T LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE QUALIFIED IS QUALIFIED- RACISM HAS DICTATED SUCH.

Erwin, your posts have been much appreciated.

This is a really interesting thread.  But it's not quite as simple as it's being made out to be on here.  Maybe it's because its being typed.  I hope thats why.

But for all of the legitimacy that many posters in favor of AA have here, many are essentially calling the opposition blind or ignorant while ignoring their own short-sightedness.  And that is sad.

BTW, I disagree with this last post for a bunch of different reasons; namely, racism is not the only cause of global inequality. 

But it could it also be that this guy has grown up not thinking along racial lines, only to have it thrust upon him later in his life?  He appreciate where he comes from, and quite frankly, I think that so much of the black, hispanic, and other ethnic minority leaders bring it down upon ourselves by reminding generation after generation of kids that they are different, that they are and will be judged by the color of their skin, and to never forget that fact.  That leads to suspicion of people who think that AA is bad and causes them to be ridiculed for their ignorance or intolerence.  And that is just sickening.



I proposed a simple hypo with conditions to see where the OP was grounded on racial issues. Safe to say he's delusional.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Will Hunting on April 25, 2007, 12:02:02 AM
Wow, just caught up with this thread since my original post on page one.  Apparently I am the only person who needed to catch up on schoolwork from a lazy weekend filled with Sopranos, Entourage, and NBA playoffs.  Anywho, there was a person saying "how far can a society come in 50 years?"  I think our society has unquestionable come leaps and bounds in the past 43 years since Brown v Board of Education and in the past 33 years since the ruling actually became integrated.  That said, we have a ways to go.  I think some people here are using extreme examples in attempt to prove their stubborn points.  Should a person be judged solely on their race?  No.  They should be judged on the quality of their character which is, in certain instances, spurred by the color of their skin.  Race does play a role in how some people are brought up.  However, on that same note, so do many, many other circumstances that are not captured on a checkbox located on the front page of most applications.  Personally, I am a poor white kid that used athletic skills to earn a scholarship and used my grades from college and a good GMAT score to get in to a Master's program, which I paid for from internship money.  I say this because there is no box that you can check on the first page of an application saying "Are you poor? [ ] Yes, [ ] No"...  If you want to speak about something that has played a role in your upbringing, you can do so in your PS or in a Diversity Statement.  We have all had the appropriate undergraduate time to show what we can do in a collegiate environment.  Our actual college coursework should speak be able to speak for itself. 

As potential legal students, we should look for potential problems that may arise when rulings are made.  For instance, if we allow race to be indicated on the application, what else should we include?  Should you be required to check your sexual orientation?  How do we know that applicants are not being discriminated or advantaged based on this?  Should you be required to check your socio-economic status as well?  If so, will economically disadvantaged white students begin taking URMs places in classes?  If not, will the progression and eventual (hopefully) leveling of status between the races produce instances where a wealthy, third-generation Ivy-Leaguer is admitted to a school with lower scores and less experience than a poor white student with a more solid application? 

I may not be successful in my attempts to stay on the outside and provide thoughtful comments, and if I have voiced some undermining or blinded opinion it was not my intention.  Where I grew up, I was not treated well because I was white and I was not safe walking home from school because my classmates were scared of a white kid.  I was treated well because I could ball and I was safe walking home from school because I was fast, strong, and a good athlete.  As an athlete, you tend to look past race since you're lining up with maybe 3 or 4 races on your side of the ball at any given time.  You see people for what they bring to the table.  I played with guys who busted their ass to earn our championships and one who died during conditioning because he was going so hard.  When you see someone laying on the field, you don't see a black or a white guy, you see a teammate and a fellow human being.  Perhaps sports don't teach every life lesson, but growing up where I grew up and playing on teams with all different races teaches you a lot about race relations and looking past color of skin to what your teammate brings to the table in talent.  Don't know if this helps, but I tried to blend a message in there.  The end.   
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 25, 2007, 05:15:04 AM
"There's nothing for the average white person."

perhaps your ancestors should have been more industrious during slavery, or your ancestors descendents should have been less prodigal.  Or maybe they should have accomplished more in whatever country they immigrated from.  At any rate, your lot as an average white person is not the result of 400 years of institutionalized keep-a-n-word-down type *&^%. 
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 25, 2007, 06:02:00 AM
"There's nothing for the average white person."

perhaps your ancestors should have been more industrious during slavery, or your ancestors descendents should have been less prodigal.  Or maybe they should have accomplished more in whatever country they immigrated from.  At any rate, your lot as an average white person is not the result of 400 years of institutionalized keep-a-n-word-down type sh*t. 

Madness, I'm trying to figure out if you're a racist white kid, a racist black kid, or just some jackass who likes to start sh*t.  Regardless it's pathetic argument that speaks volumes about its poster.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 25, 2007, 07:18:52 AM
I'm a racist black guy who is also a jack ass that likes to start sh*t.  As for my argument, do you think OP came here looking to logically discuss issues?

Who you choose to confront in this thread, and who you've let slide in this thread, and your comments towards both, speaks volumes about you as well.  No wondering with me.  I already have you figured out - since passing judgement is apparently what we are doing here.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 25, 2007, 07:55:39 AM
Wow, just caught up with this thread since my original post on page one.  Apparently I am the only person who needed to catch up on schoolwork from a lazy weekend filled with Sopranos, Entourage, and NBA playoffs.  Anywho, there was a person saying "how far can a society come in 50 years?"  I think our society has unquestionable come leaps and bounds in the past 43 years since Brown v Board of Education and in the past 33 years since the ruling actually became integrated.  That said, we have a ways to go.  I think some people here are using extreme examples in attempt to prove their stubborn points.  Should a person be judged solely on their race?  No.  They should be judged on the quality of their character which is, in certain instances, spurred by the color of their skin.  Race does play a role in how some people are brought up.  However, on that same note, so do many, many other circumstances that are not captured on a checkbox located on the front page of most applications.  Personally, I am a poor white kid that used athletic skills to earn a scholarship and used my grades from college and a good GMAT score to get in to a Master's program, which I paid for from internship money.  I say this because there is no box that you can check on the first page of an application saying "Are you poor? [ ] Yes, [ ] No"...  If you want to speak about something that has played a role in your upbringing, you can do so in your PS or in a Diversity Statement.  We have all had the appropriate undergraduate time to show what we can do in a collegiate environment.  Our actual college coursework should speak be able to speak for itself. 

As potential legal students, we should look for potential problems that may arise when rulings are made.  For instance, if we allow race to be indicated on the application, what else should we include?  Should you be required to check your sexual orientation?  How do we know that applicants are not being discriminated or advantaged based on this?  Should you be required to check your socio-economic status as well?  If so, will economically disadvantaged white students begin taking URMs places in classes?  If not, will the progression and eventual (hopefully) leveling of status between the races produce instances where a wealthy, third-generation Ivy-Leaguer is admitted to a school with lower scores and less experience than a poor white student with a more solid application? 

I may not be successful in my attempts to stay on the outside and provide thoughtful comments, and if I have voiced some undermining or blinded opinion it was not my intention.  Where I grew up, I was not treated well because I was white and I was not safe walking home from school because my classmates were scared of a white kid.  I was treated well because I could ball and I was safe walking home from school because I was fast, strong, and a good athlete.  As an athlete, you tend to look past race since you're lining up with maybe 3 or 4 races on your side of the ball at any given time.  You see people for what they bring to the table.  I played with guys who busted their ass to earn our championships and one who died during conditioning because he was going so hard.  When you see someone laying on the field, you don't see a black or a white guy, you see a teammate and a fellow human being.  Perhaps sports don't teach every life lesson, but growing up where I grew up and playing on teams with all different races teaches you a lot about race relations and looking past color of skin to what your teammate brings to the table in talent.  Don't know if this helps, but I tried to blend a message in there.  The end.   

Well said, Will Hunting.  I think you've captured my point, particulary with the checkboxes on law school applications.  There are many other ways people can be disadvantaged besides race, but these people do not get a checkbox.  To even the playing field, these checkboxes should be eliminated and the applicant should discuss these setbacks in his or her personal statement.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 25, 2007, 08:01:26 AM
Wow, just caught up with this thread since my original post on page one.  Apparently I am the only person who needed to catch up on schoolwork from a lazy weekend filled with Sopranos, Entourage, and NBA playoffs.  Anywho, there was a person saying "how far can a society come in 50 years?"  I think our society has unquestionable come leaps and bounds in the past 43 years since Brown v Board of Education and in the past 33 years since the ruling actually became integrated.  That said, we have a ways to go.  I think some people here are using extreme examples in attempt to prove their stubborn points.  Should a person be judged solely on their race?  No.  They should be judged on the quality of their character which is, in certain instances, spurred by the color of their skin.  Race does play a role in how some people are brought up.  However, on that same note, so do many, many other circumstances that are not captured on a checkbox located on the front page of most applications.  Personally, I am a poor white kid that used athletic skills to earn a scholarship and used my grades from college and a good GMAT score to get in to a Master's program, which I paid for from internship money.  I say this because there is no box that you can check on the first page of an application saying "Are you poor? [ ] Yes, [ ] No"...  If you want to speak about something that has played a role in your upbringing, you can do so in your PS or in a Diversity Statement.  We have all had the appropriate undergraduate time to show what we can do in a collegiate environment.  Our actual college coursework should speak be able to speak for itself. 

As potential legal students, we should look for potential problems that may arise when rulings are made.  For instance, if we allow race to be indicated on the application, what else should we include?  Should you be required to check your sexual orientation?  How do we know that applicants are not being discriminated or advantaged based on this?  Should you be required to check your socio-economic status as well?  If so, will economically disadvantaged white students begin taking URMs places in classes?  If not, will the progression and eventual (hopefully) leveling of status between the races produce instances where a wealthy, third-generation Ivy-Leaguer is admitted to a school with lower scores and less experience than a poor white student with a more solid application? 

I may not be successful in my attempts to stay on the outside and provide thoughtful comments, and if I have voiced some undermining or blinded opinion it was not my intention.  Where I grew up, I was not treated well because I was white and I was not safe walking home from school because my classmates were scared of a white kid.  I was treated well because I could ball and I was safe walking home from school because I was fast, strong, and a good athlete.  As an athlete, you tend to look past race since you're lining up with maybe 3 or 4 races on your side of the ball at any given time.  You see people for what they bring to the table.  I played with guys who busted their ass to earn our championships and one who died during conditioning because he was going so hard.  When you see someone laying on the field, you don't see a black or a white guy, you see a teammate and a fellow human being.  Perhaps sports don't teach every life lesson, but growing up where I grew up and playing on teams with all different races teaches you a lot about race relations and looking past color of skin to what your teammate brings to the table in talent.  Don't know if this helps, but I tried to blend a message in there.  The end.   

Well said, Will Hunting.  I think you've captured my point, particulary with the checkboxes on law school applications.  There are many other ways people can be disadvantaged besides race, but these people do not get a checkbox.  To even the playing field, these checkboxes should be eliminated and the applicant should discuss these setbacks in his or her personal statement.

Agreed. I agree with getting rid of the checkboxes. Its a dumb idea (aside from institutional reporting). Still, I'm not sure eliminating the boxes in favor of PS will change the system. I'm not sure pre-1Ls understand (and many law students) how affirmative action works.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 25, 2007, 08:02:34 AM
mentioning race in PS seems like 6 in one hand half dozen in another to me.  Only now to be considered for something which has obviously affected you you will have to waste your ps and diversity statement on doing so.  

and its not just about college coursework, if it was I could agree with doing away with race having anything at all to do with admissions.  
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 25, 2007, 08:33:16 AM
But Madness, don't you agree that minorities are not the only ones who have experience setbacks in their lives?  What about LGBT people?  What about women?  Athiests?  The poor?  The disabled?  None of these people get a checkbox and are only left with the option of discussing it in a PS.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Julie Fern on April 25, 2007, 08:47:03 AM
hey, julie understand brady bunch reruns being shown here.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Special Agent Dana Scully on April 25, 2007, 09:05:01 AM
But Madness, don't you agree that minorities are not the only ones who have experience setbacks in their lives?  What about LGBT people?  What about women?  Athiests?  The poor?  The disabled?  None of these people get a checkbox and are only left with the option of discussing it in a PS.

LGBT ppl get a box.

In addition, LGBT ppl have their own thread, Non trads have their own board, as do minorites, and Canadians...yet I don't see you bitching about that  ::)
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Julie Fern on April 25, 2007, 09:06:30 AM
wait:  canadians?
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 25, 2007, 09:06:44 AM
Agreed. I agree with getting rid of the checkboxes. Its a dumb idea (aside from institutional reporting). Still, I'm not sure eliminating the boxes in favor of PS will change the system. I'm not sure pre-1Ls understand (and many law students) how affirmative action works.

There was some suggestion a few weeks back that PS's might actually work against racial minorities, the non-affluent in general (good thing for me I'm affluent) because readers would subconsciously look for people whose writing indicated the right "pedigree."

But as a general rule, I do think that schools (etc.) should adopt an expansive view of what constitutes diversity.  What I think is most important is whether a person is able to present alternative viewpoints because they have had a different set of experiences than the majority of people.  Racial diversity is probably a good proxy for diversity of experience, since members of racial minorities probably have a different set of experiences than members of the racial majority. 

Though I could be mistaken.  Perhaps every black (hispanic, asian, native american, I'm forgetting a few) person on this board will respond to this post by saying that their experience has been identical to mine (andover, oxford, etc.).
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 25, 2007, 09:52:58 AM
But Madness, don't you agree that minorities are not the only ones who have experience setbacks in their lives?  What about LGBT people?  What about women?  Athiests?  The poor?  The disabled?  None of these people get a checkbox and are only left with the option of discussing it in a PS.

LBGT's get a box.
Women have their name, and a box if I'm not mistaken
Atheists who cares
Poor you have your zipcode, the high school you attended, and most submit their parents income in supplementary data.  I dont know to what extent that stuff is used in decision-making, but thats a different issue.
Disabled should have a box
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 25, 2007, 10:03:47 AM
Wow. One day and all this. Do any of you "race blind" people realized that:

(1) the NAACP was co-founded by white folk, whom have never been excluded from membership.
(2) White Entertainment Television (W.E.T. - HAHA! ;D) is every other station on television. [Where is the outcry against Telemundo?]
(3) There have been no "Black" organizations that exclude white people. (Even the Black Panther Party had the White Panther Party.)
(4) That B.E.T. (post-Tavis Smiley/Teen Summit) is not a black enterntainment network. It is a "what white people think black people are" entertainment network. Additionally, if there were a network that seriously catered to the distinct culture of Black People, why would anyone have a problem? I imagine that you aren't up in arms over Telemundo because of the language barrier.
(5)
[img width= height=]http://www.unc.edu/~jreich/Puppy.jpg[/img]
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Julie Fern on April 25, 2007, 10:41:20 AM
julie still not over friggin' canadians.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 25, 2007, 11:11:28 AM
But Madness, don't you agree that minorities are not the only ones who have experience setbacks in their lives?  What about LGBT people?  What about women?  Athiests?  The poor?  The disabled?  None of these people get a checkbox and are only left with the option of discussing it in a PS.

LGBT ppl get a box.

In addition, LGBT ppl have their own thread, Non trads have their own board, as do minorites, and Canadians...yet I don't see you bitching about that  ::)

Hmmm...I applied to 35 law schools and never once saw an LGBT checkbox.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 25, 2007, 11:30:59 AM
18 acceptances + 7 waitlists and deferrals.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 25, 2007, 11:45:02 AM
I'm a racist black guy who is also a jack ass that likes to start sh*t.  As for my argument, do you think OP came here looking to logically discuss issues?

Who you choose to confront in this thread, and who you've let slide in this thread, and your comments towards both, speaks volumes about you as well.  No wondering with me.  I already have you figured out - since passing judgement is apparently what we are doing here.

Take care of some trash first.  Glad to see that you can confess to the b*tch you are; and I went after you because you act like one.  I guess the next step for you is to stop acting like one.  Like a 12 step program.  Or you can go chill over at xoxo.  But please, don't hesitate in explaining what your F'd up mind has "figured out" about me.

As for the original OP of this thread, he/she already had it handed to him, and rightfully so.

And as for those damn boxes that force people into labels... ;D
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 25, 2007, 11:54:37 AM
Wow. One day and all this. Do any of you "race blind" people realized that:

(1) the NAACP was co-founded by white folk, whom have never been excluded from membership.
(2) White Entertainment Television (W.E.T. - HAHA! ;D) is every other station on television. [Where is the outcry against Telemundo?]
(3) There have been no "Black" organizations that exclude white people. (Even the Black Panther Party had the White Panther Party.)
(4) That B.E.T. (post-Tavis Smiley/Teen Summit) is not a black enterntainment network. It is a "what white people think black people are" entertainment network. Additionally, if there were a network that seriously catered to the distinct culture of Black People, why would anyone have a problem? I imagine that you aren't up in arms over Telemundo because of the language barrier.
(5)
[img width= height=]http://www.unc.edu/~jreich/Puppy.jpg[/img]


I'll charge for their side here.

1) Yes.  The NAACP was founded on solid principals that bound together ppl of any race to help advance the fight for justice for the black community.
2) No...This argument always suprises me.  I just don't buy that because whites are a majority that they automatically pander solely to whites like BET, UPN, or Telemundo caters to those demographic groups.  But then this assumes that there is a singular white culture, which in itself is flawed.
3) That's wrong.  The Nation of Islam did for decades.  They don't anymore.  But Blacks haven't been pickey about who they'll let support them.  They're smart  ;D.
4)How do you figure?  It was founded by a black man for black people.  And really, besides music, comedy, and t.v. shows, what else do you think would be appropriate for entertainment?
5) I love puppies.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 25, 2007, 12:03:22 PM
An interesting segment from the ultra-liberal University of Illinois campus newspaper on discussing how the vast majority of University scholarships go to minorities:

"According to the University's 2006 Performance report, in 2004 the graduation rate for black students who obtained their degree in six years or less was 57.9 percent, meaning almost half of the black freshmen who entered the University did not leave with a degree. For the entire campus, graduation rate was 80.7 percent."
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Julie Fern on April 25, 2007, 12:18:26 PM
said like true canadian.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Louis55 on April 25, 2007, 12:28:54 PM
An interesting segment from the ultra-liberal University of Illinois campus newspaper on discussing how the vast majority of University scholarships go to minorities:

"According to the University's 2006 Performance report, in 2004 the graduation rate for black students who obtained their degree in six years or less was 57.9 percent, meaning almost half of the black freshmen who entered the University did not leave with a degree. For the entire campus, graduation rate was 80.7 percent."

Why is this posted on the white law student discussion board? Between me and you i think this should go on the black law student discussion board.

"
But then this assumes that there is a singular white culture, which in itself is flawed.


Instead, I think we should discuss the quotation above.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 25, 2007, 01:46:09 PM
I'll charge for their side here.

1) Yes.  The NAACP was founded on solid principals that bound together ppl of any race to help advance the fight for justice for the black community.

WRONG! The orginal mission of the NAACP was:

"To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law." (http://www.naacphouston.org/history.htm)

Colored people meaning all minority groups including Jews.

2) No...This argument always suprises me.  I just don't buy that because whites are a majority that they automatically pander solely to whites like BET, UPN, or Telemundo caters to those demographic groups. 


Until the 1980's and 1990's, American television had only allowed black minority actors to sustain stereotypical roles. Anything outside of that mainstream, was critisized as unrealistic. Additionally, it wasn't until 1997 that Nielsen, to which major networks base their programming, decided to accurately sample African-American TV viewing. (http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/1997/aa-cover.html) Even Fox got it wrong initally when it cancelled "Living Single," which was HUGE in the black community. It took black folk writing letters to get it back on the air.

But then this assumes that there is a singular white culture, which in itself is flawed.

Actually, it assumes the opposite. Since White America makes up the majority, it is reasonable to believe that the media would reflect its diversity. On the otherhand, minorities are marginalized by supposed stereotypes held by society.

3) That's wrong.  The Nation of Islam did for decades.  They don't anymore.  But Blacks haven't been pickey about who they'll let support them.  They're smart  ;D.


Ok, one. lol.  Yeah, Elijah Muhammad really did hate you guys. ;D

4)How do you figure?  It was founded by a black man for black people.  And really, besides music, comedy, and t.v. shows, what else do you think would be appropriate for entertainment?

Initially, BET wasn't exclusively an "entertainment channel." There was substantive programming. Then came big bad Viacom. Tavis Smiley was fired. Teen Summit cancelled. News disappeared. (And I could be wrong about the date) Then came BET uncut.

In fact, according to BET, "Black Entertainment Television (BET), a subsidiary of Viacom, is the nation's leading 24-hour television network providing quality entertainment, news and public affairs programming for the African-American audience."

5) I love puppies.

yeah.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: OCLawGirl on April 25, 2007, 05:18:28 PM
I'm AFRICAN.  A Nigerian to be exact. 

Whenever I see posts like these, I wonder what the TRUE motive is. And if you say you are just trying to communicate or understand or make a point, you are wasting your time.  You are not saying anything that hasn't been said before.  URM, AA, BET exists and the bottom line is that IT IS NOT CAUSING ANY PHYISCAL HARM or ILLEGAL.  A law may pass tomorrow forbidding schools to encourage diversity - I don't know.  But for now, stop trying to understand or make points cause it won't make a difference.  So for now - IT IS WHAT IT IS.  At the end of the day, any human being (even you) will take an offer that will help you advance (as long as it is legal).

Therefore, we must AGREE TO DISAGREE.  And if these rules are making you loose sleep, then take it to the people that can make the change - your governor, your senator, your congress man - heck write to all law schools and protest.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Tony Montana on April 25, 2007, 05:29:44 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/DoNotFeedTroll.svg/150px-DoNotFeedTroll.svg.png)

Do Not Feed Trolls
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 25, 2007, 08:22:13 PM
I'll charge for their side here.

1) Yes.  The NAACP was founded on solid principals that bound together ppl of any race to help advance the fight for justice for the black community.

WRONG! The orginal mission of the NAACP was:

"To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law." (http://www.naacphouston.org/history.htm)

Colored people meaning all minority groups including Jews.

2) No...This argument always suprises me.  I just don't buy that because whites are a majority that they automatically pander solely to whites like BET, UPN, or Telemundo caters to those demographic groups. 


Until the 1980's and 1990's, American television had only allowed black minority actors to sustain stereotypical roles. Anything outside of that mainstream, was critisized as unrealistic. Additionally, it wasn't until 1997 that Nielsen, to which major networks base their programming, decided to accurately sample African-American TV viewing. (http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/1997/aa-cover.html) Even Fox got it wrong initally when it cancelled "Living Single," which was HUGE in the black community. It took black folk writing letters to get it back on the air.

But then this assumes that there is a singular white culture, which in itself is flawed.

Actually, it assumes the opposite. Since White America makes up the majority, it is reasonable to believe that the media would reflect its diversity. On the otherhand, minorities are marginalized by supposed stereotypes held by society.

3) That's wrong.  The Nation of Islam did for decades.  They don't anymore.  But Blacks haven't been pickey about who they'll let support them.  They're smart  ;D.


Ok, one. lol.  Yeah, Elijah Muhammad really did hate you guys. ;D

4)How do you figure?  It was founded by a black man for black people.  And really, besides music, comedy, and t.v. shows, what else do you think would be appropriate for entertainment?

Initially, BET wasn't exclusively an "entertainment channel." There was substantive programming. Then came big bad Viacom. Tavis Smiley was fired. Teen Summit cancelled. News disappeared. (And I could be wrong about the date) Then came BET uncut.

In fact, according to BET, "Black Entertainment Television (BET), a subsidiary of Viacom, is the nation's leading 24-hour television network providing quality entertainment, news and public affairs programming for the African-American audience."

5) I love puppies.

yeah.


OCLaw, you're right, this is the way it is.  But this forum is very interesting.  So back to seventhson...

1) You're right about the intent of organization, but that doesn't really hold up. Like any other organization, it is subject to the whims of its members.  And it's members have, over time, promoted the interest of the black community almost exclusively.  Other efforts have been overshadowed by these actions.  So while its mission statement may say one thing, its actions show the pursuit of a singular aim.

2) Not too sure how this counters my point.  Please explain a little further.

4) ??? I've watched news on BET. I don't remember it being headline news or anything, but it is there.  Though to say that news is entertainment can be a stretch (I hope!).

Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on April 25, 2007, 09:02:13 PM
Surprise, surprise, this has turned into another hackneyed AA thread about those damned checkboxes.

Sands, it's time to move it to the AA board.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Julie Fern on April 26, 2007, 06:34:51 AM
julie confident you mean say canadian board.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 26, 2007, 08:42:33 AM
OCLaw, you're right, this is the way it is.  But this forum is very interesting.  So back to seventhson...

1) You're right about the intent of organization, but that doesn't really hold up. Like any other organization, it is subject to the whims of its members.  And it's members have, over time, promoted the interest of the black community almost exclusively.  Other efforts have been overshadowed by these actions.  So while its mission statement may say one thing, its actions show the pursuit of a singular aim.

2) Not too sure how this counters my point.  Please explain a little further.

4) ??? I've watched news on BET. I don't remember it being headline news or anything, but it is there.  Though to say that news is entertainment can be a stretch (I hope!).

Sorry everyone, I just had to reply one last time...

1) The issues of poverty, racism, and diversity in jobs and education are not soley "black" issues. Those issues do disproportionately affect black people, but a fight against injustice aimed at black people has equal effects toward the fight against injustice aimed at all groups of people.

2) My point is that American media does specifically cater to the needs of the white community, while other ethnic groups are either marginalized or excluded. If all American media did was cater to the needs of the white community, I'd have no problem. I love Friends. My problem lies with: (1) Being monolithically portayed and (2) People getting upset when black people watch television that accurately reflects our culuture. (Side Note: BET doesn't count)

4) BET is just now re-introducing news into its programming, so you must be talking about 1993. News at BET didn't exist during Hurricane Katrina.

Black people are more than a color. We are a culture. We have traditions, experiences, and history that distinguish us from other groups of Americans. With all that said, I think to continue this discussion on the premise that black people shouldn't represent their own interests is fruitless. It is culturally insensitive, but also, no one is taking anything from the conversation.

Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 26, 2007, 10:45:28 AM

Sorry everyone, I just had to reply one last time...

1) The issues of poverty, racism, and diversity in jobs and education are not soley "black" issues. Those issues do disproportionately affect black people, but a fight against injustice aimed at black people has equal effects toward the fight against injustice aimed at all groups of people.

2) My point is that American media does specifically cater to the needs of the white community, while other ethnic groups are either marginalized or excluded. If all American media did was cater to the needs of the white community, I'd have no problem. I love Friends. My problem lies with: (1) Being monolithically portayed and (2) People getting upset when black people watch television that accurately reflects our culuture. (Side Note: BET doesn't count)

4) BET is just now re-introducing news into its programming, so you must be talking about 1993. News at BET didn't exist during Hurricane Katrina.

Black people are more than a color. We are a culture. We have traditions, experiences, and history that distinguish us from other groups of Americans. With all that said, I think to continue this discussion on the premise that black people shouldn't represent their own interests is fruitless. It is culturally insensitive, but also, no one is taking anything from the conversation.

1) It's true that it helps others (though not equally as you contend), but that doesnt take away from the fact that it is aimed toward serving the black community.  The NAACP is, at the very least in practicality, an organization that serves black interests.

2) Still not sure that I understand this, but general American media does not cater solely to the "white" community.  If it did, why would minority newsmen/women, actors/actresses, etc. exist?  People are naturally most comfortable around people that are similar to they are. So why have these "other" people on t.v.?  Because the American media is not only focused on the white community, but on American consumers as a whole.

4) No, I was talking about within the past year.  I don't know if it was around for Katrina, but I do know it has been around for at least a few months.

A black culture does indeed exist in America.  In fact, it has many sub-cultures under it's heading.  And I haven't once tried to contend that blacks shouldn't represent their own interests.  They do, and rightfully so. 

But what I am supporting is the general idea that whites should be allowed their own venue to pursue and support their interests.  They are not, and any mention of doing so is usually met with heavy suspicion.  And, when you have jackasses like the OP who propose this idea the way he/she does it brings even more negative light to this subject.

But when I saw your original post I took issue with the assumption that people who support my idea are ignorant of black issues, culture, and history.  I am aware and have a great deal of respect for them.  I just want the same rights for the rest of people too.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Tony Montana on April 26, 2007, 11:21:05 AM


2) Still not sure that I understand this, but general American media does not cater solely to the "white" community.  If it did, why would minority newsmen/women, actors/actresses, etc. exist?  People are naturally most comfortable around people that are similar to they are. So why have these "other" people on t.v.?  Because the American media is not only focused on the white community, but on American consumers as a whole.


Seventhson did not state "solely" in his response.  Try re-reading the response.  Really, it only takes basic reading comprehension to get his point; which is that American media specifically cater to the white community, and that the few other ethnic groups represented usually have marginalized roles in that venue.


But what I am supporting is the general idea that whites should be allowed their own venue to pursue and support their interests.  They are not,

Whites have many venues to pursue and support their interests; this includes anywhere on LSD--including BLSD. If anything, a "White Law Student Discussion Board" is redundant.  What will whites discuss On WLSD that they don't/can't discuss elsewhere on the LSD board?



Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 26, 2007, 12:17:06 PM


2) Still not sure that I understand this, but general American media does not cater solely to the "white" community.  If it did, why would minority newsmen/women, actors/actresses, etc. exist?  People are naturally most comfortable around people that are similar to they are. So why have these "other" people on t.v.?  Because the American media is not only focused on the white community, but on American consumers as a whole.


Seventhson did not state "solely" in his response.  Try re-reading the response.  Really, it only takes basic reading comprehension to get his point; which is that American media specifically cater to the white community, and that the few other ethnic groups represented usually have marginalized roles in that venue.


But what I am supporting is the general idea that whites should be allowed their own venue to pursue and support their interests.  They are not,

Whites have many venues to pursue and support their interests; this includes anywhere on LSD--including BLSD. If anything, a "White Law Student Discussion Board" is redundant.  What will whites discuss On WLSD that they don't/can't discuss elsewhere on the LSD board?

:) Nice jabs.  Ok as*hole, let's do some discourse analysis.

"2) My point is that American media does specifically cater to the needs of the white community, while other ethnic groups are either marginalized or excluded."  Specifically does not equal solely; but it's pretty damn close.  It means "restricted to a particular individual, situation, relation, or effect", and when used, it usually means solely.

"If all American media did was cater to the needs of the white community, I'd have no problem. I love Friends."
This is the portion I have a hard time understanding because it appears contrdictory, though I'm pretty sure it's not meant that way.

"My problem lies with: (1) Being monolithically portayed and (2) People getting upset when black people watch television that accurately reflects our culuture. (Side Note: BET doesn't count)" It's unclear whether 1) is reffering to blacks or whites (the previous sentence was reffering to whites but 2) is reffering to blacks).  If it's blacks, this used to be true, but it's not anymore.  If it's refering to whites this is partially true if you look at whites portrayed in many "black" movies (take a look at a Spike Lee film).  As for 2), who is upset?

I hope my breaking it down for you helps, since you clearly missed the boat the first time.  Why don't you try to re-read it?

As for your second point, you seem to miss the fact that whites don't operate as a largely cohesive community the way that blacks do.  You are assigning the properties of the whole to individuals, a basic logical flaw that, quite frankly, shouldn't be made by someone entering/attending law school.  And your contention that whites have nothing to discuss there that they can't elsewhere doesn't even deserve a response.  (Except to fill you in that they might want to discuss people are simple minded enough to make those kinds of statements)


Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: pikey on April 26, 2007, 12:19:51 PM
As for your second point, you seem to miss the fact that whites don't operate as a largely cohesive community the way that blacks do. 

SMH
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Tony Montana on April 26, 2007, 12:24:09 PM
As for your second point, you seem to miss the fact that whites don't operate as a largely cohesive community the way that blacks do. 

SMH

Yeah, this guy is a real d@uche.   It seems like after he got rejected from the "SEO Corporate Law Internship," he's on some type of rampage.  I'm not going to waste my time on this ignoramus.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Special Agent Dana Scully on April 26, 2007, 12:26:02 PM
As for your second point, you seem to miss the fact that whites don't operate as a largely cohesive community the way that blacks do. 

SMH

Yea I smh'd at that comment too...tsk
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 26, 2007, 12:26:42 PM
As for your second point, you seem to miss the fact that whites don't operate as a largely cohesive community the way that blacks doYou are assigning the properties of the whole to individuals, a basic logical flaw that, quite frankly, shouldn't be made by someone entering/attending law school.

I was going to stay away from this thread, but....do you not see your contradiction? You are criticizing The Bad Guy for "assigning the properties of the whole to individuals,"  while you yourself state that blacks "operate as a largely cohesive community?"

Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 26, 2007, 12:29:14 PM
And hence, closed minded idiots continue to refuse to work out issues of inequality.  Im sure your forefathers would be proud.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 26, 2007, 12:32:38 PM
As for your second point, you seem to miss the fact that whites don't operate as a largely cohesive community the way that blacks doYou are assigning the properties of the whole to individuals, a basic logical flaw that, quite frankly, shouldn't be made by someone entering/attending law school.

I was going to stay away from this thread, but....do you not see your contradiction? You are criticizing The Bad Guy for "assigning the properties of the whole to individuals,"  while you yourself state that blacks "operate as a largely cohesive community?"



I can see how I should have explained this better, but it's apples and oranges.  The black community has a history, both distant and recent, of operating together.  Of course there are always people who have been outliers, but various groups claim to speak for the African-American community (whether justly or not is another matter)

Whites on the other hand don't really have this.  The KKK have tried at various points, but have been largely ridiculed by the majority of whites (at least in recent times.)
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Tony Montana on April 26, 2007, 12:34:31 PM
As for your second point, you seem to miss the fact that whites don't operate as a largely cohesive community the way that blacks doYou are assigning the properties of the whole to individuals, a basic logical flaw that, quite frankly, shouldn't be made by someone entering/attending law school.

I was going to stay away from this thread, but....do you not see your contradiction? You are criticizing The Bad Guy for "assigning the properties of the whole to individuals,"  while you yourself state that blacks "operate as a largely cohesive community?"



I can see how I should have explained this better, but it's apples and oranges.  The black community has a history, both distant and recent, of operating together.  Of course there are always people who have been outliers, but various groups claim to speak for the African-American community (whether justly or not is another matter)

Whites on the other hand don't really have this.  The KKK have tried at various points, but have been largely ridiculed by the majority of whites (at least in recent times.)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/DoNotFeedTroll.svg/150px-DoNotFeedTroll.svg.png)
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 26, 2007, 12:40:32 PM
Yeah bro, good response.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 26, 2007, 12:59:21 PM
"2) My point is that American media does specifically cater to the needs of the white community, while other ethnic groups are either marginalized or excluded."  Specifically does not equal solely; but it's pretty damn close.  It means "restricted to a particular individual, situation, relation, or effect", and when used, it usually means solely.

"Specifically" and "Soley" are two different terms. "Specifically" implies distinction from a larger source. "Soley" is rooted from solitary, to which is finite in exclusivity. Hence, a media company could "specifically" cater programming to whites and resdiually tailor programming to other minority groups. However, if a media company soley tailored programming to whites, all other groups would be excluded.

"My problem lies with: (1) Being monolithically portayed and (2) People getting upset when black people watch television that accurately reflects our culuture. (Side Note: BET doesn't count)" It's unclear whether 1) is reffering to blacks or whites (the previous sentence was reffering to whites but 2) is reffering to blacks).  If it's blacks, this used to be true, but it's not anymore.  If it's refering to whites this is partially true if you look at whites portrayed in many "black" movies (take a look at a Spike Lee film).  As for 2), who is upset?

If it wasn't obviously clear, (1) was directed towards Black people as could be infered earlier through my dicussion about marginlization. And I assure you, it is still a reality (See articles: http://www.targetmarketnews.com/storyid08010601.htm (2001) or http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2004/05/21/news/news08.txt (2004))

If you feel the need to create a White centrist group then go ahead, but like it was said earlier, it would redundant. It would be just as redundant to create a Heterosexual centrist group because society at-large tailors to the needs of heterosexuals.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 26, 2007, 01:00:12 PM
And hence, closed minded idiots continue to refuse to work out issues of inequality.  Im sure your forefathers would be proud.

So now we're idiots?
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 26, 2007, 01:09:49 PM
I can see how I should have explained this better, but it's apples and oranges.  The black community has a history, both distant and recent, of operating together.  Of course there are always people who have been outliers, but various groups claim to speak for the African-American community (whether justly or not is another matter)

Whites on the other hand don't really have this.  The KKK have tried at various points, but have been largely ridiculed by the majority of whites (at least in recent times.)

Americans are usually perceived as a unitaral force throughtout the world. We are universal with regards to the fight on terrorism. (Even though we may disagree on the means to acheive success) But you wouldn't dare make the assertion that we historically operate together. Americans act unitarily against threats that face us as Americans.
Similarly, black people may operate together on issues like racism, but we are as diverse in thought as any other group of people. And the only reason that black people are PERCEIVED to be monolithic is because we are BLACK people. Most Iranians aren't crazy like Amhadmendinajad (?!?), all poor Mexicans aren't illegal aliens, and, if it makes people feel better, all white people aren't racist or racially insensitive.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 26, 2007, 01:20:54 PM
I think IF is upset that black people come together on issues and white people don't.  I think he does not see the status quo as coming together on issues.  I think he would like to see a group come together for the purpose of maintaining the status quo, and even furthering it.  Too bad he doesn't realize all he has to do to be apart of this group is be white and particpate in things like formal education and the political process.  I think IF is a fringe white that would like whites to be more radical.  He is not satisfied with the status quo, apparently white people do not have enough power.   
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Tony Montana on April 26, 2007, 01:31:40 PM
IF is Hispanic--he stated in another thread that he is half-white--that recently was rejected from the SEO Corporate Law Internship, and, is "pretty frustrated" as a result.

So, what better way to vent than complaining about blacks--the quintessential scapegoat of the good old USA.


   
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 26, 2007, 01:42:27 PM
he may be hispanic technically, but I'd bet the house he looks white and has enjoyed white privelidge.  if hes hispanic, he should be picketing the hispanic interest groups.  Thats something he could probably do more about
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Tony Montana on April 26, 2007, 01:49:25 PM
he may be hispanic technically, but I'd bet the house he looks white and has enjoyed white privelidge.

Based on his posts and point of view, I would say that you are correct.  Plus, in another thread, he described himself as Italian/Spanish looking to MCB.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: IF on April 26, 2007, 02:01:42 PM
 :(  This has been a really eye-opening process, and one that should bother a lot of people.  As blacks I would expect (but am usually disapointed) to be sensitive to having equality for all races, including the right to organize politically based upon race.  

For what it matters, I am a hispanic with dark features.  One of my parents is a first generation American and the other is not even American.  I've dated a black girl for 3 years and was just the bestman in one of my closest friends wedding who is also black.  But honestly, none of this should matter.

What should matter is trying to pursue equality.  This is something that most of you appear to be uninterested in pursuing beyond your own racial group.  As the true forerunners for this fight in American society this is sad.
And hence, closed minded idiots continue to refuse to work out issues of inequality.  Im sure your forefathers would be proud.


As for this,

So now we're idiots?
it was directed at idiots like Madness and The Bad Guy.  You were making valid points and I enjoyed learning from you.

But most of the rest of these nuts are attacking me instead of my points (making blacks a scapegoat for not getting an internship?  Are you kidding me?)  or making sheerly stupid assumptions (looking at Madness here) that are just wrong on so many different levels.

So with this, I'll bow out, leave the idiots on this thread to their best in law school (scary for the legal future) and wish those of you who actually contributed the very best in school.

And FYI, when white are treated with this sort of attitude they will come away with a less open mind then what many of you have.  If your goal is to keep the status quo, as a few of you charged me with doing, it's working.  But when you question why there is so much prejudice in the world, look back at yourselves and what you might be doing (GASP, YES IT CAN BE YOUR FAULT TOO) to further this negative force.

Peace
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: blk_reign on April 26, 2007, 02:30:05 PM
it doesn't..so what was the point in mentioning it? :D


 I've dated a black girl for 3 years and was just the bestman in one of my closest friends wedding who is also black.  But honestly, none of this should matter.

Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 26, 2007, 02:59:12 PM
"Peace"

good riddance.  sheesh..

@reign.  of course it matters.  he is showing he is down with black people.  this qualifies him to call for the cessation of black interest groups, unless white people are aloud to have groups to protect their own interest - without complaint from non whites.  Forget black people don't even have aforementioned groups without complaint from non-blacks (some blacks for that matter). 

Anyhow, I never dated a hispanic "girl" but I already admitted to being racist...   
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 26, 2007, 03:31:33 PM
As blacks I would expect (but am usually disapointed) to be sensitive to having equality for all races, including the right to organize politically based upon race.  

I don't believe anyone has said there is anything wrong with whites wanting to organize white race groups. The point is it would be redundant. Since white people are the majority in this country and, by large, control most of its wealth, the interests of  White Americans are already being served. If you were in Japan then I could get with you.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Tony Montana on April 26, 2007, 04:31:55 PM
:(  This has been a really eye-opening process, and one that should bother a lot of people.  As blacks I would expect (but am usually disapointed) to be sensitive to having equality for all races, including the right to organize politically based upon race.  

For what it matters, I am a hispanic with dark features.  One of my parents is a first generation American and the other is not even American.  I've dated a black girl for 3 years and was just the bestman in one of my closest friends wedding who is also black.  But honestly, none of this should matter.

What should matter is trying to pursue equality.  This is something that most of you appear to be uninterested in pursuing beyond your own racial group.  As the true forerunners for this fight in American society this is sad.
And hence, closed minded idiots continue to refuse to work out issues of inequality.  Im sure your forefathers would be proud.


As for this,

So now we're idiots?
it was directed at idiots like Madness and The Bad Guy.  You were making valid points and I enjoyed learning from you.

But most of the rest of these nuts are attacking me instead of my points (making blacks a scapegoat for not getting an internship?  Are you kidding me?)  or making sheerly stupid assumptions (looking at Madness here) that are just wrong on so many different levels.

So with this, I'll bow out, leave the idiots on this thread to their best in law school (scary for the legal future) and wish those of you who actually contributed the very best in school.

And FYI, when white are treated with this sort of attitude they will come away with a less open mind then what many of you have.  If your goal is to keep the status quo, as a few of you charged me with doing, it's working.  But when you question why there is so much prejudice in the world, look back at yourselves and what you might be doing (GASP, YES IT CAN BE YOUR FAULT TOO) to further this negative force.

Peace

Yeah, the only thing idiotic here is you comparing The KKK with black civil rights organizations advocating equality.

FYI, you're the one that responded to my initial post with "Nice jabs.  Ok as*hole."  So quit biatching when I return the ad hominem favor. 

Quite frankly, I was making the same redundancy point that seventhson is making, but you chose to act like an ass about it...so get over yourself, and quit acting like a little pu$$y


Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on April 26, 2007, 05:23:57 PM
How about "White Entertainment Television" or the NAAWP instead of the NAACP?  Personally, I don't think either of these are necessary, but then again I don't think it's necessary to have a seperate area for black students to talk about law school.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we are probably going to the exact same law schools and will be sitting right next to each other in class.  We don't have seperated law schools; why have seperated law school forums?

Excellent answer...I've always felt that it is inappropriate to have "Black Entertainment Television" because there is no need to segregate by race any longer.  And, if there were "White Entertainment Television", there would surely be a huge outcry and it would definitely not be allowed.

You're exactly right--separate things for blacks ended decades ago, so why try to bring it back by creating separate forums for black students?

Personally, it bothers me that law schools still ask for our race on their applications.  If everyone shall be treated equally, regardless of race, why is this even relevant?  I checked "decline to answer" on all of mine, perhaps for fear of being discriminated against for being white--honestly.

No.  Not an excellent answer.  Unless your idea of excellence is to tear down what you clearly do not understand for no other reason but for the fact that you do not understand it.

I grow increasingly despondent from posts such as these from posters such as yourselves, and quite frankly, as I sift through bar application papers and final law school exams I just don't have the time or inclination to explain the necessity of minority support groups in a profession substantially overrepresented by the majority to members of said majority.

Good day, good madame.
Good day, good sir.


Title: Re: white people in the NBA
Post by: Louis55 on April 26, 2007, 06:19:58 PM
(1) To bad your analogy fails to fit its purpose.  (2)  I recommend that this mess be placed in either the AA board or the white law school discussion board. 
Title: Re: white people in the NBA
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on April 26, 2007, 07:37:43 PM
(1) To bad your analogy fails to fit its purpose.  (2)  I recommend that this mess be placed in either the AA board or the white law school discussion board. 

If wishing made it so

You were saying?


Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 26, 2007, 08:03:41 PM
man I've seen that NBA analogy dismantled so many times on the internet.  If I weren't so lazy I'd post links.  If I hadn't dismantled it myself so many times I would re-type. 

Besides, anyone who thinks Steve Nash isn't a 2x AA MVP is retarded.  And that 13-14 feet of anonymous whitey on the end of just about every NBA teams bench is AA as well.  The compelling interest being money.  You probably don't remember the new york NIGGERBOCKERS, or, as the Knickerbockers were called when they had no white players.   
Title: Re: white people in the NBA
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 26, 2007, 08:47:51 PM
White people come from backgrounds that are often disadvantaged when it comes to excelling at basketball.  They have more money and often live a more sedentary life (not posting at the block and playing pickup below the chain-linked net).  There is also a heavily ingrained cultural bias in the NBA (almost everything about it seems to be at least tangentially related to African-culture).  Moreover, there is stereotype bias.  Everyone has been ripping on white players' athletic talents for so long that they've come to believe these stereotypes (white men can't jump, et cetera)themselves and it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Also, white culture tends to push kids into putting the vast majority of their time into things like education instead of aquiring mad basketbal skills.  How can you expect someone who hasn't had the opportunity to play with top talent for 20 hours a day (simply because of the lot he was born into) to compete with those who have?

Without white people in the NBA the players (many of whom are from low-income inner cities and have never been exposed to cultures outside of their own), could be missing out on a great opportunity to learn and grow in a multi-cultural environment and dispel long held prejudice about white people.



It doesn't sound any smarter when you people say it.  HTFH.

It's hard to believe that people like you are going to law school.  You exude ignorance.  White people have every opportunity to excel at basketball, in fact a better opportunity than blacks.  They usually have houses with hoops in their driveways, they're able to afford nice sneakers and nice equipment.  I used to play basketball in high school and there was a huge difference between our gym (went to a mostly white high school) and the gyms in urban schools.  Furthermore, many many white parents want their kids to excel at sports; I mean just go to Indiana and you'll see every white kid there plays basketball.  Parents no matter what race love to see their kids excel in sports.

Comparing the name of a Wesley Snipes movie to years and years of oppression, Jim Crow laws, and slavery is just moronic, so I won't even discuss that.

Furthermore, what do you mean everything is related to African culture?  Basketball was invented by a white man and whites have been playing the game for years. 

On another note, the Supreme Court said it is easier to pass affirmative action laws for women (they get intermediate scrutiny) then for blacks (they get strict scrutiny).  Furthermore, the Supreme Court has passed laws to benefit women (Rokster v. Goldberg, Nguyen v. INS), but you don't mention this.  It really goes to show that you're not a man out for equality, but you a little boy who can't stand the thought of something that does not benefit him.  Disgusting.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Ask a White Dude! on April 26, 2007, 09:15:31 PM
Hold the phone.  Only a FEW white law students don't quite get it?
Title: White Law Students Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 26, 2007, 10:57:09 PM
Yes, it's true.  The NBA is overwhelmingly African-American (over 80%).  White people are few and far between in the NBA.  You might say the same about African-Americans in law school.  So, why don't they allow affirmative action in the NBA?  ::)
Title: Re: White Law Students Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on April 26, 2007, 11:38:46 PM
Yes, it's true.  The NBA is overwhelmingly African-American (over 80%).  White people are few and far between in the NBA.  You might say the same about African-Americans in law school.  So, why don't they allow affirmative action in the NBA?  ::)

For one huge reason: They already did. I like how you post this as if you were the first to come up with this wack argument.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on April 27, 2007, 12:27:45 AM
what fool cares what the basketball player's skin color is?

realistically...

 how come half the motherfuching nba is in the playoffs?

now that's bullshite.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 27, 2007, 02:04:48 AM
What are you trying to deny, my negro?

That the NBA is predominantly black?

That the NBA consists of many inner-city men who haven't experienced any other culture?




I'm pretty sure I win on both counts.  They need affirmative action to give them the benefits of diversity!!!!!!

So you basically just asked yourself two questions, answered them, and said you were right.  I guess that makes being ignorant so easy.  You did not respond to a single thing I said.

Anyway, I just saw some of your posts on another thread (saying blacks are mentally slower than whites), and I just wanted to say that you're pretty much a piece of scum.  Anyway, I'm done talking to you. 

I'll leave you with words of one of the greatest men who ever lived, Martin Luther King, Jr.   

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." 
You, my friend, are a danger to this world   
Title: Re: White Law Students Discussion Board
Post by: ErwinChemerinsky on April 27, 2007, 02:07:32 AM
Yes, it's true.  The NBA is overwhelmingly African-American (over 80%).  White people are few and far between in the NBA.  You might say the same about African-Americans in law school.  So, why don't they allow affirmative action in the NBA?  ::)

Read my analogy response to see why this argument is beyond idiotic.  I hope one day you can feel what it's like to be a minority in this country.  Perhaps then, you will understand.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 27, 2007, 06:31:44 AM
what are the societal repercussions if there is not a single white player in the NBA?

what are the societal repercussions if there is not a single black lawyer?

does supreme court justice = Kobe Bryant??

what is a compelling interest to have AA in the NBA (there already is AA in the NBA, but lets pretend there isn't)

is the compelling interest to have whites in the NBA = to the compelling interest to have diversity within Americas legal community?

Do white people have to overcome anything to play basketball?  inferior gyms?  inferior coaches?  inferior basketballs?  could white people play basketball 45 years ago? 

What is the NBA's Modus Operandi?

What about the Modus Operandi for America's legal system?

Answer these questions and see if your analogy lines up.  There should be similar answers...

wait, you are substituting "etc, etc, etc " for an argument?

someone has half a brain on the black law students discussion board, but I don't think that someone is black...wow
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on April 27, 2007, 07:22:16 AM
What are you trying to deny, my negro?

That the NBA is predominantly black?

That the NBA consists of many inner-city men who haven't experienced any other culture?




I'm pretty sure I win on both counts.  They need affirmative action to give them the benefits of diversity!!!!!!


This is the BLSD and it's a good place for all African-Americans to get together and uplift each other in our quest to achieve excellence in the field of law. All brothers and sisters are welcome to post messages here. Please follow the rules below:

 
BLSD RULE #1: No discussions of Affirmative Action. (There is a separate thread for that topic)
BLSD RULE #2: Non-blacks are welcome to post messages.
BLSD RULE #3: No racial slurs or epithets will be tolerated. (Try to remain professional at all times; have fun and try to keep it clean)
BLSD RULE #4: No lewd/obscene pics please. 


See Rule #1, supra.


Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 27, 2007, 07:29:53 AM
why you being a commie avatar? 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on April 27, 2007, 07:38:39 AM
See Rule #1, supra.

Thank you, Sands.

Not to mention that the OP/non-affirmative action portion of this thread should be on the meta board anyway.  There's so reason the members of the BLSD forum should be particularly burdened with this (insipid) argument about the structure and offerings of the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board.
Title: Re: white people in the NBA
Post by: Hank Rearden on April 27, 2007, 07:51:15 AM
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has passed laws to benefit women (Rokster v. Goldberg, Nguyen v. INS)

 :D

Unfortunately this is not far from the truth. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 27, 2007, 08:22:06 AM
What are you trying to deny, my negro?

That the NBA is predominantly black?

That the NBA consists of many inner-city men who haven't experienced any other culture?




I'm pretty sure I win on both counts.  They need affirmative action to give them the benefits of diversity!!!!!!


This is the BLSD and it's a good place for all African-Americans to get together and uplift each other in our quest to achieve excellence in the field of law. All brothers and sisters are welcome to post messages here. Please follow the rules below:

 
BLSD RULE #1: No discussions of Affirmative Action. (There is a separate thread for that topic)
BLSD RULE #2: Non-blacks are welcome to post messages.
BLSD RULE #3: No racial slurs or epithets will be tolerated. (Try to remain professional at all times; have fun and try to keep it clean)
BLSD RULE #4: No lewd/obscene pics please. 


See Rule #1, supra.





Err excuse me.  I forgot plagiarizer.

Dr" King plagiarized over half of his doctoral dissertation."

link?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: rsieg10 on April 27, 2007, 08:51:08 AM
what fool cares what the basketball player's skin color is?

realistically...

 how come half the motherfuching nba is in the playoffs?

now that's bullshite.

what fool cares what the law school student's skin color is?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 27, 2007, 09:51:39 AM
over half?=portions...

link?


at any rate, I heard that he plagiarized before.  I really just wanted the link.

and dude are you going to answer my questions about your stinking to high heavens analogy?

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 27, 2007, 10:20:47 AM
If you are 1/4 of a minority race can you use that on an application? I figure I would ask on here
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on April 27, 2007, 10:21:44 AM
I beleive the cut off is 1/8th.  happy raceandering
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: keepitsimple on April 27, 2007, 10:25:00 AM
*&^% I am a URM and did not even know it, retract applications
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 01, 2007, 01:18:27 PM
I think that poverty and background should be taken into consideration instead of race (I read the first 6 pages of this thread and then got bored, so if someone has already said this I appologize). 

A rich black is less deserving of AA or scholarships than a poor black, mexican, white, asian, etc.  If you are rich then you have much more control over your own life than does someone living in poverty.  You can afford prep courses,  you wouldn't have to work and study at the same time, etc.  While race does bring diversity to a school, I think that different socio-economic backgrounds is more important.  What would bring more diversity: a rich black student, who grew up livign a good life and who goes to law school with a bunch of white kids who have lived similar lives OR a poor white student who struggled for everything that they have and who probably has a much different world outlook? 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 01, 2007, 03:37:50 PM
Quote
Poor whites outperform wealthy blacks, and it's not even close. 

Really??? 

I'd like to see some numbers on that. 

I really don't think that AA makes blacks lazy.  They work to get their grades (hard or not like all college kids), but when it comes time to apply to law school they look at schools higher up on the list than would white kids with the same scores. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 01, 2007, 07:58:46 PM
While race does bring diversity to a school, I think that different socio-economic backgrounds is more important.  What would bring more diversity: a rich black student, who grew up livign a good life and who goes to law school with a bunch of white kids who have lived similar lives OR a poor white student who struggled for everything that they have and who probably has a much different world outlook? 

CC, thanks for your coments.  You raise some interesting points.  I generally try to avoid the AA talks, but I'm interested to hear more about these rich black students you reference.  While I suppose the term will always be relative, what exactly qualifies as "rich" for the sake of your argument?  Also, I'd like to hear more about the rich black students living "similar lives" to white law school applicants.  I think it might be helpful to get some comparison statistics and anecdotes about blacks and whites of the same socioeconomic status with respect to access to quality education, safe schools, highly qualified teachers, quality health care (prenatal, pediatric, geriatric, etc.), fair housing practices, neighborhood/community amenities, social services, healthy and afforable food options, predatory lending practices (in the purchase of homes, automobiles, insurance, etc.), access to influential social/professional networks, legitimate discrimination claims, etc.  Just my two cents....  :)
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 01, 2007, 10:34:26 PM
As far as "living similar lives" I meant that they grew up in nice areas, went to the same good schools, etc.  I don't want to give an exact range of income to qualify blacks are rich or poor.  The black kids at my high school were among some of the richest at my school.  Some of them lived better lives and had access to greater privileges than many other students.  The number of wealthy blacks may not be where it should be, however I just feel that AA should be used to help the economically disadvantaged.  If more blacks would benefit from this new approach than whites or other races, then great.  Let's help the poor instead of all classes of a particular race. 

My point simply was that race probably isn't the best way to bring diversity to a law school class. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Journeyman on May 09, 2007, 06:19:29 PM
If there needs to be AA still in the country, it should be class based, instead of race based.  I completely agree.  I work in a high school where I see alot of poor blacks...and alot of poor whites as well. All of them are struggling to have access to higher education.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 09, 2007, 09:17:52 PM
CC, thanks for your coments.  You raise some interesting points.  I generally try to avoid the AA talks, but I'm interested to hear more about these rich black students you reference.  While I suppose the term will always be relative, what exactly qualifies as "rich" for the sake of your argument?  Also, I'd like to hear more about the rich black students living "similar lives" to white law school applicants.  I think it might be helpful to get some comparison statistics and anecdotes about blacks and whites of the same socioeconomic status with respect to access to quality education, safe schools, highly qualified teachers, quality health care (prenatal, pediatric, geriatric, etc.), fair housing practices, neighborhood/community amenities, social services, healthy and afforable food options, predatory lending practices (in the purchase of homes, automobiles, insurance, etc.), access to influential social/professional networks, legitimate discrimination claims, etc.  Just my two cents....  :)

Here's a little anecdote about a friend of mine who is a "rich black" who is also a beneficiary of affirmative action.  He is the son of parents from Grenada, so his family was not initially faced with the sort of limitations that a multi-generational African-American family is faced with, such as the cycle of poverty etc.  His parents are very wealthy, judging from the area they live in (an affluent mostly-white area in an affluent mostly-white city) and their house and cars etc, I would estimate safely that they make more than 150,000 k a year.  (they bought him a Chevy Tahoe, and then two years later a brand new Cadillac Escalade)  He attended mostly white schools, hung out with mostly white friends (including me) and took part in mostly white social clubs (Boy Scouts of America).  I took classes with him all throughout high school and I know what his daily routine was like.  He took AP classes with me and was never discriminated against by any teacher or classmate, at least in the classes that I had with him.  When you mention every aspect of a person's upbringing, he has had experiences equal to, and advantages to me in some ways.  For instance, he was able to afford preparation courses for graduate school tests and I was not.  Also, his parents fully paid his way through UCLA, while I worked part-time to fund college.  He recently got into a dental school, and although it might not be politically correct to say so, I'm sure affirmative action had at least SOME play in where he got into.  I know this is an extreme example and is not representative of the black community, but this is my personal experience with someone who has benefited from affirmative action.  I don't hold anything against him though because I think he earned mostly everything that he has achieved.  On the same street, there was also another affluent African-American who I did not know so well, but as far as I know his story is somewhat similar.  These sorts of cases and the cases of poor and disadvantaged whites and asians, are what lead me to think that race-based affirmative action is unjust.   
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 09, 2007, 09:25:15 PM
If there needs to be AA still in the country, it should be class based, instead of race based.  I completely agree.  I work in a high school where I see alot of poor blacks...and alot of poor whites as well. All of them are struggling to have access to higher education.

I don't know where you get the idea that these two programs are mutually exclusive.  It appears that almost all law schools employ some consideration of socioeconomic class based on elements of applications such as a check-box about being the first person in one's family to attend college or professional school, a section for listing the number of hours worked during the school year each year of college, and questions about parental education and occupation.  Furthermore, just as URM students can use optional diversity essays to discuss obstacles they have faced because of their race or how their race may contribute to the diversity of their class, poor white students can use diversity essays to discuss obstacles they have faced because of their poverty or how their class background may contribute to the diversity of their class.  It seems rather likely that schools take these factors into account; I don't know why else they would occupy such a central part of the application.

If you believe that racial disadvantage is merely an index of class disadvantage, I urge you to read some of the sociological research on racial differences in educational opportunities.  A good start may be this report (http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Why_Segreg_Matters.pdf) on the impact of racial segregation on K-12 education.  In particular, the section titled "The Poverty Dimension in Segregation" may interest you.  It starts on page 14.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 09, 2007, 10:04:08 PM
::admires how Miss P still responds to all these posts::
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 10, 2007, 05:06:14 AM
Here's a little anecdote about a friend of mine who is a "rich black" who is also a beneficiary of affirmative action.  He is the son of parents from Grenada, so his family was not initially faced with the sort of limitations that a multi-generational African-American family is faced with, such as the cycle of poverty etc.  His parents are very wealthy, judging from the area they live in (an affluent mostly-white area in an affluent mostly-white city) and their house and cars etc, I would estimate safely that they make more than 150,000 k a year.  (they bought him a Chevy Tahoe, and then two years later a brand new Cadillac Escalade)  He attended mostly white schools, hung out with mostly white friends (including me) and took part in mostly white social clubs (Boy Scouts of America).  I took classes with him all throughout high school and I know what his daily routine was like.  He took AP classes with me and was never discriminated against by any teacher or classmate, at least in the classes that I had with him.  When you mention every aspect of a person's upbringing, he has had experiences equal to, and advantages to me in some ways.  For instance, he was able to afford preparation courses for graduate school tests and I was not.  Also, his parents fully paid his way through UCLA, while I worked part-time to fund college.  He recently got into a dental school, and although it might not be politically correct to say so, I'm sure affirmative action had at least SOME play in where he got into.  I know this is an extreme example and is not representative of the black community, but this is my personal experience with someone who has benefited from affirmative action.  I don't hold anything against him though because I think he earned mostly everything that he has achieved.  On the same street, there was also another affluent African-American who I did not know so well, but as far as I know his story is somewhat similar.  These sorts of cases and the cases of poor and disadvantaged whites and asians, are what lead me to think that race-based affirmative action is unjust.   

Thanks, caveman, for taking the time to type such a detailed and thoughtful reply.  I'm especially interested in hearing more about the part I highlighted above.  It'd be helpful for me to hear more about your opinions on how this statement relates to your friend (who you say is not representative of the black community), as well as to how it relates to you personally.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 10, 2007, 06:11:57 AM
Thanks, caveman, for taking the time to type such a detailed and thoughtful reply. 

Oh, Nat, I know you're trying to be generous, but let's get real.  Caveman's response isn't thoughtful because he carefully chronicles the experience of one extremely non-represenative person (a "friend" of his, no less!) and makes it (and the vague wisp of another outlier anecdote) the basis for his take on race relations in this country.  That's just not thoughtful at all.
Title: Re: White Law Student Discussion Board
Post by: jarhead on May 10, 2007, 06:59:00 AM
Excellent answer...I've always felt that it is inappropriate to have "Black Entertainment Television" because there is no need to segregate by race any longer.  And, if there were "White Entertainment Television", there would surely be a huge outcry and it would definitely not be allowed.

You're exactly right--separate things for blacks ended decades ago, so why try to bring it back by creating separate forums for black students?

Personally, it bothers me that law schools still ask for our race on their applications.  If everyone shall be treated equally, regardless of race, why is this even relevant?  I checked "decline to answer" on all of mine, perhaps for fear of being discriminated against for being white--honestly.


someone has probably already spoken to this but...just about every other every channel on tv is "white entertainment television."  bet may not be the best example because in my opinion they are too focused on videos, negative stereo-types, and non-sense i prefer tvone but beside the point. the fact is that there is a difference between legal separation of the races, sanctioned and enforced by the government, in complete opposition to the supreme law of the land and based on the premise that one race is inferior to the other and so therefore forever subjected to second class status. there is a big difference between that and having one or two cable channels that cater to black/african-american culture and interests among the hundreds that cater to whites and whites only. finally I AM SO SICK OF HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH WHITE PEOPLE (yes i know its not all of you just speaking to those who still make this stupid argument). you complain about AA all the time, you don't even know what it is  :-X! someone other than a white male whos worked just as hard, but most likely several times harder, to get themselves into a position to even be considered for the one or two positions that will go to somebody other than a white male, and suddenly the world is unfair cry me a f-en river.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 07:17:59 AM
Thanks, caveman, for taking the time to type such a detailed and thoughtful reply.  I'm especially interested in hearing more about the part I highlighted above.  It'd be helpful for me to hear more about your opinions on how this statement relates to your friend (who you say is not representative of the black community), as well as to how it relates to you personally.

Sure nat.  The reason I said that he earned mostly everything that he has achieved should be quite clear.  Although it's impossible to say definitively, affirmative action probably played SOME part in his acceptance at UCLA, and it probably played SOME part in his acceptance to dental school.  I'm not saying that he didn't deserve to go to college or get into a dental school, I'm just saying that if it wasn't for affirmative action, he would probably have gotten into lower ranked schools.  Let's be perfectly honest, realistic, and politically incorrect here for a minute, I'm sure you can admit to that.  Just like most affirmative action law applicants, he probably would have gotten into a lower ranked dental school if all factors were the same except his race.  I don't see how this is deserved at all.  The school benefits no more than a lower-ranked school would benefit from his diversity .  If anything, students like him should not receive benefits from affirmative action because it leaves less room for legitimate affirmative action candidates who overcame significant obstacles to get where they are.  And responding to you Miss P.  Although his case is not representative, I'm sure you could find many people who could tell similar anecdotes, as well as stories of white or asian students who overcame significant obstacles and were not given affirmative action benefits.  Just because small injustices occur, doesn't mean that they aren't important, because a system that creates injustices is somewhat inherently unjust itself. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 10, 2007, 09:19:57 AM
Just because small injustices occur, doesn't mean that they aren't important, because a system that creates injustices is somewhat inherently unjust itself. 

I think what most bothers me about your post, is that you ASSUME that affirmative action played a part in your black friend's acceptance into a top dental school. You never mentioned anything that would detract from his getting into dental school on merit alone.

That line of thinking highlights your sense of entitlement.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 10, 2007, 10:39:09 AM
And responding to you Miss P.  Although his case is not representative, I'm sure you could find many people who could tell similar anecdotes, as well as stories of white or asian students who overcame significant obstacles and were not given affirmative action benefits.  Just because small injustices occur, doesn't mean that they aren't important, because a system that creates injustices is somewhat inherently unjust itself. 

Yes, it's true, borderline applicants come out of the woodwork with these anecdotes all the time.  What puzzles me is your conclusion that you know whether students receive affirmative action consideration based on the results of their admissions cycles.  Your friend's educational and other advantages were undoubtedly apparent to dental schools if their admissions processes are in any way similar to law schools', and yet they may (may!) have concluded that his race somehow disadvantaged him or that his presence in the class presented a special opportunity in terms of a diverse learning environment for his classmates.  (Keep in mind that part of the rationale of diversity is to admit URM students of different backgrounds so that people do not make monolithic assumptions about the experiences of URM students.  Your friend may have specifically added to the diversity of his class by the fact that his experience as a very wealthy black man reared in a white neighborhood, in white schools, is atypical for black students at the school.)  In the alternative, you may simply misunderstand the typical evaluative process of a dental school's admissions committee, and he may have been admitted without any consideration of his race.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why I should trust your judgment that your friend's race has not in any way shaped his life and opportunities or why we should extrapolate your reading of this very atypical person's experience to a conclusion that race is not a valid consideration in admissions. You admit that he is not in any way representative of black applicants to dental or professional schools in general.  It is not unjust for a policy to be marginally overinclusive (though you have not at all established that it is overinclusive at all).

Finally, some friend you are.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Pestilence. Disease. on May 10, 2007, 10:40:52 AM
I think what most bothers me about your post, is that you ASSUME that affirmative action played a part in your black friend's acceptance into a top dental school. You never mentioned anything that would detract from his getting into dental school on merit alone.

I kind of assume that most white people believe this whenever they see a successful black [law student, med student, whatever].
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 10, 2007, 10:43:58 AM
Finally, some friend you are.

 :D
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 10, 2007, 11:30:51 AM
Quote
I AM SO SICK OF HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH WHITE PEOPLE

You chose to read and post on this thread.  If you are sick of this conversation, then it is the result of your own choices.  If you don't like this thread, don't read it.  Besides, the media is just catering to the demographics of the population.  There are, however, black TV shows, black reporters, weather men/women, etc.  So your comment that all TV is white TV is rather ridiculous.  What about other racial groups?  I Do Not see Asian TV shows, American Indian TV shows, Latino TV shows (and you are a closet racist if you assume that all latinos speak spanish and therefore watch the Spanish channels).  If you are so upset about white dominance of TV (when there are also factors catering to Blacks) then why aren't you upset about the under representation (especially when compared with Black media) of other minority groups?  Since you are sick of this conversation, I don't care whether or not you reply.

Quote
I kind of assume that most white people believe this whenever they see a successful black [law student, med student, whatever].

That is a very negative, stereotypical assumption to make. 

Quote
That line of thinking highlights your sense of entitlement.

I understand and agree that he should not have assumed that AA played a role in his friend's acceptance to dental school, but I don't see how this highlights his sense of entitlement? 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 03:53:22 PM
This reasoning comes from looking at many URM applicants to law school on www.lawschoolnumbers.com.  Nearly every person I looked at who was a URM would not have had a possibility at the schools they got into unless affirmative action played a part.  It is an undeniable fact, and maybe you should take the time to look at some lawschoolnumber accounts which confirm this.  When considering whether a URM benefits from affirmative action, it is completely logical to err on the side of them benefiting from it in some way.  It is an undeniable reality that you seem to be denying.  I'm sorry but in most cases of URM law students, affirmative action doesn't play a part in that they are in A law school, but it necessarily plays a part in WHERE they are in law school.  I challenge all URMs to show their numbers and what schools they got into.  Then if one was to compare it to non-URM students who got into the same school, I guarantee in the majority of cases their numbers would be lower, suggesting that not only pure merit had a part in where they were accepted.  Affirmative Action is a reality, therefore it is reasonable to assume that it plays a part in nearly almost every URMs acceptance.  If you can't accept this, then you are in denial, plain and simple. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 03:57:46 PM
I also find it unbelievable and contradictory that someone can support Affirmative Action while completely denying its existence.  Thus is political correctness.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 10, 2007, 04:08:59 PM
I also find it unbelievable and contradictory that someone can support Affirmative Action while completely denying its existence.  Thus is political correctness.

You're completely misunderstanding our objections, Caveman.  We are not denying the existence of affirmative action programs.  I am denying that one can be certain it played a role in any particular person's acceptances, especially when you don't know his or her entry credentials or the standards of the institution to which s/he applied, as in the case of your so-called friend.  Some URM applicants, especially ones whose applications do not bear the same indicia of educational and other disadvantages as the majority of applicants of their race, may not receive the same preferential treatment in admission.  Nothing you have said demonstrates otherwise.

Moreover, given the diversity rationale for affirmative action (and, in particular, the desire to have diverse representation within URM cohorts), I see no reason that even wealthy and privileged URM applicants should not receive additional consideration (affirmative action) in admissions.  Affirmative action exists (though it affects many fewer people than paranoid opponents seem to assume), it may be employed even with respect to URM applicants with extraordinary socio-economic privilege, and there is sufficient justification for employing it with respect to all URM applicants, regardless of class.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 10, 2007, 04:11:41 PM
This reasoning comes from looking at many URM applicants to law school on www.lawschoolnumbers.com.

Right there I stopped reading because apparantly you judge all black people by what you read on lawschoolnumbers.com. That underlines why I believe your line of thinking is based on a sense of entitlement.

I understand and agree that he should not have assumed that AA played a role in his friend's acceptance to dental school, but I don't see how this highlights his sense of entitlement? 

His sense of entitlement rests upon the notion that for a black person to get into a top notch school, his race must have been a factor. However, he does not use that same restrictive reasoning to justify the admission of white students. Hence, its normal to see a white face in a good school, but a black face warrants further investigation.

All of which, justifies the need for Affirmative Action.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 04:30:41 PM
However, he does not use that same restrictive reasoning to justify the admission of white students. Hence, its normal to see a white face in a good school, but a black face warrants further investigation.

The only reason that a black person in any educational institution warrants further investigation is BECAUSE of affirmative action.  How does this justify affirmative action?  You just basically said that the results of affirmative action justify affirmative action.  I'm sorry but you're not making any sense.  If there was no affirmative action, there would be no need to investigate or justify an URM's entry into any school because it would be solely based on merit.  If there was no affirmative action, URMs would not feel a need to justify their placement in a school because it would be accepted that it was achieved through merit.  The only reason that people question a URM's placement in a school is because affirmative action exists.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 05:40:50 PM
Quote
I kind of assume that most white people believe this whenever they see a successful black [law student, med student, whatever].

That is a very negative, stereotypical assumption to make. 

that makes it untrue why?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 05:55:40 PM
Quote
I kind of assume that most white people believe this whenever they see a successful black [law student, med student, whatever].

That is a very negative, stereotypical assumption to make. 

that makes it untrue why?

It's a very negative and stereotypical assumption to make, but the only reason to make that assumption is BECAUSE of affirmative action, not because of anything else.  If you think it's so negative, then why do you continue to support affirmative action?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 05:56:19 PM
Quote
I kind of assume that most white people believe this whenever they see a successful black [law student, med student, whatever].

That is a very negative, stereotypical assumption to make. 

that makes it untrue why?

It's a very negative and stereotypical assumption to make, but the only reason to make that assumption is BECAUSE of affirmative action, not because of anything else.  If you think it's so negative, then why do you continue to support affirmative action?

did i say anything about anything besides assumptions that i think white people hold? 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Louis55 on May 10, 2007, 06:05:02 PM
n.

The only reason that a black person in any educational institution warrants further investigation is BECAUSE of affirmative action.  The only reason that people question a URM's placement in a school is because affirmative action exists.


I disagree with this assertion.  I went to a ug without AA, and every chance someone got they asked if I was an athlete.  I am not that tall and I am very skinny.  If you size me up to any basketball player or football player it is evident that it is my race which leads people to believe I am an athlete - because “why else would he be here there is no AA.”  So AA is not the only reason why a person of color must justify their placement into a school.  Regardless of AA, people of color, especially blacks, must prove themselves to others because of the popular perceptions that exist about some communities of color.  White students are usually judged as individuals, whereas people of color are usually judged on perceptions of their group until they prove to others that they should be judged otherwise. 

There are deeper social implications into why certain URMs are treated a certain why at educational institutions that goes beyond AA.  AA may feed the fire, but it is not the only cause.  I think it is incorrect to buy into the belief that if we rid the nation of AA URMs will start to be treated fairly by the world never again having to prove their self-worth.   
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 06:14:04 PM
I also find it unbelievable and contradictory that someone can support Affirmative Action while completely denying its existence.  Thus is political correctness.

Oh please.

You silly boy.

why do you assume it's a dude?

aside from you know, the tar.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 06:17:54 PM
I also find it unbelievable and contradictory that someone can support Affirmative Action while completely denying its existence.  Thus is political correctness.

Oh please.

You silly boy.

why do you assume it's a dude?

aside from you know, the tar.

The LSN.

Also, he applied to all the wrong places given the cards he's holding

meh, i never comment on people's application choices, since i apparently didn't plan my own very well.  (2/5?  that's just sad.)
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 06:25:16 PM
I also find it unbelievable and contradictory that someone can support Affirmative Action while completely denying its existence.  Thus is political correctness.

Oh please.

You silly boy.

why do you assume it's a dude?

aside from you know, the tar.

The LSN.

Also, he applied to all the wrong places given the cards he's holding

I applied to all those wrong places because I got lots of app fee waivers as well as for LSAC fees, so I applied to everywhere I got a fee waiver in order to see what sort of scholarships I could get, this being before I thought that it was important to go to the highest ranking school possible.  I'm going to be attending Indiana University in Bloomington which I don't consider to be a "wrong" place for me.

Anyways, I'm not going to argue about this anymore, I didn't really intend to get involved with it in the first place, I've tried to declare my abstinence about talking about AA, but it lured me back.  Now I remember why I vowed not to talk about it anymore.  Arguing about AA is like banging your head against a brick wall.  You don't get anything accomplished and you just end up with a big headache in the end.  ;)
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 06:31:10 PM

meh, i never comment on people's application choices, since i apparently didn't plan my own very well.  (2/5?  that's just sad.)

YP's a female dog

i remember dorian saying how he was offended that they didn't WL him.  :D

sorry, sorry.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 06:37:08 PM
The blind recital of slogans and anecdotes is played out.

If it's played out, why does it keep happening?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 06:43:48 PM
The blind recital of slogans and anecdotes is played out.

If it's played out, why does it keep happening?

Because the point is not to discuss AA; it is to scream.

played out suggests that it's over.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 10, 2007, 06:50:04 PM
The blind recital of slogans and anecdotes is played out.

If it's played out, why does it keep happening?

Because the point is not to discuss AA; it is to scream.

played out suggests that it's over.

Nah.  Whining is at the heart of the American way.

What ever happened to Gary Cooper?  The strong silent type.  That was an American. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 10, 2007, 06:53:16 PM

What ever happened to Gary Cooper?  The strong silent type.  That was an American. 

Oh hell, that went out of fashion a long time ago. More's the pity.

It is a pity. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 06:53:52 PM

What ever happened to Gary Cooper?  The strong silent type.  That was an American. 

Oh hell, that went out of fashion a long time ago. More's the pity.

i'm out of fashion now?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 06:56:32 PM

i'm out of fashion now?

Yes, dear. Like a Members Only jacket.


crap.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ==caI== on May 10, 2007, 07:17:25 PM
The upside is that you have Donna Summer

true.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 10, 2007, 08:40:01 PM
However, he does not use that same restrictive reasoning to justify the admission of white students. Hence, its normal to see a white face in a good school, but a black face warrants further investigation.

The only reason that a black person in any educational institution warrants further investigation is BECAUSE of affirmative action.  How does this justify affirmative action?  You just basically said that the results of affirmative action justify affirmative action.  I'm sorry but you're not making any sense.  If there was no affirmative action, there would be no need to investigate or justify an URM's entry into any school because it would be solely based on merit.  If there was no affirmative action, URMs would not feel a need to justify their placement in a school because it would be accepted that it was achieved through merit.  The only reason that people question a URM's placement in a school is because affirmative action exists.

You questioning the educational aptitude of a black person is not the result of affirmative action. It is the result of biogtry and it existed well before affirmative action did.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 09:34:27 PM
However, he does not use that same restrictive reasoning to justify the admission of white students. Hence, its normal to see a white face in a good school, but a black face warrants further investigation.

The only reason that a black person in any educational institution warrants further investigation is BECAUSE of affirmative action.  How does this justify affirmative action?  You just basically said that the results of affirmative action justify affirmative action.  I'm sorry but you're not making any sense.  If there was no affirmative action, there would be no need to investigate or justify an URM's entry into any school because it would be solely based on merit.  If there was no affirmative action, URMs would not feel a need to justify their placement in a school because it would be accepted that it was achieved through merit.  The only reason that people question a URM's placement in a school is because affirmative action exists.

You questioning the educational aptitude of a black person is not the result of affirmative action. It is the result of biogtry and it existed well before affirmative action did.

Funny, because if affirmative action was done away with and race did not factor into the admissions process at all, I would not question at all the educational aptitude of a black person.  Just because I am attacking Affirmative Action does not mean I am attacking the ability of a black or any URM to gain entry into higher education institutions based on their merit and hard work.  The sole reason I question the academic aptitude of blacks in higher education is because of affirmative action, not because of any characteristics or stereotypes of blacks, whether you would like to trust me on this or not.  I think most whites would agree with me, but of course there will always be people who will continue to doubt the academic proficiency of African Americans.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 10, 2007, 09:48:34 PM
However, he does not use that same restrictive reasoning to justify the admission of white students. Hence, its normal to see a white face in a good school, but a black face warrants further investigation.

The only reason that a black person in any educational institution warrants further investigation is BECAUSE of affirmative action.  How does this justify affirmative action?  You just basically said that the results of affirmative action justify affirmative action.  I'm sorry but you're not making any sense.  If there was no affirmative action, there would be no need to investigate or justify an URM's entry into any school because it would be solely based on merit.  If there was no affirmative action, URMs would not feel a need to justify their placement in a school because it would be accepted that it was achieved through merit.  The only reason that people question a URM's placement in a school is because affirmative action exists.

You questioning the educational aptitude of a black person is not the result of affirmative action. It is the result of biogtry and it existed well before affirmative action did.

Funny, because if affirmative action was done away with and race did not factor into the admissions process at all, I would not question at all the educational aptitude of a black person.  Just because I am attacking Affirmative Action does not mean I am attacking the ability of a black or any URM to gain entry into higher education institutions based on their merit and hard work.  The sole reason I question the academic aptitude of blacks in higher education is because of affirmative action, not because of any characteristics or stereotypes of blacks, whether you would like to trust me on this or not.  I think most whites would agree with me, but of course there will always be people who will continue to doubt the academic proficiency of African Americans.

whatever helps you sleep at night.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 10, 2007, 10:19:00 PM
If there was no AA URMs would still get into law schools-there just wouldn't be the boost the SOME receive to get into a better school than their credentials would normally allow.  I do feel that it is either ignorance, frustration with the system or both that leads SOME whites (and others) to be skeptical of the credentials of some URMs in college. 

As a white person I don't think that if I get rejected from somewhere that a URM took my place because of AA.  I also do not assume that that every black person at my school is an athlete.  What does bother me is that all my life I have had it drilled into my head that you look at what a person has done and not their race, gender, religion, nationality, etc.  AA seems to be a sharp contradiction to everything I have learned about "content, not color" since elementary school. 

And just like it is wrong for Caveman to be skeptical of the credentials of URMs in institutions of higher education, it is wrong to think that all or most white people are similarly skeptical. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 10:36:06 PM
If there was no AA URMs would still get into law schools-there just wouldn't be the boost the SOME receive to get into a better school than their credentials would normally allow.  I do feel that it is either ignorance, frustration with the system or both that leads SOME whites (and others) to be skeptical of the credentials of some URMs in college. 

As a white person I don't think that if I get rejected from somewhere that a URM took my place because of AA.  I also do not assume that that every black person at my school is an athlete.  What does bother me is that all my life I have had it drilled into my head that you look at what a person has done and not their race, gender, religion, nationality, etc.  AA seems to be a sharp contradiction to everything I have learned about "content, not color" since elementary school. 

And just like it is wrong for Caveman to be skeptical of the credentials of URMs in institutions of higher education, it is wrong to think that all or most white people are similarly skeptical. 

It is NOT wrong to be skeptical of the credentials of URMs within the framework of the affirmative action system, but it would be wrong to be skeptical of URMs if there was no affirmative action.  Whites should be skeptical of the acceptances of URMs if they are clearly based on affirmative action.  If whites are not skeptical about URM acceptances into institutions of higher learning, they are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the reality of affirmative action.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 10, 2007, 10:43:49 PM
If whites are not skeptical about URM acceptances into institutions of higher learning, they are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the reality of affirmative action.

Wow, you're really something else.  I hope you get a grip before you start law school.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 10:51:59 PM
If whites are not skeptical about URM acceptances into institutions of higher learning, they are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the reality of affirmative action.

Wow, you're really something else.  I hope you get a grip before you start law school.

Well, so far you haven't proven me wrong.  Saying that I should get a grip doesn't prove anything.  The fact is that I speak about reality, and whether you choose to accept it or not is your choice, but you would be at a loss not to do so.  The fact is that Affirmative Action exists in all institutions of higher learning, and this calls into the question the qualifications of many of their students.  It is purely based on reality and nothing else, affirmative action beneficiaries are not as qualified as other applicants to institutions of higher learning, and whether you agree with this or not, it can be empirically proven.  It is you, and not I, who should get a grip with reality.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 10, 2007, 11:01:32 PM
If whites are not skeptical about URM acceptances into institutions of higher learning, they are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the reality of affirmative action.

Wow, you're really something else.  I hope you get a grip before you start law school.

Insults don't change reality.

The reality is that many blacks attend schools they wouldn't have been competative at without 10 extra points on their LSAT.  You can spin it any way you want, but that's the reality.

I might take you more seriously if you learned to spell. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: CavemanLawyer on May 10, 2007, 11:09:00 PM
If whites are not skeptical about URM acceptances into institutions of higher learning, they are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the reality of affirmative action.

Wow, you're really something else.  I hope you get a grip before you start law school.

Insults don't change reality.

The reality is that many blacks attend schools they wouldn't have been competative at without 10 extra points on their LSAT.  You can spin it any way you want, but that's the reality.

I might take you more seriously if you learned to spell. 

Stop being so petty.  Listen to the man based on what he says and the ideas he has, not on his spelling.  By the way, what he says is the truth.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 10, 2007, 11:59:28 PM
If whites are not skeptical about URM acceptances into institutions of higher learning, they are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the reality of affirmative action.

Wow, you're really something else.  I hope you get a grip before you start law school.

Insults don't change reality.

The reality is that many blacks attend schools they wouldn't have been competative at without 10 extra points on their LSAT.  You can spin it any way you want, but that's the reality.

I might take you more seriously if you learned to spell. 

Stop being so petty.  Listen to the man based on what he says and the ideas he has, not on his spelling.  By the way, what he says is the truth.

I generally agree with what he is saying about affirmative action.  It's just that he got a 99th percentile LSAT score and a 3.9-something GPA from Harvard.  You'd think he'd know how to spell "competitive."
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 11, 2007, 01:15:36 PM
What does bother me is that all my life I have had it drilled into my head that you look at what a person has done and not their race, gender, religion, nationality, etc.  AA seems to be a sharp contradiction to everything I have learned about "content, not color" since elementary school.

But it seems to always and forever be the case that human bias will be a problem for a multi-anything society. No matter how much we say society should be colorblind, the reality is that it's not. The more that we say that men are equal to women, the reality is society will see women as damsels in distress. Bias is not a bad thing. I could be wrong, but I'm sure you naturally date other white women. Not because you hate black woman, but because you are naturally drawn to people who look like you. Again, not a bad thing, but it can be problematic in a situation like admissions.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 11, 2007, 01:17:42 PM
It is NOT wrong to be skeptical of the credentials of URMs within the framework of the affirmative action system, but it would be wrong to be skeptical of URMs if there was no affirmative action.

No, that's pretty wrong. That is all kinds of wrong.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 11, 2007, 01:24:46 PM
If whites are not skeptical about URM acceptances into institutions of higher learning, they are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the reality of affirmative action.

Wow, you're really something else.  I hope you get a grip before you start law school.

Insults don't change reality.

The reality is that many blacks attend schools they wouldn't have been competative at without 10 extra points on their LSAT.  You can spin it any way you want, but that's the reality.

I might take you more seriously if you learned to spell. 

Stop being so petty.  Listen to the man based on what he says and the ideas he has, not on his spelling.  By the way, what he says is the truth.

I generally agree with what he is saying about affirmative action.  It's just that he got a 99th percentile LSAT score and a 3.9-something GPA from Harvard.  You'd think he'd know how to spell "competitive."

But his inability to properly spell "competitive" didn't prevent him from getting that 99th percentile LSAT score or the 3.9-something GPA from Harvard. So it should be safe to say that one has nothing to do with the others.

But it does show that numbers aren't everything.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 12, 2007, 12:14:12 PM
If whites are not skeptical about URM acceptances into institutions of higher learning, they are living in a fantasy world and are in denial about the reality of affirmative action.

Wow, you're really something else.  I hope you get a grip before you start law school.

Well, so far you haven't proven me wrong.  Saying that I should get a grip doesn't prove anything.  The fact is that I speak about reality, and whether you choose to accept it or not is your choice, but you would be at a loss not to do so.  The fact is that Affirmative Action exists in all institutions of higher learning, and this calls into the question the qualifications of many of their students.  It is purely based on reality and nothing else, affirmative action beneficiaries are not as qualified as other applicants to institutions of higher learning, and whether you agree with this or not, it can be empirically proven.  It is you, and not I, who should get a grip with reality.

It's a good idea to check your notions of what it means to be "qualified" to attend law school before you matriculate.  I don't know how many people in your class will have lower index scores than you -- 30%, perhaps? -- but the only person you'll be hurting if you underestimate them based on a few LSAT points or a spotty (spottier?)undergraduate record is yourself.  The fact is that most applicants are perfectly qualified to attend a given school.  After a certain threshold set of credentials, schools pick the applicants with the highest indexes who they think are likely to matriculate because of the rankings, not because any number of other applicants couldn't have succeeded in the higher-index applicants' place.  Furthermore, a good number of the people who have been admitted with lower indexes than you will be in your class precisely because they have achieved something the average applicant has not; whether that's overcoming a serious obstacle of some sort, being the first person in their family to attend graduate school, writing a powerful essay, working full time, starting a non-profit, serving in the military, or any number of other things, it probably speaks more to their qualifications than using legal citation methods in their senior theses.  Finally, making the mistake of assuming that all URM students are "underqualified" because your school employs some kind of affirmative action in admissions isn't realistic or reasonable, it's racist, and it reeks of sour grapes. 

You are hitting the same sloppy rhetoric over and over in your posts.  If you choose to return, this time I'd like you to actually respond to my account of how your so-called friend's application may have merited affirmative action consdieration despite his economic and educational privilege.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: simonsays on May 12, 2007, 12:18:53 PM
i'm firmly against AA, however, you have to stop and think for a second. 

if a white person gets this miffed over AA as some form of injustice, which contains a certain element of truth, imagine the injustice other groups must harbor considering the orders of magnitude difference in historical wrongs.

certainly two wrongs don't make a right, but I did stop and think about the type of wrongs and debilitating stereotypes white people experience to a significant extent.  unfortunately the list is quite short.

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 12, 2007, 12:30:11 PM
i'm firmly against AA, however, you have to stop and think for a second. 

if a white person gets this miffed over AA as some form of injustice, which contains a certain element of truth, imagine the injustice other groups must harbor considering the orders of magnitude difference in historical wrongs.

certainly two wrongs don't make a right, but I did stop and think about the type of wrongs and debilitating stereotypes white people experience to a significant extent.  unfortunately the list is quite short.

very admirable insight. However, I wouldn't consider AA as a wrong, but more so an element of a sort of "checks and balances" against the inevitabilty of majority rule similar to the Connecticut Compromise and the creation of a bicameral congress.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 12, 2007, 12:52:32 PM


certainly two wrongs don't make a right, but I did stop and think about the type of wrongs and debilitating stereotypes white people experience to a significant extent.  unfortunately the list is quite short.



Might be going out on a limb, but I'd guess that some white people "experience" more "wrongs and debilitating stereotypes" than others. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 12, 2007, 12:54:29 PM
Might be going out on a limb, but I'd guess that some white people "experience" more "wrongs and debilitating stereotypes" than others. 

Yep, and I bet most of those are apparent (and taken into consideration) on their law school applications.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 12, 2007, 01:27:51 PM
Might be going out on a limb, but I'd guess that some white people "experience" more "wrongs and debilitating stereotypes" than others. 

Yep, and I bet most of those are apparent (and taken into consideration) on their law school applications.

Um, OK...
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 12, 2007, 01:59:46 PM
Quote
Yep, and I bet most of those are apparent (and taken into consideration) on their law school applications.

???

I don't exactly know what you meant by this, but I hope you aren't dragging the disabled into this to make a political point. 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I misunderstood what you were REALLY trying to say. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 12, 2007, 02:04:58 PM
What, the two of you overcame some kinds of obstacles that weren't apparent in your diversity essays, personal statements, or various check-boxes and fill-ins?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 12, 2007, 02:08:33 PM
Quote
Yep, and I bet most of those are apparent (and taken into consideration) on their law school applications.

???

I don't exactly know what you meant by this, but I hope you aren't dragging the disabled into this to make a political point. 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I misunderstood what you were REALLY trying to say. 

I'm sorry, but I haven't the faintest clue of what you think I was trying to say.  "Dragging the disabled into this"? "Benefit of the doubt"?  I was agreeing with Hank that some white people suffer from debilitating stereotypes and experience disadvantages, and those are usually parts of their applications, for instance in their diversity essays (say a gay applicant who was bashed in college) or on their list of jobs (for a poor applicant).
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 12, 2007, 02:15:08 PM
What, the two of you overcame some kinds of obstacles that weren't apparent in your diversity essays, personal statements, or various check-boxes and fill-ins?

I didn't treat my law school application as a contest to see how many disadvantages I could convince the adcoms that I overcame (in part because I knew I could never win such a contest, and in part because I don't think sob stories are particularly compelling reasons to admit people into law school). 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: simonsays on May 12, 2007, 02:38:14 PM
What, the two of you overcame some kinds of obstacles that weren't apparent in your diversity essays, personal statements, or various check-boxes and fill-ins?

No, but a white kid from a poor, black city gets very, very little extra consideration.  Statistics prove it beyond all doubt, but I'm on my way out the door and don't have time to look them up.

Compare that poor white kid (who, being white in a majority black area, probably was on the recieving end of more racism than the average black from the poor black area), to an upper-middle class or well-to-do black person - where statistics have shown the same 7-10 point LSAT bump as given to lower class blacks (and not given to lower class whites).

Put it all together, and you'll see AA for what it is, a clusterfuck.

It should be 100% by economic factors.


the difference is the poor white kid, if he/she has any sense, has the opportunity to start a new life in 90% of the country where 'em won't be evaluated primarily by their whiteness.  the poor black kid lacks this opportunity and is handicapped in any scenario.

and for the record, i am not a liberal apologist.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 12, 2007, 02:41:37 PM
What, the two of you overcame some kinds of obstacles that weren't apparent in your diversity essays, personal statements, or various check-boxes and fill-ins?

I didn't treat my law school application as a contest to see how many disadvantages I could convince the adcoms that I overcame (in part because I knew I could never win such a contest, and in part because I don't think sob stories are particularly compelling reasons to admit people into law school).  

Oh, Hank, you know that's not what I meant.  I just think there's a lot of whining about how white kids have various problems and black kids have a check-box, and that's just not the reality of the application process.  If you have overcome something big, you get the chance to show it.  That's not a sob story; it's part of providing admissions committees a fuller view of who you are and a way to contextualize your credentials.  I think it's very helpful to know if someone had to work through school or raise a child or have chemotherapy or whatever.  Sometimes it makes someone's achievements seem greater.

Smails, yeah, find those statistics for me.  I'm not quite sure how you'll come up with them, but I definitely find it interesting.  Also, again, since "diversity" is the legal purpose of affirmative action programs, I don't see any problem with giving affirmative action consideration to wealthy URM applicants.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: simonsays on May 12, 2007, 02:49:24 PM
What, the two of you overcame some kinds of obstacles that weren't apparent in your diversity essays, personal statements, or various check-boxes and fill-ins?

I didn't treat my law school application as a contest to see how many disadvantages I could convince the adcoms that I overcame (in part because I knew I could never win such a contest, and in part because I don't think sob stories are particularly compelling reasons to admit people into law school). 

Oh, Hank, you know that's not what I meant.  I just think there's a lot of whining about how white kids have various problems and black kids have a check-box, and that's just not the reality of the application process.  If you have overcome something big, you get the chance to show it.  That's not a sob story; it's part of providing admissions committees a fuller view of who you are and a way to contextualize your credentials.  I think it's very helpful to know if someone had to work through school or raise a child or have chemotherapy or whatever.  Sometimes it makes someone's achievements seem greater.

Smails, yeah, find those statistics for me.  I'm not quite sure how you'll come up with them, but I definitely find it interesting.  Also, again, since "diversity" is the legal purpose of affirmative action programs, I don't see any problem with giving affirmative action consideration to wealthy URM applicants.


the problem is you're using two different rule sets.  The rule for diversity based on hardship has a high threshold, while the diversity provision for wealthy URMs is a much lower standard.

When combined the lower standard based on race overrides and the other argument appears superficial.  i.e.  Why should a wealthy URM with presumably more resources than a non-URM be admitted with lower numbers?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 12, 2007, 02:55:59 PM
the problem is you're using two different rule sets.  The rule for diversity based on hardship has a high threshold, while the diversity provision for wealthy URMs is a much lower standard.

When combined the lower standard based on race overrides and the other argument appears superficial.  i.e.  Why should a wealthy URM with presumably more resources than a non-URM be admitted with lower numbers?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "threshold."  I also really don't know how any of you know what the "diversity provision" for wealthy URMs -- or anyone else -- is without making wild assumptions based on anecdote and incomplete datasets like LSN.

Also, as I explained earlier in the thread, part of the rationale for using race as a consideration in admissions is providing a "critical mass" of URM students so that people break up monolithic stereotypes about what a black or Latino or Native American person is like.  This includes having wealthy URMs, Latinos whose families have been in the country for generations, Native Americans who didn't grow up on reservations, et al.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: simonsays on May 12, 2007, 03:18:52 PM
the problem is you're using two different rule sets.  The rule for diversity based on hardship has a high threshold, while the diversity provision for wealthy URMs is a much lower standard.

When combined the lower standard based on race overrides and the other argument appears superficial.  i.e.  Why should a wealthy URM with presumably more resources than a non-URM be admitted with lower numbers?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "threshold."  I also really don't know how any of you know what the "diversity provision" for wealthy URMs -- or anyone else -- is without making wild assumptions based on anecdote and incomplete datasets like LSN.

Also, as I explained earlier in the thread, part of the rationale for using race as a consideration in admissions is providing a "critical mass" of URM students so that people break up monolithic stereotypes about what a black or Latino or Native American person is like.  This includes having wealthy URMs, Latinos whose families have been in the country for generations, Native Americans who didn't grow up on reservations, et al.


That's what others are referring to by 'skin deep diversity'.  This policy is proven to promote liberal racism towards minority groups who are neither of the majority nor underrepresented.  Anyone falling into this quasi category is basically screwed.  Case in point, asians in california and on the east coast.

If you fall into a group that has a strong emphasis on education and is overrepresented relative to other minority groups, you are in fact discriminated against.  Take this hypothetical, imagine those with a Jewish background were not considered 'white' but instead a minority group within the larger population.  If their total representation was limited to 12%, which is typically the target for any minority group regardless of underrepresentation status, would you say discrimination would result?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 12, 2007, 06:58:41 PM
That's what others are referring to by 'skin deep diversity'.  This policy is proven to promote liberal racism towards minority groups who are neither of the majority nor underrepresented.  Anyone falling into this quasi category is basically screwed.  Case in point, asians in california and on the east coast.

If you fall into a group that has a strong emphasis on education and is overrepresented relative to other minority groups, you are in fact discriminated against.  Take this hypothetical, imagine those with a Jewish background were not considered 'white' but instead a minority group within the larger population.  If their total representation was limited to 12%, which is typically the target for any minority group regardless of underrepresentation status, would you say discrimination would result?

"Liberal racism"?  I think you ought to explain this a bit more.

I don't know where you get the notion that 12% is the typical target of all minority groups in law school (indeed this is the theme of Rehnquist's dissent in Grutter -- don't you people read your source materials?).  There are very few elite law schools (the ones that are accused of practicing the most affirmative action and that seem to get affirmative action opponents' knickers all twisted) with African American representation more than 10%.  Latino representation is typically much lower (5-8%), as is Native American representation (less than 2% almost everywhere, usually less than 1%).  Furthermore, there are several schools with Asian American enrollment well over 12%. If schools are admitting Asian American applicants in lower percentages than white students, shame on them, really.  There's no need to do so in order to award affirmative consideration to applicants from underrepresented groups.  If Asian American students are at a disadvantage, it's because schools are trying to keep a stable percentage of white students, not because they have effectively reserved 15% of the class for URM students.

And I realize this was a counterfactual, but if you think there's any realistic possibility that Jewish applicants are suffering or could suffer discrimination in law school admissions, you have probably never set foot in a law school north of the Mason-Dixon.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 12, 2007, 09:10:17 PM
Need a history lesson?  Jews were limited by gentlemans agreement at every top college in the northeast and midwest until after WWII.

Dude, I'm Jewish.  I know.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: H4CS on May 12, 2007, 09:18:46 PM
Dude, I'm Jewish.  I know.

Not where it counts.  Zing!  Wait, I don't get it.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 12, 2007, 10:13:18 PM
it may have been said, but i didnt check through the 17 pages...but this country is nothing now but DE FACTO segregation...correct?  i mean, even in my college, all the blacks hung out together.  i believe they take it a step further with the united negro college fund (also, its funny how i cant call blacks negro even though they call themselves that when it comes to getting money for college)

anyways...thats my rant. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 13, 2007, 12:00:05 AM
it may have been said, but i didnt check through the 17 pages...but this country is nothing now but DE FACTO segregation...correct?  i mean, even in my college, all the blacks hung out together.  i believe they take it a step further with the united negro college fund (also, its funny how i cant call blacks negro even though they call themselves that when it comes to getting money for college)

anyways...thats my rant. 

(Notwithstanding the fact that we disagree on some of the basic premises of your argument..) It seems a bit anachronistic of you to think that UNCF should be called otherwise.  Do you also have a problem with the National Association for the Advancement of (gasp) Colored People?  Perhaps it would be helpful to situate each of the organizations within their respective historical contexts before "ranting" about the monikers.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 13, 2007, 09:21:29 AM
Blacks just want their handouts at this point.  I don't blame them.  If I was going to get a 10 point lsat bump 12 months ago, I would be fighting tooth-and-nail for these points just like they do.  I'd want my kids to get the same free points in college/grad admissions and hiring.

They're too close to be objective about it.

Did you find those "statistics" about how poor white applicants don't get affirmative action consideration?  I know you were "running out" before, but perhaps since it's the day of rest you'll find some time.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 14, 2007, 01:39:03 AM
Dear Naturally....

Gasp...Colored people eh?  I think that is an ignorant label and please disect your argument in such a fashion that you do not simply return a question to my side of the table...

What i am trying to understand is why:
the rapper "timbaland" can use the "gasp" N- word "I'm just that pimp n-word from Va. Beach Rrrrob each, uh, let me not slur my speech"  in a song without reprecussion
i can write a book about rappers and their lyrics...biggie smalls in "juicy"- "and if you dont know, now you know, n-word"
WHY IS THIS OK?

Al sharpton can call the former mayor of NY (david dinkins)a "gasp" "n-word whore" and, most significantly, defend this action by saying "well, i apologized, i was wrong." but not as wrong as don imus who didnt even say the n word or anything close to it???
And what about the white girls on the rutgers team?

why is calling black people "colored" or "negroes" is taboo, yet there are organizations that foster these labels, so just curious, why can't everyone refer to them as this?

OK natural...i am not bashing you, i am seriously curious on your take of these issues and how you relate to them.  i dont want a race war, just some level headed understanding!
it is in my sole biased opinion that the term "colored people" is highly offensive...or am i wrong to think this?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 01:46:10 AM
Dear Naturally....

Gasp...Colored people eh?  I think that is an ignorant label and please disect your argument in such a fashion that you do not simply return a question to my side of the table...

What i am trying to understand is why:
the rapper "timbaland" can use the "gasp" N- word "I'm just that pimp n-word from Va. Beach Rrrrob each, uh, let me not slur my speech"  in a song without reprecussion
i can write a book about rappers and their lyrics...biggie smalls in "juicy"- "and if you dont know, now you know, n-word"
WHY IS THIS OK?

Al sharpton can call the former mayor of NY (david dinkins)a "gasp" "n-word whore" and, most significantly, defend this action by saying "well, i apologized, i was wrong." but not as wrong as don imus who didnt even say the n word or anything close to it???
And what about the white girls on the rutgers team?

why is calling black people "colored" or "negroes" is taboo, yet there are organizations that foster these labels, so just curious, why can't everyone refer to them as this?

OK natural...i am not bashing you, i am seriously curious on your take of these issues and how you relate to them.  i dont want a race war, just some level headed understanding!
it is in my sole biased opinion that the term "colored people" is highly offensive...or am i wrong to think this?


As if Al Sharpton speaks for Black America or that we, as a collective unit, sanction everything that he says. And fyi, the term "colored" in the NAACP, originally included all racial minorities including Jews.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 11:48:02 AM
What color are Jews? 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 11:59:36 AM
What color are Jews? 

Every Jewish person I've met has been white.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Louis55 on May 14, 2007, 12:05:36 PM
Dear Naturally....

Gasp...Colored people eh?  I think that is an ignorant label and please disect your argument in such a fashion that you do not simply return a question to my side of the table...

What i am trying to understand is why:
the rapper "timbaland" can use the "gasp" N- word "I'm just that pimp n-word from Va. Beach Rrrrob each, uh, let me not slur my speech"  in a song without reprecussion
i can write a book about rappers and their lyrics...biggie smalls in "juicy"- "and if you dont know, now you know, n-word"
WHY IS THIS OK?

Al sharpton can call the former mayor of NY (david dinkins)a "gasp" "n-word whore" and, most significantly, defend this action by saying "well, i apologized, i was wrong." but not as wrong as don imus who didnt even say the n word or anything close to it???
And what about the white girls on the rutgers team?

why is calling black people "colored" or "negroes" is taboo, yet there are organizations that foster these labels, so just curious, why can't everyone refer to them as this?

OK natural...i am not bashing you, i am seriously curious on your take of these issues and how you relate to them.  i dont want a race war, just some level headed understanding!
it is in my sole biased opinion that the term "colored people" is highly offensive...or am i wrong to think this?



Who said rappers using the n-word is okay? These rappers who use derogatory and offensive language have not been granted special rights by the magically black community which decides everything black in secret meetings.(emphasis added for sarcasm)  A lot of people, both black and non-black, are disgusted by some of the language that rappers use.  My mother did not allow me to listen to certain rappers like many of my friends.  And let it be know that these rappers main customers are not blacks but non-blacks mainly suburban white kids. 

Are you being serious when you are talking about NAACP and UNC? These institutions use the term “negro” and “colored” because those were the terms that were used at the time.  To change the name now would be to erase the history because we are now uncomfortable with the truth of our past as Americans. 

As for the white girls or non-black girls on the team, I would think they would be deeply offended by Imus comments.  Sports teams are usually like families, so when someone says something about your sister while it may not directly affect you it does not stop you from feeling the anger and pain that Imus comments caused your sister.   

What color are Jews? 

Exactly. Silly isn't it? I mean say one would say the color of their skin is "white," but if you know anything about American history Jews were not considered white, as white meant being Christian. "Whiteness" as constructed in the American context is not about ones color but about privileges granted to those deemed "white." Italians and Irish were not always know as "white" either. It took them a while to earn their "whiteness."
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 12:15:22 PM
Dear Naturally....

Gasp...Colored people eh?  I think that is an ignorant label and please disect your argument in such a fashion that you do not simply return a question to my side of the table...

What i am trying to understand is why:
the rapper "timbaland" can use the "gasp" N- word "I'm just that pimp n-word from Va. Beach Rrrrob each, uh, let me not slur my speech"  in a song without reprecussion
i can write a book about rappers and their lyrics...biggie smalls in "juicy"- "and if you dont know, now you know, n-word"
WHY IS THIS OK?

Al sharpton can call the former mayor of NY (david dinkins)a "gasp" "n-word whore" and, most significantly, defend this action by saying "well, i apologized, i was wrong." but not as wrong as don imus who didnt even say the n word or anything close to it???
And what about the white girls on the rutgers team?

why is calling black people "colored" or "negroes" is taboo, yet there are organizations that foster these labels, so just curious, why can't everyone refer to them as this?

OK natural...i am not bashing you, i am seriously curious on your take of these issues and how you relate to them.  i dont want a race war, just some level headed understanding!
it is in my sole biased opinion that the term "colored people" is highly offensive...or am i wrong to think this?



Who said rappers using the n-word is okay? These rappers who use derogatory and offensive language have not been granted special rights by the magically black community which decides everything black in secret meetings.(emphasis added for sarcasm)  A lot of people, both black and non-black, are disgusted by some of the language that rappers use.  My mother did not allow me to listen to certain rappers like many of my friends.  And let it be know that these rappers main customers are not blacks but non-blacks mainly suburban white kids. 

Are you being serious when you are talking about NAACP and UNC? These institutions use the term “negro” and “colored” because those were the terms that were used at the time.  To change the name now would be to erase the history because we are now uncomfortable with the truth of our past as Americans. 

As for the white girls or non-black girls on the team, I would think they would be deeply offended by Imus comments.  Sports teams are usually like families, so when someone says something about your sister while it may not directly affect you it does not stop you from feeling the anger and pain that Imus comments caused your sister.   

What color are Jews? 

Exactly. Silly isn't it? I mean say one would say the color of their skin is "white," but if you know anything about American history Jews were not considered white, as white meant being Christian. "Whiteness" as constructed in the American context is not about ones color but about privileges granted to those deemed "white." Italians and Irish were not always know as "white" either. It took them a while to earn their "whiteness."

True. True. However, Jews are recipients of "white privelidge" until maybe they give you there last name. In a store or during a traffic stop, Jews would probably be recipients of "white priviledge."
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 12:34:17 PM
What about Asians?

They're from Asia.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 01:21:38 PM
What color are Asians? 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: MachuPicchu on May 14, 2007, 01:31:53 PM
What color are Asians? 

In the event you are posing the question out of a thirst for knowledge, Asia and Africa have the most phenotypic and genetic (not visible)diversity of the inhabited continents. Indigenous Asians come in every shade from milk-pale to olive-gold to chestnut-brown to the intensely pigmented brown-black of some south Indian communities.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 01:34:10 PM
What color are Asians? 

Indians? Chinese? Japenese? Indonesians? Filipinos? Russians?

Some asians have skin pigmentation similar to caucasions; however, their facial and other distinct features would probably exclude them from white priviledge.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 01:40:25 PM
Quote
What color are Jews?   
Quote
What color are Asians? 

Wow, guys.  I was kidding. 


What has white priviledge done for me lately? 

What about the white disadvantage?  That's what has been following me around (and I'm not talking about AA). 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 01:41:17 PM
Quote
What color are Jews?   
Quote
What color are Asians? 

Wow, guys.  I was kidding. 


What has white priviledge done for me lately? 

What about the white disadvantage?  That's what has been following me around (and I'm not talking about AA). 

What things have you suffered as a result of being white or your family being white?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 01:52:08 PM
Discrimination. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 01:53:14 PM
Discrimination. 

like?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 14, 2007, 02:34:03 PM
Dear Naturally:
i am glad to see you appreciate historical contexts. so answer me this...why is the confederate flag being "erased"? that is part of history, both white and black, yet it is found to be so offensive that is now a racial stigma!  why why why? just as much as "hip hop" is a culture/heritage, so is the confederate flag!  As a matter of fact, correct me if i am wrong, if we use this logic on retiring flags because it was used by "offensive groups", shouldn't the American Flag be retired because the KKK flies it everywhere? Also, you never responded to my Al Sharpton query.

Additionally, the rappers are being permitted to say anything they want, via free speech. the rapper/producer "russel simmons" on anderson cooper said its ok for the rappers to say anything because "its true and its how they feel and its what really happen" (that is a paraphrased quote by the way) so why can't everyone else?  and for you to even mention the psuedo fact that most rap is being sponsored by white suburban kids is such a cop out!  the music is created by mostly blacks is an undeniable fact.  just because you saw some BS on tv saying that its supported by white kids in the burbs doesn't take anything away from the producers. 
your turn!
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 02:39:54 PM
Being called a honky and a cracker (usually prefaced by "f***ing").  My personal favorite was the time when I was walking down the street and I made eye contact with a black guy walking past me.  I smiled and said hi, which threw him into a tirade of racial slurs and swearing, because I (a white guy) would dare say "hi" to him. 

Another time I said "hi" to a black lady and she got flustered because a white guy was "acting like he knows me."

In Tijuana all the vendors try and take advantage of me and my friends.  The Mexican Police harrass us for bribes.  I burn easy in the sun. 

I was in Atlanta and went to order food at a Church's Chicken.  My sister and I were the only white people in the restaurant.  The lady at the counter looked us up and down, laughed and walked away.  We had to wait until another person would come and take our order.  Since neither my sister nor myself were wearing humerous clothing I can only assume it was because we were white. 

My family is white, but we all learned spanish (living in California).  We have a Mexican friend (she speaks no English) tell us that she (and many others that she knows) believes that it is OK to steal from white people "because they can afford it."

I've never been physically assaulted for being white-actually I've never been in a fight with anyone. I don't get angry easily and I try not to make others angry.  So yeah, that is the short list of my discrimination experiences.  There have been several other instances, but those were the most memorable.  Usually I just laugh and walk away. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 03:00:26 PM
Being called a honky and a cracker (usually prefaced by "f***ing").  My personal favorite was the time when I was walking down the street and I made eye contact with a black guy walking past me.  I smiled and said hi, which threw him into a tirade of racial slurs and swearing, because I (a white guy) would dare say "hi" to him. 

Another time I said "hi" to a black lady and she got flustered because a white guy was "acting like he knows me."

In Tijuana all the vendors try and take advantage of me and my friends.  The Mexican Police harrass us for bribes.  I burn easy in the sun. 

I was in Atlanta and went to order food at a Church's Chicken.  My sister and I were the only white people in the restaurant.  The lady at the counter looked us up and down, laughed and walked away.  We had to wait until another person would come and take our order.  Since neither my sister nor myself were wearing humerous clothing I can only assume it was because we were white. 

My family is white, but we all learned spanish (living in California).  We have a Mexican friend (she speaks no English) tell us that she (and many others that she knows) believes that it is OK to steal from white people "because they can afford it."

I've never been physically assaulted for being white-actually I've never been in a fight with anyone. I don't get angry easily and I try not to make others angry.  So yeah, that is the short list of my discrimination experiences.  There have been several other instances, but those were the most memorable.  Usually I just laugh and walk away. 

I sympathize with you, but that's not disrimination. You weren't denied any specific right or priviledge because someo ignorant fool called you a name.

Has anyone ever pulled you over or randomly searched you because you were white?
Has anyone ever denied you housing because you were white?

I had a teacher in junior high (1996) refuse to teach me because I was black. Had she just called me a n!%%@er and taught me....then cool. That is simply racist name-calling. But she refused to teach me. That is racial discrimination-racism followed by a denial of rights or priviledges.



Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 03:09:07 PM
i am glad to see you appreciate historical contexts. so answer me this...why is the confederate flag being "erased"? that is part of history, both white and black, yet it is found to be so offensive that is now a racial stigma!  why why why? just as much as "hip hop" is a culture/heritage, so is the confederate flag!   As a matter of fact, correct me if i am wrong, if we use this logic on retiring flags because it was used by "offensive groups", shouldn't the American Flag be retired because the KKK flies it everywhere?

[img width= height=]http://www.flagfocus.info/worldflags-large/flag-Ger-Swastika-1935-45.gif[/img]

This was a historical flag as well for Jews and Germans. Do you think Germans should fly it for the sake of history?

Additionally, the rappers are being permitted to say anything they want, via free speech. the rapper/producer "russel simmons" on anderson cooper said its ok for the rappers to say anything because "its true and its how they feel and its what really happen" (that is a paraphrased quote by the way) so why can't everyone else?  and for you to even mention the psuedo fact that most rap is being sponsored by white suburban kids is such a cop out!  the music is created by mostly blacks is an undeniable fact.  just because you saw some BS on tv saying that its supported by white kids in the burbs doesn't take anything away from the producers. 
your turn!

I'll take this one. Please answer this question: Rappers are being permitted by whom?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 03:13:02 PM
I haven't been pulled over for being white, but I've been pulled over and taken out of my car because I was a high school kid.

How does being harrassed as extorted for bribes by Mexican police not count as discrimination? 

How does being denied tasty Church's Chicken not count as discrimination? 

I had a handful of teachers that I wish would have refused to teach me. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 03:23:15 PM
I haven't been pulled over for being white, but I've been pulled over and taken out of my car because I was a high school kid.

How does being harrassed as extorted for bribes by Mexican police not count as discrimination? 

Let me clarify, we are talking about America. Many European countries permit racial discrimination, also. However, that is not relevant in our discussion about racial discrimination in America. Additionally, if you were extorted by Mexican police, it was probably because you were a tourist. I would have probably suffered the same fate, being an American.

How does being denied tasty Church's Chicken not count as discrimination? 

I had a handful of teachers that I wish would have refused to teach me. 

If that was an attempt at being funny...it was kind of offensive.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 03:29:39 PM
How did they know I was a tourist?  Because I am white. 

Quote
We have a Mexican friend (she speaks no English) tell us that she (and many others that she knows) believes that it is OK to steal from white people "because they can afford it."

Having property stolen is a violation of my rights as well. 

Quote
I haven't been pulled over for being white, but I've been pulled over and taken out of my car because I was a high school kid.

I don't even know if all of the police (two per car, three cars) were white.  It is quite possible that the one that chose to pull me over was hispanic, and saw a white kid to discriminate against. Maybe it had nothing to do with being in high school?  I've never thought of it this way before, but it could quite possibly be true. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 03:39:22 PM
Besides, I assume that you were either put into another class or a new teacher was brought in.  Either way you still received your education.  So if my situation "wasn't discrimination" then (using the same logic) neither was yours. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 03:40:54 PM
How did they know I was a tourist?  Because I am white. 

Probably. However, being Black in Mexico is probably a dead giveaway, too. So, I guess you could make that argument, but I think its more so because you're perceived to be a rich American. If Americans were perceived to be poor then I don't think it would mater if you were white.

We have a Mexican friend (she speaks no English) tell us that she (and many others that she knows) believes that it is OK to steal from white people "because they can afford it."

Having property stolen is a violation of my rights as well. 

Again, you could make that argument, but I think its more so because you're an American. That fact that you're white is a side issue. If a poor immigrant had the choice to either take $100 dollars from you and $1,000 from me, I don't believe she would care about you being white.
 


Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 03:43:30 PM
Besides, I assume that you were either put into another class or a new teacher was brought in.  Either way you still received your education.  So if my situation "wasn't discrimination" then (using the same logic) neither was yours. 

Actually, it was an advanced math class I never got the opportunity to take.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 14, 2007, 03:56:52 PM
Quote
Probably. However, being Black in Mexico is probably a dead giveaway, too. So, I guess you could make that argument, but I think its more so because you're perceived to be a rich American. If Americans were perceived to be poor then I don't think it would mater if you were white.

Maybe they would hit you up too.  Maybe they would discriminate against whites and blacks.  If this isn't a case of discrimination, then how is it discrimination for the police or ICE to arrest the Mexicans standing in front of Home Depot (because they assume they are illegal) and deporting them? 

Quote
Again, you could make that argument, but I think its more so because you're an American. That fact that you're white is a side issue. If a poor immigrant had the choice to either take $100 dollars from you and $1,000 from me, I don't believe she would care about you being white.

Again, maybe she would steal from you too.  Either way, the fact that there is the assumption that whites have money, so it is OK to target white people is discrimination.  If there was the opportunity to steal from you, an immigrant (of a similar mind set) might go for.  Looking for opportunities to steal from white people is discrimination. 

Quote
Actually, it was an advanced math class I never got the opportunity to take.

And I hope that she has a horrible life and pays the consequences for being a bigot. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 14, 2007, 04:01:29 PM
Hi Princey!  Thanks for the reply.  I'm glad it was on the last page of this thread or I would have missed it, as I am not following this one as closely as others.  I didn't know you asked me anything about Al Sharpton, so I'll try to go back and find your question.


Dear Naturally:
i am glad to see you appreciate historical contexts. so answer me this...why is the confederate flag being "erased"? that is part of history, both white and black, yet it is found to be so offensive that is now a racial stigma!  why why why? just as much as "hip hop" is a culture/heritage, so is the confederate flag! 
I'm a bit confused as to what the point of your argument is, as well as about the nature of your question to me.  I'm not sure if this thread took a turn and people began discussing the flag and hip-hop, but I'll go back and peruse it in a second to see if I'm just missing something here.  In any event, please help me to understand what you mean by "erased."  I'm not sure how to begin answering your question until I can really wrap my mind around what aspects of the Confederate flag issue you're speaking about.    



As a matter of fact, correct me if i am wrong, if we use this logic on retiring flags because it was used by "offensive groups", shouldn't the American Flag be retired because the KKK flies it everywhere? Also, you never responded to my Al Sharpton query.
Again, I'm not sure what logic you are referencing, as I have not really put forth any on this particular matter.   I think it would help to have you explain more about what you feel is the logic behind the so-called "erasure" of the rebel flag.



Additionally, the rappers are being permitted to say anything they want, via free speech. the rapper/producer "russel simmons" on anderson cooper said its ok for the rappers to say anything because "its true and its how they feel and its what really happen" (that is a paraphrased quote by the way) so why can't everyone else? 
I can't speak about this show, but I did see Russell Simmons on Oprah, and I disagreed with most of the ridiculous nonsense he uttered there.  I don't buy into the fact that these "artists" (a term I'm using loosely here) are the so-called "poets" of their communities, to use his words.  I could get into that a bit later, but again, it seems premature to tackle a second issue when we haven't clarified the first.  



...and for you to even mention the psuedo fact that most rap is being sponsored by white suburban kids is such a cop out!  the music is created by mostly blacks is an undeniable fact.  just because you saw some BS on tv saying that its supported by white kids in the burbs doesn't take anything away from the producers. 
your turn!

 :o Ummm, I'm really bewildered by this last part.  When did I say such a thing?  As far as I remember, I made one comment in this thread about why people should not take issue with names like UNCF and NAACP.  I believe that was several pages ago, and frankly I don't recall saying anything after that. Again, there's much that I COULD say about the issue, but it seems there's too much confusion already that I think it'd be wise to clear the air about the things I referenced above.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 14, 2007, 04:05:06 PM
Maybe they would hit you up too.  Maybe they would discriminate against whites and blacks.  If this isn't a case of discrimination, then how is it discrimination for the police or ICE to arrest the Mexicans standing in front of Home Depot (because they assume they are illegal) and deporting them? 

But Home Depot policiy prohibts solicitation on its property. (I worked there for nearly 6 years) So, the presumption of illegality is secondary and avoidable all together.

Again, maybe she would steal from you too.  Either way, the fact that there is the assumption that whites have money, so it is OK to target white people is discrimination.  If there was the opportunity to steal from you, an immigrant (of a similar mind set) might go for.  Looking for opportunities to steal from white people is discrimination.

But like I said, its probably based on the fact that you're an American, not simply because you're white, as she would probably preferentially rob me if I looked like a gaudy American.

And I hope that she has a horrible life and pays the consequences for being a bigot. 

Thanks. I don't wish ill-will on her. She prevented me from probably graduating high school a year early....kind lowered my self-esteem, but it was undoubtedly a learning experience.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 14, 2007, 04:30:53 PM
Dear Naturally....

Gasp...Colored people eh?  I think that is an ignorant label...
Whether you think it is an ignorant label or not is immaterial to whether it was an appropriate name for the group within the historical context of its founding.  Like or it leave it, that was a way that people (black and white) referred to members of the African-American "race" in a certain not-do-distant part of our nation's history.  If this were 2007 and the same word was being used, I'd likely take issue with it.  In 1944, not so much.  

and please disect your argument in such a fashion that you do not simply return a question to my side of the table...
I think the question is a fair one.  If you take issue with The United Negro College Fund, I'd like to know if you consistently use the same logic and take issue with The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.  Both were used as racial identifiers for the same group at one point in the past, and both of those terms are generally considered equally inappropriate to refer to African-Americans today.


What i am trying to understand is why:
the rapper "timbaland" can use the "gasp" N- word "I'm just that pimp n-word from Va. Beach Rrrrob each, uh, let me not slur my speech"  in a song without reprecussion
i can write a book about rappers and their lyrics...biggie smalls in "juicy"- "and if you dont know, now you know, n-word"
WHY IS THIS OK?
When you ask me, "Why is this ok?"  -- Are you asking because you (a) think I agree with the practice and should offer some kind of logical justification for why Timbaland can get away with something that others can't or (b) want me to explain why I think some people hold this position and the defenses that they put forth.  Frankly speaking, if you can gather anything about me from my other posts on this board, you would know that I do not use the word and disapprove of its use in all contexts by anyone of any race.  The justification you're looking for I cannot offer, simply put, because I don't think there is one.  


Al sharpton can call the former mayor of NY (david dinkins)a "gasp" "n-word whore" and, most significantly, defend this action by saying "well, i apologized, i was wrong."
I'll leave my personal views on Al Sharpton out of this.  I was not even aware that something like this happened, so I'll have to take your word for it.   In any event, I hold Sharpton to the same standard as that to which I hold myself and any other.  There is no justification for what he did.  End of story.  Period.  On this matter, perhaps we agree.


but not as wrong as don imus who didnt even say the n word or anything close to it???
And what about the white girls on the rutgers team?
If you don't understand why a white radio jockey, in particular, or a jockey of any color for that matter should not be allowed to get on the air and describe a black female college athlete as a "nappy-headed ho," then I'm not sure whether our conversation can go much further.  I suspect that you are not African-American and perhaps, may be uninformed or totally ignorant, of the issues surrounding "nappy" hair.  I simply do not have the time or energy to explain all of this right now, but if you are truly interested in understanding why his words were not simple laughing matters, we can discuss more later.  As for your question about the white girls -- was Don Imus referring to them when he said that?  Let me know.


why is calling black people "colored" or "negroes" is taboo, yet there are organizations that foster these labels, so just curious, why can't everyone refer to them as this?
People would use these terms today with very different motivations and intentions than they were being used at the time these organizations found the monikers to be the most appropriate and natural ways to identify their target population.  Also, I do not believe that the organizations "foster" the use of these labels.  I do not see UNCF scholarship recipients calling themselves "negroes" in mass, and I've been a member of the NAACP since birth practically (thanks to my daddy!).  I have not yet been persuaded to pick up the name "colored."  Explain more about how you think the use of these labels is fostered by the two groups.  In the meantime, I am personally of the opinion that we as a people have more pressing concerns than trying to rename UNCF to this decade's name du jour.


OK natural...i am not bashing you, i am seriously curious on your take of these issues and how you relate to them.  i dont want a race war, just some level headed understanding!
it is in my sole biased opinion that the term "colored people" is highly offensive...or am i wrong to think this?
I don't feel bashed at all.  People should be able to discuss things on this forum with decency and respect, whether they agree or disagree.  I simply hope I'm making myself clear.  As for your last question -- Yes, I would be highly offended if you called me colored, though I would hope that you would refrain from willfully doing something that you yourself recognize as ignorant, at worst, and  insensitive at best.   ;)
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: simonsays on May 14, 2007, 07:35:02 PM

ugh.. i hate these conversations.... "Why do I have to park in a driveway"   or "Why can't i park in a parkway"

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 14, 2007, 07:42:49 PM
Dear Naturally,

Thanks for the responses, im going to read through them and make sure i understand clearly what you are trying to convey.  Through a quick glance i see you are a member of the NAACP.  I am not of african descent nor am i black, but i am a first generation from greek immigrant parents.  i by no means am comparing our races, just to let you know my background.

When i asked you why it was "ok" for the rappers to get away with those lyrics, i wasn't referring to YOU, but just the fact that no one (particularly al sharpton, etc) is raising a flag. there was a recent debate between al sharpton and sean hannity, you should check it out!

about the confederate flag- i live in the south- south carolina where the NAACP had held a "tourist ban", a few years back and its still going on now if i know my history because the confederate flag flew above our statehouse practically forever.

they, the NAACP, believes the flag is a symbol of racism and slavery an want it banished.  Of course they won their case but they are still upset about something, no one knows for sure what it is now though. 

anyways, we could go on forever, but i was just curious on your take of these issues, especially since you are member of NAACP it helps me, and just anyone in general!  let me know if im still unclear
and no im not racist, ignorant or anything!
thanks naturally!

oh, by the way, theres a song by lauren hill called "nappy head" and they (wyclef jean) calls lauren hill nappy head (or the other way around) and they are all cool with it....
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: adlai on May 14, 2007, 11:48:35 PM
The confederate flag flying over state capitals is not a time-honored southern tradition. It got its start... during the civil rights era. figure it out from there.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 15, 2007, 12:13:31 AM
Dear Adlai,

the confederate flag IS a time honored southern tradition...and as a matter of fact, there were proud confederate whites, blacks and jews...

so figure it out from there...
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 15, 2007, 05:55:57 AM
Dear Adlai,

the confederate flag IS a time honored southern tradition...and as a matter of fact, there were proud confederate whites, blacks and jews...

so figure it out from there...

The condfederate flag was designed to replace the American flag. It represents the institution of slavery and Jim Crow.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 15, 2007, 10:22:27 AM
seventhson.
where do u get your information from? a cracker jacks box?  you are so ignorant to say the confederate flag is a jim crow symbol!
just because the flag flew at the time of jim crow or whatever doesnt mean the two correlate. 
the KKK flew the american flag, so maybe we shouldn't fly that either!

your logic is flawed and baseless. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 15, 2007, 11:04:24 AM
The Confederate Flag was designed as the flag of the states of secession.  Not everyone in those states believed in slavery, in fact there were some abolitionists among the leaders (some because they were truely against slavery and others because they knew they wouldn't get European help without it).  What they were all opposed to was the idea of the federal government telling the states what to do.  It was a big state's right's issue. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 15, 2007, 12:29:13 PM
seventhson.
where do u get your information from? a cracker jacks box?  you are so ignorant to say the confederate flag is a jim crow symbol!
just because the flag flew at the time of jim crow or whatever doesnt mean the two correlate. 
the KKK flew the american flag, so maybe we shouldn't fly that either!

your logic is flawed and baseless. 

The southern states seceded from the union because of Northern opposition to the institution of slavery as outlined in the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union." The Confederate flag was a adopted and replaced the American flag in those respects for southern states.

Had it not been for the South's opposition to anti-slavery sentiment, the confederate flag would never have came into existence because there would not have been a civil war.

The American flag, however, is different, in that it represents a nation that repealed slavery. The KKK also uses the Bible to justify its ignorance, but that would not deter anyone from Christianity.

Opposition to slavery did not create the Bible or the American Flag. Opposition to slavery, however, did creat the Confederecy and thereby, the Confederate flag.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 15, 2007, 03:16:05 PM
you have manipulated facts to customize your argument.  furthermore, i went to a military college which happened to play a major part in the civil war and the confederacy is embraced as historical culture, southern culture, etc.  and we happen to not believe in slavery, either.  imagine that.

the confederate flag may have been flown by slave laborers in the 1800's, but that is not what it represents today.  just like the american flag/bible/whatever doesn't necessarily stand for hate groups who use it.
the point is, the south lost and conceded to defeat.  the south will rise again, however, in a much more diplomatic and civilized manner.  it may take a while, but it will happen.  to forget what took place so long ago would be to erase history, which is exactly what the naacp and other organizations refuse to do.  if we erase the confederate flag and everything about it, why dont we erase affirmative action, a constant reminder, a symbol if you will, of those harsh times.

anyways , just my thoughts

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 15, 2007, 03:21:24 PM
you have manipulated facts to customize your argument.

How so?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 15, 2007, 03:26:08 PM
why dont we erase affirmative action, a constant reminder, a symbol if you will, of those harsh times.

As soon as institutionalized racism and sexism are eradicated we might be able to do that.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 15, 2007, 03:30:54 PM
how so? your claim states that the civil war was only about slavery, when in fact, it was about a complex network of socioeconomic and cultural issues.  it wasnt JUST SLAVERY, slavery was a major point as the south's economy was doomed to collapse, however there were still other issues at hand
i.e. the major one- the south believed they had a right to secession and they formed the confederacy.  slavery just happened to be an issue- it wasn't THE only issue.  


in the end, it was like every other war, it was about money. and the naacp is the same way- its all about money, who controls what and whos representing what, etc. emancipation proclamation was a good thing, however, now there are modern day slaves, slaves to affirmative action, slaves to quotas, etc.  
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 15, 2007, 03:51:05 PM
your claim states that the civil war was only about slavery, when in fact, it was about a complex network of socioeconomic and cultural issues.

The Southern States were concerend about states' rights and, in this case, states' rights to own and exploit slaves. ...socioeconomic and cultural issues that were rooted in slavery.

in the end, it was like every other war, it was about money.

You're right! But more specifically, it was about free labor to sustain profits in a failing cotton crop.

and the naacp is the same way- its all about money, who controls what and whos representing what, etc. emancipation proclamation was a good thing, however, now there are modern day slaves, slaves to affirmative action, slaves to quotas, etc.  

You keep mentioning the NAACP like every black person is a member/supporter.

The rest of your statement is BS.

You wouldn't expect Jews to idley allow a "German Swastika Flag" to fly above a courthouse.

Getdafuqoutahere.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 15, 2007, 03:53:11 PM
how so? your claim states that the civil war was only about slavery, when in fact, it was about a complex network of socioeconomic and cultural issues.  it wasnt JUST SLAVERY, slavery was a major point as the south's economy was doomed to collapse, however there were still other issues at hand
i.e. the major one- the south believed they had a right to secession and they formed the confederacy.  slavery just happened to be an issue- it wasn't THE only issue.  


in the end, it was like every other war, it was about money. and the naacp is the same way- its all about money, who controls what and whos representing what, etc. emancipation proclamation was a good thing, however, now there are modern day slaves, slaves to affirmative action, slaves to quotas, etc.  

And just to clarify affirmative action and quotas are two different concepts.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: adlai on May 15, 2007, 04:01:48 PM
your claim states that the civil war was only about slavery, when in fact, it was about a complex network of socioeconomic and cultural issues.

The Southern States were concerend about states' rights and, in this case, states' rights to own and exploit slaves. ...socioeconomic and cultural issues that were rooted in slavery.

in the end, it was like every other war, it was about money.

You're right! But more specifically, it was about free labor to sustain profits in a failing cotton crop.

and the naacp is the same way- its all about money, who controls what and whos representing what, etc. emancipation proclamation was a good thing, however, now there are modern day slaves, slaves to affirmative action, slaves to quotas, etc.   

You keep mentioning the NAACP like every black person is a member/supporter.

The rest of your statement is BS.

You wouldn't expect Jews to idley allow a "German Swastika Flag" to fly above a courthouse.

Getdafuqoutahere.

Not to mention the obvious: the election of Lincoln who was widely seen as an abolitionist, John Brown and the fear of a violent slave insurrection, the Missouri Compromise, the 3/5 compromise, Dred Scott...

The institution of slavery made possible the South's cotton crop, and if not for slavery the economic disputes surrounding cotton would not be as severe, as it would have been less prominent an economic activity.

In the end, you can cite tariffs and the like, but it all boils down to slavery.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 16, 2007, 01:04:59 AM
i love this argument!

for the record, every member of the Naacp is probably black, or will i stand corrected?

but, not every black is a member of the naacp.  however, the naacp represents every black whether they want it to or not.  or maybe the blacks that don't want to be referred to as "colored" don't join.  maybe its membership through birth rite.  in any event, the naacp and affirmative action and quotas are all intertwined.  and the conferderate flag cant even be compared to the nazi regime what so ever. 

i have a new topic since that one is going back and forth.  this is hypothetical, but not racist and i don't mean any disrespect, but let's make the best out of a bad situation.

what if slavery would have never occured and blacks would have never been "imported" for lack of better terms...they would all be suffering in africa.  starving, aids ridden, etc.  while i in no way condone slavery, the blacks today aren't slaves and should be more respectful to their ancestors who suffered so they could have a truly better life.  i doubt those former slavews, God bless their souls, would want to see blacks act the way they do now. 
just a thought, bring it on....
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ladi on May 16, 2007, 07:49:52 AM
My goodness...;D
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ladi on May 16, 2007, 08:25:25 AM
i love this argument!

for the record, every member of the Naacp is probably black, or will i stand corrected?

but, not every black is a member of the naacp.  however, the naacp represents every black whether they want it to or not.  or maybe the blacks that don't want to be referred to as "colored" don't join.  maybe its membership through birth rite.  in any event, the naacp and affirmative action and quotas are all intertwined.  and the conferderate flag cant even be compared to the nazi regime what so ever. 

i have a new topic since that one is going back and forth.  this is hypothetical, but not racist and i don't mean any disrespect, but let's make the best out of a bad situation.

what if slavery would have never occured and blacks would have never been "imported" for lack of better terms...they would all be suffering in africa.  starving, aids ridden, etc.  while i in no way condone slavery, the blacks today aren't slaves and should be more respectful to their ancestors who suffered so they could have a truly better life.  i doubt those former slavews, God bless their souls, would want to see blacks act the way they do now. 
just a thought, bring it on....

Wow! Well, I am curious to know the amount to reading you have done on the African continent on a whole. Since when was everyone suffering in Africa before trans-Atlantic slavery?  There were, of course, challenges facing the hundreds of different cultures in Africa before the Europeans arrive, but many of the difficulties faced today are linked to colonialism. In fact, the modern day nations that you see did not even exist until the arrival of colonists.

But please do tell me what "bad situation" my family would have been in since you must somehow be aware of the region of Africa from which I descend and the ethnic group to which I belong. BTW, I am neither of American heritage nor of recent African descent.

Also since when are all "blacks" descendants of slaves? Further, how do you know how respectful of our ancestors "blacks" are?  Do you know how important ancestors are to African/African descended religions? Are you aware of the impact this has in the many "black" cultures today, whether traditional religions are practiced or not?

Lastly, which "blacks" or African descendents today are you referring to? The ones in political office? Your fellow law students or students to be? Those residing in the U.S., Latin America or the Caribbean, Europe? Tell me, how do "WE" act?

Look forward to you response. I love this argument too!  ;)
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 08:49:10 AM

for the record, every member of the Naacp is probably black, or will i stand corrected?

I hope you're standing because you are about to be corrected. Every member is not black. In fact, the Executive Director of the Hollywood Bureau is not black. (see http://www.naacp.org/about/leadership/executive/vbulluck/). The Elkhart NAACP chapter has a number of white members. (see https://www.pww.org/past-weeks-1999/Teens%20oppose%20Klan.htm) Additionally, the NAACP's history is not all black. It was founded by 2 African-Americans, a Jewish man, 1 white women, and 2 white men. Lastly, according to a CSPAN broadcast I watched, the NAACP has been feverishly trying to recruit more whites into the organization.


but, not every black is a member of the naacp.  however, the naacp represents every black whether they want it to or not.

Let's change up the variables. but, not every (white) is a member of the (KKK).  however, the (KKK) represents every (white) whether they want it to or not. That logic makes no sense. It assumes that black people are monolithic and seperate from the American social mainstreme. If the U.S. Senate is all white (which it was before Obama), does it only represent the interests of white Americans?

or maybe the blacks that don't want to be referred to as "colored" don't join.  maybe its membership through birth rite.  in any event, the naacp and affirmative action and quotas are all intertwined.

 ??? Just because you make a statement that doesn't make it true. You need to give reasons for your assesments. Aren't you trying to go to law school?

and the conferderate flag cant even be compared to the nazi regime what so ever. 

Nazi Germany enslaved and exterminated Jews. The Confederacy (Southern States) enslaved and exterminated Africans. Neither entity atoned for their immoral misjudgements before they were defeated. Both had flags.

what if slavery would have never occured and blacks would have never been "imported" for lack of better terms...they would all be suffering in africa.  starving, aids ridden, etc.  while i in no way condone slavery, the blacks today aren't slaves and should be more respectful to their ancestors who suffered so they could have a truly better life.  i doubt those former slavews, God bless their souls, would want to see blacks act the way they do now. 

Actually, Africa was a thriving continent and, in some regions, an operating democracy before European Imperialsim. You would not have extreme poverty, which is the root to all Africa's ills, if Africa was not being and had not been exploited. So please. Obviously, you know nothing about the history of Africa and African Americans. So again, Getdafuqoutahere.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 16, 2007, 11:07:33 AM
Man alive, somebody please get me an aspirin.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 11:13:40 AM
Man alive, somebody please get me an aspirin.

I figured you might need this instead:

(http://www.findrxonline.com/drugs/vicodin.jpg)

 :D
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 16, 2007, 11:15:28 AM
I figured you might need this instead:

(http://www.findrxonline.com/drugs/vicodin.jpg)

 :D

That might do it.  :D
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 11:28:07 AM
I figured you might need this instead:

(http://www.findrxonline.com/drugs/vicodin.jpg)

 :D

That might do it.  :D

 :D

No kidding.

Oh my god I hadn't been back in here in a while. Holy crap.

Seventhson, you have a lot of stamina.

I'm just bored at work.  :D
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 16, 2007, 11:53:50 AM
im late for work but fuq it..

ok, let see where do i begin.

first, i knew not every NAACP member was black, i threw that in there just for sake of argument.  second, KKK is a hate group while NAACP is a political group.  the KKK does not want anyone who isnt pure white anglo saxon to be in their group.  the NAACP will take anyone who will join- white, black, jew.  the naacp wants a diverse culture to stray away from their counterpart-the black panthers- who are a hate group.  also, TITLE alone, national association for the advancement of colored people one can refer that....it represents colored people.  i have yet to see the NAACP take an issue on a non colored person and back them up.  if you have seen sucha thing, please let me know im curious.

now, about my africa rant.  i didnt mean you would SURELY be suffereing, but i have done a bit of reading/research through college about the state of affairs in Africa and the majority of things aren't going so well.  and before the evil white man went to africa and stole the slaves- wait a minute- it was africans who sold africans into slavery.  nevermin then....

now just because you are black doesnt make you african.  im speaking about true african descendents.  please tell me that harriet tubman would want her struggles to be shot in vain with the political fires of al sharpton and jesse jackson.  read the book "shakedown" if you care to learn anything about jesse jackson.  as long as the "black man is down" and theres a "struggle in the hood", al sharpton and jesse jackson thrive.  without this, htey are nothing and they know it. its sad that they represent the black community when much of the black community realize they are being hosed.   

back to africa and their thriving economy.  africa was thriving through- wait a second- slavery!!!!!

i stand behind my research that slavery was occuring well before the european imperialism took shape.  europeans simply went to the african market and bought what was willingly sold- sure, its wrong, but in those times, thats the way it was.  please dont portray africa as being an innocent victim of euro pillaging.  it wasnt like they invaded africa.  africa was indeed exploited- however, africa exploited africa, europe simply entered the fray at that time. 

also, my father is first generation descendents of the slavs- (czech) the original slaves- where the word came from.  where is my redemption? 

ok, you are hell bent on comparing conferderats to nazies.  here's another attempt to debunk this myth.  nazi germany was ethnic cleansing/genocide. they wanted to rid the earth of jews.  early america, confederates, were not ethnic cleansing, in fact, many white plantation owners/politicians had sex/relationships with slaves and procreated. i will go ahead and save the argument on ur side- yes, some were raped, but not all.  they obviously did not want to rid the earth of africans.   

so now that im back, are you gonna gethafuqoutahere?  i hope u stay and continue our debate.

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 16, 2007, 12:09:46 PM
Steven Colbert interviewed the representative from Tennessee (Nashville area I think), who tried to join the black caucus.  His district is 70+% black.  They wouldn't let him join :(  Do you think they will be more open to whites in the future? 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: ladi on May 16, 2007, 12:10:35 PM
princeyanni:

Who and what specifically are you really responding to? I see my post was barely addressed. Just wondering if you intended to give a direct response...
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 16, 2007, 12:28:58 PM
This is kind of an interesting site I just found. 


http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/arabslavetrade.htm

Africa was being used for slaves before Europeans got there.

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: adlai on May 16, 2007, 12:37:55 PM
Yes. Arguably, the race classification system for social hierarchy got its start from Arab Muslim customs... however, Europeans were the ones whose demand for slave labor turned it into a blockbuster enterprise.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 16, 2007, 12:39:37 PM
It is true that there were some great civilizations in Africa before slavery.  Even Al Sharpton has said so: "White folks was in caves while we was building empires … We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Whether or not they died out before slavery or because of it, I do not know.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 02:00:43 PM
first, i knew not every NAACP member was black, i threw that in there just for sake of argument.  second, KKK is a hate group while NAACP is a political group.  the KKK does not want anyone who isnt pure white anglo saxon to be in their group.  the NAACP will take anyone who will join- white, black, jew.  the naacp wants a diverse culture to stray away from their counterpart-the black panthers- who are a hate group.  also, TITLE alone, national association for the advancement of colored people one can refer that....it represents colored people.  i have yet to see the NAACP take an issue on a non colored person and back them up.  if you have seen sucha thing, please let me know im curious.

The Ku Klux Klan was indeed a political group. In the 1920's, it campaigned and successfully elected many people to governement offices (local, state, and federal). It even had a membership of over 4 million people.

Also, just so we're clear, the term "colored" in 1909 was meant for anyone who was non-white and not just blacks (I figure that is what you were trying to imply). In fact, it still means that today (see: http://www.webster.com/dictionary/colored).

Additionally, issues of poverty, racism, criminal justice, voter fraud and the like are not "colored" issues. They are issues that effect every American as it has partnered with other groups such as the ACLU many of times.

now, about my africa rant.  i didnt mean you would SURELY be suffereing, but i have done a bit of reading/research through college about the state of affairs in Africa and the majority of things aren't going so well.  and before the evil white man went to africa and stole the slaves- wait a minute- it was africans who sold africans into slavery.  nevermin then....

I believe adlai quite effectively answered that question for you.

now just because you are black doesnt make you african.  im speaking about true african descendents.  please tell me that harriet tubman would want her struggles to be shot in vain with the political fires of al sharpton and jesse jackson.  read the book "shakedown" if you care to learn anything about jesse jackson.  as long as the "black man is down" and theres a "struggle in the hood", al sharpton and jesse jackson thrive.  without this, htey are nothing and they know it. its sad that they represent the black community when much of the black community realize they are being hosed.

As long as the media continues to seek the counsel of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, they will thrive. No one appointed either of them to the head of Black America. CNN and Fox did that. I've heard of Kenneth Timmerman. He is the same guy who has written books about America's "War against Islam" and how France betrayed the U.S. He is a neo-conservative with extreme biases against anything non-white and non-Christian. So no. I'd rather not loose brain cells reading "Shakedown." But that is besides the point. You're assuming that Jackson and Sharpton speak for all of black America and that was your first misstep.


back to africa and their thriving economy.  africa was thriving through- wait a second- slavery!!!!!

i stand behind my research that slavery was occuring well before the european imperialism took shape.  europeans simply went to the african market and bought what was willingly sold- sure, its wrong, but in those times, thats the way it was.  please dont portray africa as being an innocent victim of euro pillaging.  it wasnt like they invaded africa.  africa was indeed exploited- however, africa exploited africa, europe simply entered the fray at that time. 

Once again, I believe adlai quite effectively answered that question for you.

also, my father is first generation descendents of the slavs- (czech) the original slaves- where the word came from.  where is my redemption?
 

Why don't you seek that from the Soviets and other European nations? Did the U.S. wrong Czechs in any way?

ok, you are hell bent on comparing conferderats to nazies.  here's another attempt to debunk this myth.  nazi germany was ethnic cleansing/genocide. they wanted to rid the earth of jews.  early america, confederates, were not ethnic cleansing, in fact, many white plantation owners/politicians had sex/relationships with slaves and procreated. i will go ahead and save the argument on ur side- yes, some were raped, but not all.  they obviously did not want to rid the earth of africans.

Actually, the Nazis' initial intent was economic empowerment. Hitler believed that Jews, which represented 1% of the German poulation, controlled most of the countries wealth.  They first restricted Jews from owning business and practicing professional trades. The sentiment eventually led to slavery, which then led to genocide.

The Southern States' initial intent was, also, economic empowerment. They believed the only way to sustain that economic power was to capitalize on free labor. They restricted Negroes from attaining an education and killed all who resisted. Had the slaves outlived their usefulness during this time, it is reasonable to believe they would have suffered the concetration camps and mass killings like in Nazi Germany. (Note: And that is if you don't consider the Trans-Atlantic slave trade as a genocidal effort) While many white plantation owners did rape the black women, it was strictly forbidden by law.

Neither group focused on Jews/Africans in other parts of the world-only the Jews/Africans in their lands. As Germany began to conquer Europe and claim lands as their own, Jews were enslaved. Had the south tried to replicate that emperialism and our landscape was similar, it is likely to conclude that they would have enslaved other Africans.

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 16, 2007, 02:28:18 PM
As long as the media continues to seek the counsel of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, they will thrive. No one appointed either of them to the head of Black America. CNN and Fox did that.

titcr
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 02:37:49 PM
Steven Colbert interviewed the representative from Tennessee (Nashville area I think), who tried to join the black caucus.  His district is 70+% black.  They wouldn't let him join :(  Do you think they will be more open to whites in the future? 

In you ongoing quest to find white victims of discrimination, I think you may have found one. Personally, I think the CBC should apologize and allow this gentleman into their ranks.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 16, 2007, 02:50:16 PM
Ugh, this thing with the CBC has become a shibboleth of the white-victim set.  I'm sick of it.  There are plenty of reasons for minorities to have racially exclusive groups. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 02:56:38 PM
Ugh, this thing with the CBC has become a shibboleth of the white-victim set.  I'm sick of it.  There are plenty of reasons for minorities to have racially exclusive groups

I believe that too, but I'm not so convinced the CBC qualifies. If the purpose of the CBC is to represent their largely black constiuency, then I think any person truly commited to that cause should be allowed to join. I see this having disasterous effects for the CBC's credibility.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 16, 2007, 03:00:43 PM
Ugh, this thing with the CBC has become a shibboleth of the white-victim set.  I'm sick of it.  There are plenty of reasons for minorities to have racially exclusive groups

I believe that too, but I'm not so convinced the CBC qualifies. If the purpose of the CBC is to represent their largely black constiuency, then I think any person truly commited to that cause should be allowed to join. I see this having disasterous effects for the CBC's credibility.

I think it was a bad strategic decision.  That said, if Rep. Cohen really cared about and hoped to support the CBC and its mission, he wouldn't have made such a big fuss about being denied.  He said he respected the decision, but his actions undermined the CBC.

I am also not certain that representing black constituents is the primary or sole goal of the CBC; I think it also exists to support black congresspeople -- for whatever that's worth.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 03:10:46 PM
I think it was a bad strategic decision.  That said, if Rep. Cohen really cared about and hoped to support the CBC and its mission, he wouldn't have made such a big fuss about being denied.  He said he respected the decision, but his actions undermined the CBC.
Very, very true. Almost leads me to believe it was intentional as Cohen probably expected that reaction.

I am also not certain that representing black constituents is the primary or sole goal of the CBC; I think it also exists to support black congresspeople -- for whatever that's worth.
Kind of like BLSA at PWI's.

I think if they stick to representing the needs of black constituents, they will repeal most white politicians anyway.  :D  However, I wonder if the CBC would decline Hilary Clinton's request if she so requested, since the majority of them, seemingly, are supporting her for president?

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 16, 2007, 03:15:02 PM
I think if they stick to representing the needs of black constituents, they will repeal most white politicians anyway.  :D  However, I wonder if the CBC would decline Hilary Clinton's request if she so requested, since the majority of them, seemingly, are supporting her for president?

No doubt! :D

This question about Clinton is the most interesting thing anyone's said in this thread, as far as I'm concerned.  I'm not sure what would happen, but I bet they'd handle it a bit better than they handled the Cohen thing.  More important, why do you think they all support her so much?  On the issues, Edwards is probably more in line with the politics of most members.  In terms of personality/loyalty/racial identification, Obama is an actual member.  So why Clinton?  Is it leftover love for her husband?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 16, 2007, 03:17:59 PM
1. I wasn't trying to look for white discrimination/victims, I just curious about other's thoughts.  The blurb on Colbert was the only thing that I had ever heard about it.  It made sense to me that a white congressman (I think he is Jewish too), would be interested in joining the CBC, since his constituency is mostly black.  What the purpose of the CBC is, i don't really know.  I just assumed that it was to seek black interests in congress. 

2.  The CHC(?) (Hispanic Caucus) caucus has many problems (Several members quit a while back-b/c of sexism I think).  I wasn't trying to call out the CBC for being unfair or to point out it's weaknesses.  I really wanted to know why they chose not to let him join. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 03:19:40 PM
I think if they stick to representing the needs of black constituents, they will repeal most white politicians anyway.  :D  However, I wonder if the CBC would decline Hilary Clinton's request if she so requested, since the majority of them, seemingly, are supporting her for president?

No doubt! :D

This question about Clinton is the most interesting thing anyone's said in this thread, as far as I'm concerned.  I'm not sure what would happen, but I bet they'd handle it a bit better than they handled the Cohen thing.  More important, why do you think they all support her so much?  On the issues, Edwards is probably more in line with the politics of most members.  On the issue of personality/loyalty/racial identification, Obama is an actual member.  So why Clinton?  Is it leftover love for her husband?

right der.  :D

Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: law_dawg_07 on May 16, 2007, 03:22:01 PM
The Black Law School Discussion board is a support group.  A lot of the questions that we have cannot be addressed by the general board.  I dont see why this is even an issue.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 03:22:25 PM
I wasn't trying to call out the CBC for being unfair or to point out it's weaknesses.

But you did and it's cool. I think they misstepped here and it will probably blow in there face real soon. They could have gotten away with that in 1970, but not in 2007. I would not be surprised if it led to their demise. Hope it doesn't, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 16, 2007, 03:23:41 PM
I can see how Cohen would have been upset.  He wanted to join an organization because of the interests of his constituency, but he was rejected because of his race.  It does seem rather hypocritical.  If the CBC really wanted to help black communities, then why would they reject the representative of a congressional district that is 70% black? 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 03:24:36 PM
The Black Law School Discussion board is a support group.  A lot of the questions that we have cannot be addressed by the general board.  I dont see why this is even an issue.

u late. We shot the OP a week ago...DickCheney style right to the face.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 03:27:13 PM
I can see how Cohen would have been upset.  He wanted to join an organization because of the interests of his constituency, but he was rejected because of his race.  It does seem rather hypocritical.  If the CBC really wanted to help black communities, then why would they reject the representative of a congressional district that is 70% black? 

Some of them are old heads still stuck in yesteryear-kind of like the NAACP. Too rigid to adjust to changing times.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 16, 2007, 03:29:31 PM
I don't think that this issue will kill the CBC.  They might have to rethink their policies and their purpose, but I don't think that it will fall apart. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 1654134681665465 on May 16, 2007, 03:30:57 PM
Quote
Some of them are old heads still stuck in yesteryear-

Yeah, unfortunately there are a lot of those in Congress.  At least Strom Thurmond finally died. 
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 03:32:53 PM
I don't think that this issue will kill the CBC.  They might have to rethink their policies and their purpose, but I don't think that it will fall apart. 

Yeah....some people were saying the same thing about Don Imus.  :D :D
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 03:37:04 PM
Quote
Some of them are old heads still stuck in yesteryear-

Yeah, unfortunately there are a lot of those in Congress.  At least Strom Thurmond finally died. 

Well, I for one and certainly looking forward to the new black politician. [Insert Obama's name here] He understands that issues like poverty and racism are issues that disproportionately affect blacks, but generally affect us all and that we should work together to find solutions.

Speaking of Obama, I wouldn't be surprised (I don't get surprised often) if this CBC fallout hurt him since he is a member.

Conspiracy time. Maybe Cohen, Clinton, and the CBC's Clinton loyalists planned this fallout to put Obama between a rock and a hard place. If Obama supports the CBC by remaining a member he will disenfranchise white voters. If he leaves the CBC, he risks loosing a lot of black support. I'd be interested to know who Cohen is supporting for president.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 16, 2007, 07:10:29 PM
Conspiracy time. Maybe Cohen, Clinton, and the CBC's Clinton loyalists planned this fallout to put Obama between a rock and a hard place. If Obama supports the CBC by remaining a member he will disenfranchise white voters. If he leaves the CBC, he risks loosing a lot of black support. I'd be interested to know who Cohen is supporting for president.

I am sad to say this isn't entirely loony-bin territory.   :-\
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 16, 2007, 10:26:40 PM
Conspiracy time. Maybe Cohen, Clinton, and the CBC's Clinton loyalists planned this fallout to put Obama between a rock and a hard place. If Obama supports the CBC by remaining a member he will disenfranchise white voters. If he leaves the CBC, he risks loosing a lot of black support. I'd be interested to know who Cohen is supporting for president.

I am sad to say this isn't entirely loony-bin territory.   :-\

politics is dirrty....
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 17, 2007, 02:11:03 AM
CNN and FOX and everyone else HAVE to give al sharpton air time...or else they will be in the hot seat for "discrimination".  take a look at the "new black panther" who are denounce by the original black panthers founder huey p newton. 

kahlid abdul mohammed is a racist, outspoken racist by the way, yet he gets air time.  when is the last time you saw the KKK getting air time?  never.  CNN and FOX are held by the short hairs, and lets say they DO want to air al and jesse and kahlib- its only because of ratings and they look good on the political front.   

anyways, give that a shot
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Miss P on May 17, 2007, 02:12:55 AM
Dude, I can't believe you put your real name on that account.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 17, 2007, 03:25:35 AM
miss p

im gonna assume ur saying i put my real name on my account?  not so much...

anyways back to the argument

many "naturalized" BLACKS owned slaves in america.  in fact, one black slave owner in particular was one of the largest slave owners in all of south carolina.  a free black man, william ellison was a famous cotton gin maker and owned many many black slaves.  the same ones lined up on the beaches of west africa readily sold by black tribal chiefs.   

read more here...
In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
 read the rest here
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

and gethufuqoutahere
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 17, 2007, 08:46:18 AM
CNN and FOX and everyone else HAVE to give al sharpton air time...or else they will be in the hot seat for "discrimination".

LOL! :D Are you serious? You can't be serious. ??? I think he seriously believes that.  :-\

CNN and Fox don't HAVE to do anything. They own the air time. How about more dark-skinned black and latino as news anchors? or older news anchors? How about a broadcast team that better reflects the face of America? That is true diversity.

In fact, it's racially insensitive to continuouly present the opinion of Sharpton as being the black consensus vote.

And if Sharpton's exclusion constitutes discrimination, then why is he ONLY on when it concerns issues of race? Why don't they get Sharpton's opinion about immigration reform and medicare reform since there is some magical Sharpton quota to news... You've presented probably the dumbest argument I've read on this thread yet. LOL! Then you say, "give that a shot" like you said something profound.  :D :D

take a look at the "new black panther" who are denounce by the original black panthers founder huey p newton. 

kahlid abdul mohammed is a racist, outspoken racist by the way, yet he gets air time.  when is the last time you saw the KKK getting air time?  never. 

so.........what's your point, except that some media outlets have an agenda? I don't even see why any news organization with integrity would try and balance the opinions of hate groups-except for maybe ratings... Let me guess, you watch Jerry Springer...don't you?  ;) I knew it.  :D

CNN and FOX are held by the short hairs, and lets say they DO want to air al and jesse and kahlib- its only because of ratings and they look good on the political front.   

So then, really, whose at fault?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Louis55 on May 17, 2007, 10:29:53 AM
   

read more here...
In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.


I bet those black slaves woke up every morning too and said "thank God we slaves!"
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 17, 2007, 10:35:16 AM
   

read more here...
In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.


I bet those black slaves woke up every morning too and said "thank God we slaves!"


This free labor is better off in America than in Africa going to waste.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 17, 2007, 12:12:08 PM
miss p,

wow, you googled me eh? well well, im exposed now...whatcha gonna do?  should i be expecting the feds at my door?  and btw...the name on my birth certificate isnt the name i "go" by so its not my "real" name brother.

but let's say for argument, that it is my real name. what now? do i win a prize?  lose the competition? get ousted off the island?  voted off stage?  get diagnosed with aids?

im nervously waiting miss p, let me know brother...im waiting.

and on the other topic
what would happen if fox, cnn, etc, would refuse to air al sharpton?  first of all, they know hes a racist bigot and want him to prove this every time he is on air.  second of all, he will just get on BET or something and say" oh, fox won't let me air me because they are racist.  its ridiculous, he shouldnt have a voice in this country after all the *&^% he has done.  remember him calling the former NYC mayor a "n-word whore" and greeks "homos"- wheres the justice for that?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 17, 2007, 01:28:44 PM
and on the other topic
what would happen if fox, cnn, etc, would refuse to air al sharpton?  first of all, they know hes a racist bigot and want him to prove this every time he is on air.  second of all, he will just get on BET or something and say" oh, fox won't let me air me because they are racist.  its ridiculous, he shouldnt have a voice in this country after all the sh*t he has done.  remember him calling the former NYC mayor a "n-word whore" and greeks "homos"- wheres the justice for that?

What does Al Sharpton have to do with black people? Are you gonna answer my previous question or just keep jumping to new issues, to which you can continue your rampage on black people? and How old are you?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 17, 2007, 08:02:52 PM
Seven, I truly admire your patience in this thread!
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: blackpowerman on May 17, 2007, 09:12:29 PM
seven,

i have nothing against black people!! at all!! i dont understand why you say that- just because i dont like al sharpton does not mean i dont like black people.  thats ridiculous. 
also, what question did u ask me that i did not answer?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: 7S on May 17, 2007, 09:20:55 PM
seven,

i have nothing against black people!! at all!! i dont understand why you say that- just because i dont like al sharpton does not mean i dont like black people.  thats ridiculous. 
also, what question did u ask me that i did not answer?

uhhh...when did I ask you that?
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: H4CS on May 17, 2007, 11:13:00 PM
I bet those black slaves woke up every morning too and said "thank God we slaves!"

I wake up every morning and say this as well.  I have some weird issues.
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: wellpreserved on June 23, 2007, 09:35:19 AM
No it is not. As the daughter of a delegate let me just say that you'll sleep better at night NOT knowing some of the "deals" that are made that end of destroying people's careers or the very ideal of a democratically elected government because of issues like "he didn't even say hello to me when he passed by!" or "look, i need a deal on a caddy and i hear you know a guy who knows a guy. how many votes for an el derado?" or "i'm looking into getting my son the convicted child molestor a gig in the school system and i've got some votes to trade. w'sup?"



Conspiracy time. Maybe Cohen, Clinton, and the CBC's Clinton loyalists planned this fallout to put Obama between a rock and a hard place. If Obama supports the CBC by remaining a member he will disenfranchise white voters. If he leaves the CBC, he risks loosing a lot of black support. I'd be interested to know who Cohen is supporting for president.

I am sad to say this isn't entirely loony-bin territory.   :-\
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 27, 2007, 03:59:34 PM


I don't really think this board is necessary, but did the moderators really feel the need to screw with the title, as appears to be the case?

I thought it was the OP who did that...
Title: Re: [The Few] White Law Students [Who Don't Quite Get It] Discussion Board
Post by: adeiso on July 05, 2007, 08:11:20 AM
NSFW  http://youtube.com/watch?v=4y0puAaOia0 NSFW

This is a clip from the Dave Chappelle Show to just put in to perspective the never ending debate of white and black!