Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: und3r3stimat3d on July 30, 2007, 01:17:37 PM

Title: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: und3r3stimat3d on July 30, 2007, 01:17:37 PM
So I'm reading Michigan's new application for entering 2008, and I notice that their section on "ethnicity" (Race) is the very last question and it says clearly "process. Your answer, or decision not to answer, will have no bearing on the Law
School’s admission decision." Further, they also say "The people who read and make a decision on your application will not see your answer to this question." So is affirmative action dead at Michigan? I know the voters rejected it in November, but i figured they'd plow on with AA while there were court battles. I know it can still be used through diversity essays, but I thought this was interesting and haven't heard much discussion of it.



I couldn't decide whether to put this here or under the Application thread, so I'm putting it in both places. Sorry.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Denny Crane on July 30, 2007, 01:22:06 PM
Officially, AA is dead in all of Michigan's public universities (and in the public sector in Michigan generally).


But I'm sure they'll try to do their best to keep recruitment of minorities up.


One thing I imagine they could do is keep track of the minorities they send fee waivers to through the LSAC Candidate Referral Service and then match names on applications to their list of those people.  It would probably be quite an arduous task (unless they have a computerized system that can do it automatically for them), but it's one way for them to subvert prop 2.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: dontknowwheretogo on August 09, 2007, 10:14:16 PM
Also don't forget the Personal Statement and Diversity Statement
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 10, 2007, 05:59:23 AM
Also don't forget the Personal Statement and Diversity Statement

rightfully so. Taking a person's identity (which often has a pretty large influence on how your life plays) out of the question as a qualification in a process that is admittedly subjective is stupid anyway.

Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: und3r3stimat3d on August 10, 2007, 09:35:33 AM
Also don't forget the Personal Statement and Diversity Statement

rightfully so. Taking a person's identity (which often has a pretty large influence on how your life plays) out of the question as a qualification in a process that is admittedly subjective is stupid anyway.



that's not very objectivist of you, Galt :)
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 11, 2007, 11:02:31 PM
Personally, I think what's stupid is assuming that someone's "identiy" (or life) is somehow determined by one's ethinicity and skin color.


... so says the white guy.

It's clearly not the only factor in shaping a person's life but it can be at least as important as anything else (economic status, gender, sexual orientation, extraordinary event, etc).  To say otherwise is just... dense.






QFT


Also, I'm annoyed the guy is using semantics when clearly I meant "racial identity."
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 17, 2007, 04:47:39 PM
Quote
Lindbergh: Personally, I think what's stupid is assuming that someone's "identiy" (or life) is somehow determined by one's ethinicity and skin color.

Personally, I think what's stupid is an obviously malicious bigot making the above statement!   :(
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: und3r3stimat3d on August 17, 2007, 07:08:25 PM
Quote
Lindbergh: Personally, I think what's stupid is assuming that someone's "identiy" (or life) is somehow determined by one's ethinicity and skin color.

Personally, I think what's stupid is an obviously malicious bigot making the above statement!   :(

Play nice, guys. Don't make me sorry I started this thread!
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: LuvHurtz on August 23, 2007, 11:34:44 PM
Though Michigan claims to no longer use AA I don't think that it's true. I know a number of minority applicants who were admitted this past cycle with between a 3.5 and 3.7 GPA and an LSAT score in the 150s (156-158). The only thing they did differently if I understand correctly was remove the part of the app where the applicant chose a racial identity. But since a number of minority applicants identify their race in their DS or some other essay I think it defeats the purpose.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 24, 2007, 03:16:18 AM
Though Michigan claims to no longer use AA I don't think that it's true. I know a number of minority applicants who were admitted this past cycle with between a 3.5 and 3.7 GPA and an LSAT score in the 150s (156-158). The only thing they did differently if I understand correctly was remove the part of the app where the applicant chose a racial identity. But since a number of minority applicants identify their race in their DS or some other essay I think it defeats the purpose.

Oh please! LSAT scores are not absolute indicators of success in law school. You write as U of Michigan admitted minority students with GPAs in the 2.0-2.1 range! An LSAT score in the 156-158 is not great, but it is not ghastly.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: LuvHurtz on August 24, 2007, 01:13:35 PM

Oh please! LSAT scores are not absolute indicators of success in law school. You write as U of Michigan admitted minority students with GPAs in the 2.0-2.1 range! An LSAT score in the 156-158 is not great, but it is not ghastly.

I actually 100% agree with you. I am in no way trying to get into a debate about AA or trying to say that an LSAT score in that range is bad. All I was doing was trying to relate some info I personally knew about this past app cycle since the OP asked. I knew these people so of course I thought they were intelligent and I was excited that they received an opportunity to study law at UMich (but I'm prob biased ::))

And pignacious you are right. I didn't consider that. It will be interesting to see how their new policy is actually applied this cycle.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 24, 2007, 03:05:04 PM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: UNAS on August 24, 2007, 03:24:01 PM
I would submit to you that those individuals with 170s are at a school where an underlying culture of cooperation and permisivness is present. Any person White, Black or otherwise thats has a GPA exceeding a 3.6 would probably suceed at any law school despite an LSAT under the 25% mean.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 24, 2007, 04:25:15 PM
Also don't forget the Personal Statement and Diversity Statement

rightfully so. Taking a person's identity (which often has a pretty large influence on how your life plays) out of the question as a qualification in a process that is admittedly subjective is stupid anyway.



Personally, I think what's stupid is assuming that someone's "identiy" (or life) is somehow determined by one's ethinicity and skin color.

(Though a few weeks late..)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read on this board.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 24, 2007, 04:31:07 PM
I would submit to you that those individuals with 170s are at a school where an underlying culture of cooperation and permisivness is present. Any person White, Black or otherwise thats has a GPA exceeding a 3.6 would probably suceed at any law school despite an LSAT under the 25% mean.

You know distinguishing meaningful utterances from nonsense is not a trivial task.  I know that you were trying to contradict me, but you needn't bother.  I'm talking specifically about the 6 or 7 people I know who scored in the 170s on their LSAT and went on to excel at law school.  They didn't all attend the same law school.  I have to disagree with your point about GPA.  Some schools have an underlying culture of cooperation and permissiveness, thus making it easier to get a high GPA.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Penndude7 on August 24, 2007, 04:35:41 PM
Congratulations to Michigan for entering the 21st century!
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: UNAS on August 24, 2007, 07:22:31 PM
I would submit to you that those individuals with 170s are at a school where an underlying culture of cooperation and permisivness is present. Any person White, Black or otherwise thats has a GPA exceeding a 3.6 would probably suceed at any law school despite an LSAT under the 25% mean.

You know distinguishing meaningful utterances from nonsense is not a trivial task.  I know that you were trying to contradict me, but you needn't bother.  I'm talking specifically about the 6 or 7 people I know who scored in the 170s on their LSAT and went on to excel at law school.  They didn't all attend the same law school.  I have to disagree with your point about GPA.  Some schools have an underlying culture of cooperation and permissiveness, thus making it easier to get a high GPA.

I agree with you. Typically the type of student that earns such a score on the lsat attends a law school that has attrition rate of damn near next to nothing.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 25, 2007, 07:39:22 AM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 25, 2007, 10:39:37 AM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!


Yeah, but those whites are qualified!
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 26, 2007, 09:36:03 AM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 26, 2007, 10:07:46 AM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 26, 2007, 10:50:40 AM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

You're pretty much wrong.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 26, 2007, 11:40:20 AM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

Miss KKK?  I feel so sorry you you.  It must be tough thinking that everyone who isn't completely for you, is against you.  I'm going to church now, I'll be sure to say a prayer for you.   How many more points did they attribute to my law school application for being a WASP?  This is law school, not life.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 26, 2007, 12:03:31 PM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

Miss KKK?  I feel so sorry you you.  It must be tough thinking that everyone who isn't completely for you, is against you.  I'm going to church now, I'll be sure to say a prayer for you.   How many more points did they attribute to my law school application for being a WASP?  This is law school, not life.

I hear it's also tough living life with your head stuck firmly in the sand.

htfh
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 26, 2007, 12:13:39 PM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

Miss KKK?  I feel so sorry you you.  It must be tough thinking that everyone who isn't completely for you, is against you.  I'm going to church now, I'll be sure to say a prayer for you.   How many more points did they attribute to my law school application for being a WASP?  This is law school, not life.

Don't forget to add your name to the prayer list as well.

"If we ever needed the Lord before, we sure do need Him now...."  ;D
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Ender Wiggin on August 26, 2007, 12:40:17 PM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

Miss KKK?  I feel so sorry you you.  It must be tough thinking that everyone who isn't completely for you, is against you.  I'm going to church now, I'll be sure to say a prayer for you.   How many more points did they attribute to my law school application for being a WASP?  This is law school, not life.

Don't forget to add your name to the prayer list as well.

"If we ever needed the Lord before, we sure do need Him now...."  ;D

Whatever AA policy Michigan practiced or practices is for the sake of diversity in the classroom, not for reparation or remediation.  Its purpose is to bring together people of all races and backgrounds in order to foster greater understanding.  It is indeed true that "whites" benefit from that environment in many ways, both directly and indirectly.  It is also hopefully true that people, such as yourself, who are divisive and insulting, may learn to live with others without focusing on the differences between you. 

The next time you pray to your "ONE," ask Him/Her how He/She would like you to treat people.  I'm sure calling people "Miss KKK" wouldn't be included in your "To Do' list.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 26, 2007, 12:46:25 PM
It is also hopefully true that people, such as yourself, who are divisive and insulting, may learn to live with others without focusing on the differences between you. 

The next time you pray to your "ONE," ask Him/Her how He/She would like you to treat people.  I'm sure calling people "Miss KKK" wouldn't be included in your "To Do' list.

Eh, a little context is in order, I'd think.

While I do agree that being insulting doesn't help, he's responding to flame with flame. I'm confident he doesn't harbor such feelings towards people that show him the same sort of respect, even in disagreement.

But I could be wrong.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Ender Wiggin on August 26, 2007, 01:11:51 PM
It is also hopefully true that people, such as yourself, who are divisive and insulting, may learn to live with others without focusing on the differences between you. 

The next time you pray to your "ONE," ask Him/Her how He/She would like you to treat people.  I'm sure calling people "Miss KKK" wouldn't be included in your "To Do' list.

Eh, a little context is in order, I'd think.

While I do agree that being insulting doesn't help, he's responding to flame with flame. I'm confident he doesn't harbor such feelings towards people that show him the same sort of respect, even in disagreement.

But I could be wrong.

That may be true, and almost certainly is, but when trying to claim the moral high ground, one should at least try to show that they deserve to be there. 
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 26, 2007, 01:32:40 PM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

Miss KKK?  I feel so sorry you you.  It must be tough thinking that everyone who isn't completely for you, is against you.  I'm going to church now, I'll be sure to say a prayer for you.   How many more points did they attribute to my law school application for being a WASP?  This is law school, not life.

Don't forget to add your name to the prayer list as well.

"If we ever needed the Lord before, we sure do need Him now...."  ;D

Whatever AA policy Michigan practiced or practices is for the sake of diversity in the classroom, not for reparation or remediation.  Its purpose is to bring together people of all races and backgrounds in order to foster greater understanding.  It is indeed true that "whites" benefit from that environment in many ways, both directly and indirectly.  It is also hopefully true that people, such as yourself, who are divisive and insulting, may learn to live with others without focusing on the differences between you. 

The next time you pray to your "ONE," ask Him/Her how He/She would like you to treat people.  I'm sure calling people "Miss KKK" wouldn't be included in your "To Do' list.

Commentary is only relevant when made within the proper context.  Read the entire thread, and then go off!    LOL

BlondnGreen's remarks are indicative of prejudiced apathy, something I find quite offensive.  BlondnGreen did not post her comments because she wanted to reach a "greater understanding."  She wrote insidious diatribes opposing AA b/c the alarmingly low numbers of minority students in US law schools is NOT a problem in her eyes.  In other words, it isn't a concern to her b/c it does not affect her.  I see this all the time at my predominantly white university, so I've got some empirical knowledge.

BlondnGreen may not be a KKK member, but her views on AA are not terribly different from those assumed by unabashed bigots, which include, amongst many others, the KKK folk.

And, one more thing: changing BlondnGreen's moniker to Miss KKK was not an attempt at insolence.  I simply wanted her to see where she may be headed. I wouldn't feel insulted if someone called me Mr. Nation-of-Islam or Mr. Black Panther.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 26, 2007, 01:42:19 PM
It is also hopefully true that people, such as yourself, who are divisive and insulting, may learn to live with others without focusing on the differences between you. 

The next time you pray to your "ONE," ask Him/Her how He/She would like you to treat people.  I'm sure calling people "Miss KKK" wouldn't be included in your "To Do' list.

Eh, a little context is in order, I'd think.

While I do agree that being insulting doesn't help, he's responding to flame with flame. I'm confident he doesn't harbor such feelings towards people that show him the same sort of respect, even in disagreement.

But I could be wrong.

You're absolutely correct, TJ.  I'm very congenial. I love all people.  You know what else? At this point, I'll even have dinner with a polite racist who may want to reexamine his views.  What I will not do is tolerate ignorance from someone who has chosen to remain narrow minded for selfish (or other inexcusable) reasons.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 26, 2007, 03:24:58 PM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

I guess it would take a refinement of thought, obviously lacking, to distinguish between those that distrust AA and a white supremacist piece of crap.  I hope your views don't stand in the way of you being the mediocre lawyer you were destined to be.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Ender Wiggin on August 26, 2007, 07:59:13 PM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

Miss KKK?  I feel so sorry you you.  It must be tough thinking that everyone who isn't completely for you, is against you.  I'm going to church now, I'll be sure to say a prayer for you.   How many more points did they attribute to my law school application for being a WASP?  This is law school, not life.

Don't forget to add your name to the prayer list as well.

"If we ever needed the Lord before, we sure do need Him now...."  ;D

Whatever AA policy Michigan practiced or practices is for the sake of diversity in the classroom, not for reparation or remediation.  Its purpose is to bring together people of all races and backgrounds in order to foster greater understanding.  It is indeed true that "whites" benefit from that environment in many ways, both directly and indirectly.  It is also hopefully true that people, such as yourself, who are divisive and insulting, may learn to live with others without focusing on the differences between you. 

The next time you pray to your "ONE," ask Him/Her how He/She would like you to treat people.  I'm sure calling people "Miss KKK" wouldn't be included in your "To Do' list.

Commentary is only relevant when made within the proper context.  Read the entire thread, and then go off!    LOL

BlondnGreen's remarks are indicative of prejudiced apathy, something I find quite offensive.  BlondnGreen did not post her comments because she wanted to reach a "greater understanding."  She wrote insidious diatribes opposing AA b/c the alarmingly low numbers of minority students in US law schools is NOT a problem in her eyes.  In other words, it isn't a concern to her b/c it does not affect her.  I see this all the time at my predominantly white university, so I've got some empirical knowledge.

BlondnGreen may not be a KKK member, but her views on AA are not terribly different from those assumed by unabashed bigots, which include, amongst many others, the KKK folk.

And, one more thing: changing BlondnGreen's moniker to Miss KKK was not an attempt at insolence.  I simply wanted her to see where she may be headed. I wouldn't feel insulted if someone called me Mr. Nation-of-Islam or Mr. Black Panther.

I wasn't talking about her behavior at all.  I was talking about yours.  You may be completely correct in your assumptions, and you may be completely wrong.  I know many people who make many arguments for and against AA, and many of those who make the arguments against do so for completely race-neutral reasons. 

Though I support (at least limited) AA, I think it is a stupid policy.  I support it for selfish reasons as much as for anything else, but I support it only for the diversity I spoke of before.  I would NEVER support reparations.  In the case of AA for remedial purposes, it could possibly serve a purpose, but only for a limited time, and only with limited application. 

My wife and I argue all the time about AA, because she can't see how such a stupid policy could possibly be supported.  It is reverse discrimination, which often has the effect of creating greater animosity between the races; it often gives the impression that very well qualified minorities only got their positions because they were given special consideration or treatment; it is at best inexact and imperfect in its application, and at worst it is completely misguided. 

Given all of those reasons (and more), I still support AA, because there aren't any better alternatives that could be implemented (at least in my opinion).  Nearly four-hundred years of inequalities have certainly tilted the playing field against minorities in this country.  Though Irish immigrants could have just as easily been enslaved as African immigrants, they were not.  The racial component of slavery in America pretty much defeats any argument against AA made on the basis of the fact that pretty much every race or ethnic group in the world has been enslaved at one point or another.  Slavery was very often a temporary situation in other cultures, and ex-slaves could very often become wealthy, powerful men in the same society in which they had previously been enslaved.  Such was not the case in America.  Institutional racism, the "self-fulfilling prophecy," and many other factors have hampered any efforts to level the playing field.  Something has to be done, and most Americans are too lazy to fix the problem in any other way than with AA. 

I wasn't trying to insult you when I criticized your methods.  I was simply pointing out that you defeat your own purpose when you resort to insults instead of reasoned arguments.  Calling someone "Miss KKK" is not going to help her "...see where she may be headed."  Making arguments that she can understand, and more importantly that she can relate with, would be much more effective in convincing her the weakness of her position.  It would also have the added benefit of not turning observers against your position because they disagree with your tactics. 

I think it is possible that you do hold the moral high ground in this argument.  Thomas Jefferson said this about the matter: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!  The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.”  But if you want to hold the moral high ground, you must demonstrate yourself worthy of such a position.  Whether blondngreen is a good person who disagreed with you, or something more sinister, you can still hold yourself to a higher standard. 
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 26, 2007, 11:04:49 PM
Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

I guess it would take a refinement of thought, obviously lacking, to distinguish between those that distrust AA and a white supremacist piece of crap.  I hope your views don't stand in the way of you being the mediocre lawyer you were destined to be.

"I see your true colors shining through..."  ;)
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 26, 2007, 11:28:31 PM
Quote
I wasn't trying to insult you when I criticized your methods.  I was simply pointing out that you defeat your own purpose when you resort to insults instead of reasoned arguments.  Calling someone "Miss KKK" is not going to help her "...see where she may be headed."  Making arguments that she can understand, and more importantly that she can relate with, would be much more effective in convincing her the weakness of her position.  It would also have the added benefit of not turning observers against your position because they disagree with your tactics.

Here's the sad truth: most people like BlondnGreen are NOT trying to understand anything about AA. She vehemently opposes it b/c she does not benefit directly from it.  She thinks it's wrong, your wife thinks it's stupid, you think it's stupid yet you support it, I think it's necessary (and definitely better than nothing) so I support it, etc.  Life goes on... 

I hope BlondnGreen gets admitted somewhere next year.  (If she gets rejected from all of her top choices, I guess she can sue the schools like poor Ms. Grutter and see how far she'll get.)  I'll definitely get some acceptance letters--with or without AA! I'm so not worried.

At this point, I'm not particularly interested in reasoning with BlondnGreen--her name ain't Sandra O'Connor!  Besides, I've got better things to do.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 26, 2007, 11:44:07 PM
The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 26, 2007, 11:50:08 PM
The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.

Word! How long did it take for them to create such a wicked lie???
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 26, 2007, 11:58:06 PM
Well, AA may be right or wrong - that can be debated. But to say that such a policy legitimizes divisive or racist sentiment is a red herring.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 27, 2007, 01:38:43 AM
I think it is possible that you do hold the moral high ground in this argument.  Thomas Jefferson said this about the matter: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!  The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.” 

On a side note, one possible argument against affirmative action is precisely because it simply isn't possible for humans justice and knowledge of how to apportion blame and restitution to approach the standard required to remedy historical injustices. That standard would be the realm of what God could do, not man.

And furthermore, attempting to reach this impossibility may cause definite injustices in the present, such as by discriminating against more qualified candidates in favor of less-qualified, but superficially more "morally justifiable" candidates. Under your value system, would it be morally justifiable to discriminate against a Cambodian boat-person law school applicant with a 180 LSAT in favor of a 162-scoring 9th generation mulatto applicant from New Orleans whose ancestors has been free, and had even owned slaves, since the pre-bellum era?
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 27, 2007, 01:43:22 AM
I try to show my Chinese friends who still hate the Japanese this article, for the principle this article presents applies not just to the Czech/German conflict, but the injustices committed by the Imperial Japanese during the 2nd World War, and even to the historic injustice of slavery in America:

Back in the days of the Hapsburg Empire, there was a town in Bohemia called Budweis. The people in that town were called Budweisers and the town had a brewery which produced beer with the same name — but different from the American Budweiser.

Like many communities in Bohemia during that era, Budweis had people of both Czech and German ancestries, speaking different languages, though many were also bilingual. They got along pretty well and most people there thought of themselves as Budweisers, rather than as Czechs or Germans. But that would later change — for the worse — not only in Budweis, but throughout Bohemia.

The mayor of Budweis spoke both Czech and German but refused to be classified as a member of either group. His point was that we are all Budweisers.

As with virtually all groups in virtually all countries and in virtually all eras, there were differences between the Germans and the Czechs. Germans were more educated, more prosperous, and more prominent in business and the professions.

The German language at that point had a much wider and richer literature, the Slavic languages having acquired written versions centuries later than the languages of Western Europe. Educated people of whatever ethnicity were educated in German.

Those Czechs who wished to rise into the upper echelons, whether in business, the military, or the professions, had to master the German language and culture, in order to fit in with those already at the higher levels.

People on both sides learned to live with this situation and Czechs were welcomed into the German cultural enclaves when they mastered that culture. In Budweis, they could all be Budweisers.

As in so many other countries and in so many other times, the rise of a newly educated intellectual class in the 19th century polarized the society with ethnic identity politics. All over Bohemia, the new Czech intelligentsia urged Czechs to think of themselves as Czechs, not Bohemians or Budweisers or anything else that would transcend their ethnic identity.

Demands were made that street signs in Prague, which had been in both Czech and German before, now be exclusively in Czech. Quotas were demanded for a certain percentage of Czech music to be played by the Budweiser orchestra.

If such demands seem petty, their consequences were not small. People of German ancestry resisted ethnic classifications but the Czech intelligentsia insisted and Czech politicians went along with the trend on many issues, large and small.

Eventually, Germans as well began in self-defense to think of themselves as Germans, rather than as Bohemians or Budweisers, and to defend their interests as Germans. This ethnic polarization in the 19th century was a fateful step whose full consequences have not yet ended completely, even in the 21st century.

A crucial turning point was the creation of the new nation of Czechoslovakia when the Hapsburg Empire was broken up after the First World War. Czech leaders declared the new nation's mission to include a correction of "social injustice" so as to "put right the historic wrongs of the seventeenth century."

What were those wrongs? Czech nobles who revolted against the Hapsburg Empire back in the 17th century were defeated and had their lands confiscated and turned over to Germans. Presumably no one from the 17th century was still alive when Czechoslovakia was created in the 20th century, but Czech nationalists kept the grievance alive — as ethnic identity ideologues have done in countries around the world.

Government policies designed to undo history with preferential treatment for Czechs polarized the existing generation of Germans and Czechs. Bitter German reactions led eventually to demands that the part of the country where they lived be united with neighboring Germany. From this came the Munich crisis of 1938 that dismembered Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II.

When the Nazis conquered the whole country, the Germans now lorded it over the Czechs. After the war, the Czech reaction led to mass expulsions of Germans under brutal conditions that cost many lives. Today refugees in Germany are still demanding restitution.

If only the grievances of past centuries had been left in the past! If only they had all remained Budweisers or Bohemians.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 27, 2007, 02:38:59 AM
The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.


This is flatly ridiculous, and only someone wilfully blind could believe it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor, underprivileged white/asian.  Imagine yourself busting your ass to get into a good school.  Imagine yourself seeing a URM, who may well have had more advantages than you, getting admitted into that school ahead of you even if they had lower grades, scores, etc.  You don't think that's going to make you more resentful of that minority group?  You don't think the same thing hasn't made minorities resentful of whites in the past?

If you want to believe the benefits of AA outweight the negatives, that's fine.  But to ignore the negatives, and pretend they don't exist, is a recipe for disaster, at least if you care about race relations. 

I won't discuss asians here, because asians don't RUN this country. (White men run this country.) With that said, I feel sorry for any white man who resents a URM in law school. (I'm being extremely diplomatic here.)

A URM having more advantages? URMs are not members of the most privileged group in this country. (Check the oval office for the correct answer.) 

A URM having lower grades/scores?  Whites with low grades/scores get into law school, too, so this argument is hardly cogent.

When have whites NEVER resented minority groups in this country?  I don't ever recall such a period.  In fact, your responses seem to indicate a DEEP RESENTMENT on your part.  But that's cool :).

You may want to pretend "things" are wonderful--doing so suits your purposes so well--but you couldn't be further from the truth.  Yes, we've made progress since the 1960s, but this dialogue clearly indicates we still have a long way to go.  Race relations will remain negative as long as white males like you continue to display such a condescending, superior attitude towards blacks, latinos, etc.  I'm not surprised though.  Prejudiced apathy is endearing, isn't it?
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 27, 2007, 02:49:27 AM


Given all of those reasons (and more), I still support AA, because there aren't any better alternatives that could be implemented (at least in my opinion). 



How about simply focusing on economic opportunity?  This would appropriately help minorities affected by historical discrimination without unfairly benefitting privileged minorities.



Nearly four-hundred years of inequalities have certainly tilted the playing field against minorities in this country.  Though Irish immigrants could have just as easily been enslaved as African immigrants, they were not.  The racial component of slavery in America pretty much defeats any argument against AA made on the basis of the fact that pretty much every race or ethnic group in the world has been enslaved at one point or another.  Slavery was very often a temporary situation in other cultures, and ex-slaves could very often become wealthy, powerful men in the same society in which they had previously been enslaved.  Such was not the case in America.  Institutional racism, the "self-fulfilling prophecy," and many other factors have hampered any efforts to level the playing field.  Something has to be done, and most Americans are too lazy to fix the problem in any other way than with AA. 



I have to disagree with this reasoning.  Slavery was often a temporary situation in other cultures, but it was also often a permanent situation in other cultures.  Moreover, former slaves could and did become wealthy and influential in the U.S., which has always offered more ecomomic opportuity to blacks than any other nation.  (Slavery was often a temporary situation here as well, where many blacks eventually purchased their own freedom, and some even purchased their own slaves.)

Moreover, we should presumably focus on the present rather than the past when deciding what current policies make sense.  Today, many blacks are very successful, in various professions.  Oprah Winfrey is probably the most influential woman in the country (and one of the wealthiest).  Barack Obama is a leading contender for the Democratic nomination.  About 1/3 of all blacks make more than the average white, and about 1/3 of all whites make less than the average black. 

In other words, many millions of people now fall outside the traditional stereotypes, and making sweeping generalizations about the "playing field" no longer makes much sense.  Many blacks have significant advantages when applying to schools and jobs, just as many whites do.  Many other blacks and whites, on the other hand, face significant challenges.  Pretending that all blacks are underprivileged, and all whites are privileged, is simply a bigoted, irrational approach to social or admissions policy.

In terms of better alternatives, it seems a clearly superior (and more just) approach is to consider students in terms of economic background, not skin color.  This would presumably benefit those who have actually been impacted by historical discrimination, without unfairly penalizing poor/innocent white/asian/jewish kids.  Other, equally important approaches that have already begun include educational reform that equalizes funding at the K-12 level and requires that actual education occur in those schools, so they can compete more equally down the road. 

The real question is whether we're going to judge people as members of groups, or as individuals.  The former approach, while popular in the past, has been rightly condemned as unfair, unworthy, and ineffective. 

Perception is everything. Your #s may be accurate, but your interpretation--especially your discourse on slavery--is severely erroneous.  You attempt to write off slavery as a minor kink in the chain.  Again, I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 27, 2007, 07:44:35 AM
I won't discuss asians here, because asians don't RUN this country. (White men run this country.) With that said, I feel sorry for any white man who resents a URM in law school. (I'm being extremely diplomatic here.)

A URM having more advantages? URMs are not members of the most privileged group in this country. (Check the oval office for the correct answer.) 

If you look at the ethnic composition of Bush's cabinet over his two terms, you'll see that he has had two black secretaries of state, a hispanic attorney general, a Japanese secretary of transportation, and a Chinese secretary of labor. And that doesn't take into account the ethnicities of the caucasian members.

The ethnic composition of the other branches is also varied.

Furthermore, I'd much rather have our current system of government and institutions in place than the government of China or Taiwan, or even Singapore, regardless of the race of whoever happens to hold office at the moment.

The ethnic composition of the office-holders is less of a guarantee of the quality of a political institution than the systemic incentives and constraints facing the people in those roles. An unconstrained, un-checked or un-balanced institution whose office-holders face strong incentives to use the authority of their office to divert national resources to favored groups or impose their value system on the ruled is one where the ethnic composition does matter, if the office-holders plan to divert funds to their ethnic group, or impose values commonly-held by their ethnic group. Luckily, the United States government was designed to check against this possibility, as the Constitution intentionally set the branches and levels of government at cross-purposes with each other, and enacted a Bill of Rights to protect individuals from heavy-handed government activity.

A URM having lower grades/scores?  Whites with low grades/scores get into law school, too, so this argument is hardly cogent.

Probably not in the numbers that URMs get admitted with the same scores.

When have whites NEVER resented minority groups in this country?  I don't ever recall such a period.  In fact, your responses seem to indicate a DEEP RESENTMENT on your part.  But that's cool :).

The Germans have historically been very tolerant of other ethnic groups, both in this country and in other countries. German anti-slavery kept Missouri on the Union side during the civil war, and also, with the Scots-Irish, allowed West Virginia to secede from Virginia. And Germans who lived in primarily German communities have had cordial relationships even with the native Americans (think of the Pennsylvania Deutch).

If you want to argue that some white people resent minorities, I wouldn't doubt that, but tarring and feathering all people of European descent as such is disproved both by historical evidence and present-day attitudes.

You may want to pretend "things" are wonderful--doing so suits your purposes so well--but you couldn't be further from the truth.  Yes, we've made progress since the 1960s, but this dialogue clearly indicates we still have a long way to go.  Race relations will remain negative as long as white males like you continue to display such a condescending, superior attitude towards blacks, latinos, etc.  I'm not surprised though.  Prejudiced apathy is endearing, isn't it?

I don't think many people who oppose affirmative action argue that things are wonderful (I don't), but rather, that affirmative action would make things much worse. Characterizing the opposition position as such displays your ignorance (which is understandable, as everyone is somewhat ignorant in something) or a willingness to set up straw men (which is not understandable, and is very intellectually dishonest).

Furthermore, based on the content of your reply, I'd argue that you're the one displaying a "a condescending, superior attitude" towards people who disagree with you, branding them with the presumption that their arguments are without merit (since the arguers are racists, bigots, etc.) simply because you disagree with them.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 27, 2007, 08:26:17 AM
The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.


This is flatly ridiculous, and only someone wilfully blind could believe it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor, underprivileged white/asian.  Imagine yourself busting your ass to get into a good school.  Imagine yourself seeing a URM, who may well have had more advantages than you, getting admitted into that school ahead of you even if they had lower grades, scores, etc.  You don't think that's going to make you more resentful of that minority group?  You don't think the same thing hasn't made minorities resentful of whites in the past?

If you want to believe the benefits of AA outweight the negatives, that's fine.  But to ignore the negatives, and pretend they don't exist, is a recipe for disaster, at least if you care about race relations. 

1.You assume socio-economic hardships (or luxuries) are not being taken into account by ad-coms.

2. There is no justification for having a racist attitude - none. Quit being silly.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: sharky on August 27, 2007, 03:06:34 PM
There may be no justification for having a racist attitude, but that should be distinguished from resentment and racial tensions.  It doesn't really matter whether or not you feel that there can be justification for racial tensions. If one of the effects of a public policy is to inflame racial tensions, then that should be taken into consideration and weighed against the public policy benefits.  

To attempt to shut down debate with one sentence and "Quit being silly" shows a very superficial knee-jerk defense of a very complex public policy decision.  

I think in the end, supporting (or opposing) affirmative action is justified by a weighting of multiple values and fundamental beliefs about the role of government and society... if affirmative action leads to an increase of racial tensions and one of his highly valued policy goals is the reduction of racial tensions, then that's a perfectly valid reason for his opposition to affirmative action.  And if you want to debate on that point then you'll need to a) show that affirmative action doesn't lead to racial tension, b) convince him that the benefits of affirmative action outweigh the resulting racial tension by making arguments that cause him to reorder and reweight his values, or c) persuade him that reducing racial tension shouldn't be a policy goal.

Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 27, 2007, 03:32:22 PM

I guess I can largely agree with you here.  No matter how much discrimination a minority has suffered from some whites, it doesn't justify a racist attitude towards all whites, and vice versa. 

However, even if it doesn't justify racist feelings, I'm sure we can both understand how discrimination can in fact create greater resentment and anger.  Just looking at this thread, we can see some obvious anti-white prejudice and resentment, presumably reflecting past historical discrimination.  Expecting poor / working-class whites to be any different is silly.

If our real goal is minimizing racism, the system should clearly be overhauled.

Oh, I'm glad we agree re: the bolded.

The system does need overhauled (hence AA). And now that you clearly understand how "discrimination can in fact create great resentment and anger," you should now be able to sympathize with the resentment and anger minorities feel (and why).



Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: sharky on August 27, 2007, 04:01:20 PM
tj,

Your arguments just consist of non-sequiturs and discussion-ending one-liners...
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 27, 2007, 04:08:52 PM
tj,

Your arguments counter-points just consist of non-sequiturs and discussion-ending one-liners...


You're right. I'm too lazy to rehash what has already been quibbled a hundred times over. Nothing new is being said here. I do encourage you to go dig up those threads and read them, though.


Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 27, 2007, 06:59:28 PM

I guess I can largely agree with you here.  No matter how much discrimination a minority has suffered from some whites, it doesn't justify a racist attitude towards all whites, and vice versa. 

However, even if it doesn't justify racist feelings, I'm sure we can both understand how discrimination can in fact create greater resentment and anger.  Just looking at this thread, we can see some obvious anti-white prejudice and resentment, presumably reflecting past historical discrimination.  Expecting poor / working-class whites to be any different is silly.

If our real goal is minimizing racism, the system should clearly be overhauled.

Oh, I'm glad we agree re: the bolded.

The system does need overhauled (hence AA). And now that you clearly understand how "discrimination can in fact create great resentment and anger," you should now be able to sympathize with the resentment and anger minorities feel (and why).


Wait a sec.

Lindbergh is arguing that the system of AA needs to be overhauled. You agree that the "system does need overhauled," and suggest that AA is an appropriate reform measure for that overhaul. I don't think what you're agreeing to is what Lindbergh is suggesting; your definition of what comprises the "system" must be different than his, as he thinks AA is inappropriate while you argue that it is appropriate.

Also, since you clearly understand how discrimination can in fact create great resentment and anger, you should now be able to sympathize with the resentment and anger un-privileged-by-AA groups feel towards the privileged-by-AA groups (and why).

Do you think a net increase in the amount of resentment and anger within a society is a benefit or a detriment?
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 27, 2007, 07:32:48 PM
tj,

Your arguments counter-points just consist of non-sequiturs and discussion-ending one-liners...


You're right. I'm too lazy to rehash what has already been quibbled a hundred times over. Nothing new is being said here. I do encourage you to go dig up those threads and read them, though.


In other words, you've been taught that preferential admissions is a good thing, but you can't think of an actual defense for it, or even open your mind to the fact that AA as currently structured is often morally questionable and counterproductive.  Fair enough. 

Not quite, champ. You just haven't blown me away yet.

But don't feel bad. I was in your shoes only a few years ago. ;)
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 27, 2007, 07:35:34 PM
Start here. (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.0.html)

Then here. (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,74143.0.html)



Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 28, 2007, 08:55:05 AM
In other words, you've been taught that preferential admissions is a good thing, but you can't think of an actual defense for it, or even open your mind to the fact that AA as currently structured is often morally questionable and counterproductive.  Fair enough. 

No.

He (and me) likes to annoy you.

Simple.


Okay, so you guys can't think of an actual defense for the system as currently stuctured, AND like to annoy people.  Fair enough.

Or they like to divert your attention by calling you a racist.  These people aren't worth your time or effort.  AA will be tested and struck soon enough - it is unconstitutional after all.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 09:30:11 AM
It's not my fault that your (and Lindbergh's) position is the one also occupied by racists.  It's also not my fault that it's very difficult to tell the difference between what you say and what a racist would say.  Contrast with, say, Ender Wiggin's long post a couple pages back in which he clearly outlines the reasons he should be against AA.

That's absurd. You insinuate that those holding the opposing position are racist because some racists support the opposing position?

Well, I'm sure Communists and Black Supremacists support AA, but you won't hear me attempting to equate you with those groups based solely on your position on AA.

Rather than attack someone's position on the basis of who else shares the position, why don't you attack the position by attacking its premises, conclusions, or by offering a convincing counter-argument?
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 28, 2007, 09:45:52 AM
Rather than attack someone's position on the basis of who else shares the position, why don't you attack the position by attacking its premises, conclusions, or by offering a convincing counter-argument?

If you don't believe that minorities face an unequal playing field, or that because of the color their skin, or being of a particular ethnicity or gender a minority faces quite a different set of circumstances, scrutiny, image, and self-identity, then no argument is going to matter to you.

If you don't believe that systematic discrimination has affected the lives of millions through no fault of their own, and you want to keep pointing to isolated "yeah buts," then there is nothing more we can say.

If you want to admit that there was systematic discrimination in the past, and that there is systematic discrimination currently, but argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and wail that affirmative action is just "reverse discrimination," then you're misconstruing what affirmative action really is and what it is being used for, as well as ignoring the reality of the minority's current position in society (and the power dynamic therein).

Affirmative action is certainly not ideal, but as of right now it is necessary. Perhaps some of you have a better solution?
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 28, 2007, 10:41:31 AM
Rather than attack someone's position on the basis of who else shares the position, why don't you attack the position by attacking its premises, conclusions, or by offering a convincing counter-argument?

If you don't believe that minorities face an unequal playing field, or that because of the color their skin, or being of a particular ethnicity or gender a minority faces quite a different set of circumstances, scrutiny, image, and self-identity, then no argument is going to matter to you.

If you don't believe that systematic discrimination has affected the lives of millions through no fault of their own, and you want to keep pointing to isolated "yeah buts," then there is nothing more we can say.

If you want to admit that there was systematic discrimination in the past, and that there is systematic discrimination currently, but argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and wail that affirmative action is just "reverse discrimination," then you're misconstruing what affirmative action really is and what it is being used for, as well as ignoring the reality of the minority's current position in society (and the power dynamic therein).

Affirmative action is certainly not ideal, but as of right now it is necessary. Perhaps some of you have a better solution?

If AA went beyond skin color and poor whites got a leg up the way the children of black doctors did, then I'd be all for it, but we all know that's not what happens.  Can you actually say that minorities who go to great schools should get preference over white kids who went to poor schools?  I mean really, AA isn't supposed to be about reparations, right?  It's supposed to level the playing field.  Oh yes I forgot, we need diversity in law school.  Shouldn't it be diversity of thought rather than skin color?  Do all minorities think the same?  Do they all share the same experiences? Yes, you have experienced racism, but how does that equate to your LSAT score?  Stereotype threat is laughable.  What does the black kid who went to a great school bring to the table that austomatically equals uniqueness of thought?  It's absurd and unfair.  It really annoys me that being against something fundamentally so unfair makes me a racist...Remember the rather pretentious operaattorney called me Miss KKK...and that's Ms by the way, you sexist pig?  I went to a great school with lots of minorities, we had the same education, so our LSAT score should be evaluated the same way...Unless of course everyone in favor of AA really thinks that minorities are less intelligent and that even with a great education they will come up short.  If that's what you're saying, then shame on you.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 28, 2007, 01:53:46 PM
You're so insightful, thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 28, 2007, 02:08:15 PM

I've already proposed a better solution -- one that only benefits people who are actually disadvantaged by discrimination.

I'm amazed that you're so closed-minded and blinded on this issue that you can't even acknowledge that basic fact -- there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites.

I do acknowledge the difference between privileged and underprivileged minorities, and the difference between privileged and underprivileged whites.

You, however, overstate the frequency and impact of the former, especially in relation to the latter.

In light of that fact, treating everyone who has the same skin color identically, and treating different ethnicities differently simply because they're different ethnicities, simply makes no sense and cannot be justified -- no matter how much racism and discrimiation exists or existed in society.  Especially since such inequitable treatment only increases said racism.

Right. So minorities weren't already systematically discriminated against precisely and wholly because of their skin color? And gender? And ethnicity? And anything "other" than the white religious norm?

Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 28, 2007, 02:20:41 PM
I'm amazed that you're so closed-minded and blinded on this issue that you can't even acknowledge that basic fact -- there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites.

Aren't you refusing to acknowledge that there's a difference between "privileged" whites and "privileged" minorities?  :)

You're right - there certainly is.

Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 28, 2007, 02:23:02 PM

How privileged do privileged minorities feel?  I guess not privileged enough.   
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 28, 2007, 02:23:40 PM

I honestly don't care how they "feel" (given that I was an underprivileged minority), and I don't understand why you feel the need to put quotes around the word.  (I don't much care how privileged whites feel either.)  Do you really not feel Colin Powell's kid is privileged?  Do you really feel he deserves boosts when he applies to schools?  How about Alberto Gonzales' kids?  Oprah's?  Even when they have all the advantages possible?

When they're not looked at by society as 1) inferior, 2) criminals, 3) illegal immigrants, 4) dangerous, 5) whatever other ridiculous sentiment they suffer, maybe I'll start to take you seriously.

Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 28, 2007, 02:26:58 PM
How privileged do privileged minorities feel?  I guess not privileged enough.   

I suppose you adopt the money view toward privilege as well?  :)

And you still sound angry.  :D

Money generally equals a decent education.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 28, 2007, 02:31:04 PM
I'm amazed that you're so closed-minded and blinded on this issue that you can't even acknowledge that basic fact -- there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites.

Aren't you refusing to acknowledge that there's a difference between "privileged" whites and "privileged" minorities?  :)

I agree.


Of course there's a difference.  Privileged minorities, while possessing the same educational and economic advantages, often have a different skin tone.

However, the idea that skin tone, standing alone, should be a basis for public policy is inherently racist and ridiculous.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: blondngreen on August 28, 2007, 02:34:20 PM

So now you're attacking me just becuase you think I'm black?   ;)

heh.

He thinks you're intellectually inferior because you're black.  He's a bad man.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 28, 2007, 02:49:04 PM

But again, such past (and even present) discrimination only justifies differential treatment in those cases where the individual is actually educationally disadvantaged as a result.  It doesn't justify it where the opportunities are now equal, which is clearly the case in at least some situations. 

I think this is the meat of our disagreement. I think that the effect of AA - upsetting the status quo and balance of power/privilege in this country, over-weighs the negative affect you describe. I think once power and privilege is a bit more proportional, race perceptions should naturally ease and AA can be abandoned.

You probably disagree, and don't think the current costs/effects of AA are worth it to remedy existing conditions. I can admire that, at least.  But then, what else do you propose?

Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: t... on August 28, 2007, 02:51:05 PM
Homework for y'all:

Dig up the statistics on how many minorities attend law school. Also find out how many minorities end up in positions of power - partners, CEO's, whatever.

Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: awesomepossum on August 28, 2007, 03:19:07 PM
I didn't read the middle few pages of the thread.

But to stay on topic, it's worth noting that proposal 2 was effective only during the second half of the cycle.

Therefore the people who were admitted in the first part of the cycle may have faced different admissions standards as compared to people in the second part of the cycle.  That's one reason it may be difficult to compare the results of last years cycle to this years.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: Alan Shore on August 28, 2007, 03:38:23 PM
There was an e-mail President Mary Sue Coleman sent us after last year's election.

Part of it said,
Quote
I am joined on these steps by the executive officers and deans of our university. We are united on this. You have my word as president that we will fight for what we believe in, and that is holding open the doors of this university to all people.

Today, I have directed our General Counsel to consider every legal option available to us.

...

Of course the University of Michigan will comply with the laws of the state.

At the same time, I guarantee my complete and unyielding commitment to increasing diversity at our institution.

Let me say that again: I am fully and completely committed to building diversity at Michigan, and I will do whatever it takes.

The full text can be found here: http://www.umich.edu/pres/speeches/061103div.html


The full proposal text was:

Quote
PROPOSAL 06-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
• Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

Just FYI! I have nothing to add to the debate! :)
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 28, 2007, 06:49:15 PM
Nope -- unwillingness to examine the issue honestly and in an open-minded manner = close minded. 

Pot ==> Kettle


So now you're attacking me just becuase you think I'm black?   ;)

LOL :)

I think you wish you looked like Brad Pitt!
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 28, 2007, 07:20:30 PM
At some point we should also talk about improving public schools.  :(


Of course -- better K-12 education would be far more helpful than band-aid preferences at the college and graduate school level.

However, this would not affect wealthier folks that much, who can presumably already afford private schools. 

Better K-12 education would greatly improve the quality of minority students matriculating @ today's colleges and universities. But I've got to tell y'all about racism in private schools.

I first encountered racism as a teenager during the fall semester of my senior year at a private, Christian academy.  I hadn't take any honors courses, but I had performed extremely well as a junior, especially in Biology and Chemistry. In fact, I had helped several Honors Chemistry students with their homework even though I was enrolled in the regular Chemistry course. (They frequently asked why I didn't take the Honors Chemistry course).  Because of my ease with science courses and my stellar performance, I requested to enroll in the Honors Physics course, which led to a meeting with the vice-principal.  She told me she didn't think I could handle the Honors Physics course, because I had never taken an Honors class, and the Honors courses were much tougher than the regular courses.  In response I told her about my "unofficial" job as the Honors Chem tutor, but she acted like that meant nothing.  I also asked her if other students with no prior Honors coursework had ever enrolled in an Honors course.  As I expected, she revealed that some students had done so, but she emphasized that these were exceptional students. (Please note that the only non-A grade I'd received as a junior was in US History.)  At that point, I got indignant.  I wanted to ask if those "exceptional students" were white, but I decided to adopt a more diplomatic approach. (I didn't think showing out would do me much good since she was still the vice-principal.)  I prodded incessantly until she agreed to enroll me on a trial basis.  At the end of the semester I had the highest grade in Honors Physics, which meant that I could continue. End of story.

What's the point? I was old enough to discern her unspoken sentiment. Would she have reacted differently if I were white?  I'm not certain, but I'd bet you she would have.  Her polite condescension would have discouraged most other students, but my mama didn't no raise no fool!  I was determined to take Honors Physics, and would have gone to any length in order to enroll in the course.

I'm currently studying for Summer School finals, so I'm letting TJ and Piggy battle the AA-bashers for now. I need to keep a high GPA. After all, I don't want to piss off  my future presumptious law-school classmates who may think I got into a t14 law school with pathetic #s due to AA.

Cheers,
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 09:45:05 PM
If you don't believe that minorities face an unequal playing field, or that because of the color their skin, or being of a particular ethnicity or gender a minority faces quite a different set of circumstances, scrutiny, image, and self-identity, then no argument is going to matter to you.

I'm shorter than 6 feet tall. Do I have as good of a chance at playing in the NBA as someone who's 7 feet tall? No.

If I were female, would I have as good of a chance at playing in the NBA as a man? No.

If I were a Southerner, would I enjoy equal chances of joining the Mafia as a Sicilian from New York? No.

If I were an aboriginal inhabitant of the rain forest who had only a few years of formal schooling and could barely speak English, would I enjoy equal chances of obtaining a position as a United States ambassador as a WASP who had lived in the States his entire life, spoke perfect English, and had been educated at the finest educational institutions in the world? No.

The playing field has NEVER been equal for ANYONE. Attempting to make the playing field equal would require an act of God, not man. For a human institution to even attempt rectifying the differential distribution of opportunities, innate abilities, and honed skills that has resulted from innumerate historical events, both incidental and accidental, would require that institution to have an incredible amount of power. And for people to grant any institution such unconstrained power would pave the road to serfdom.

If you don't believe that systematic discrimination has affected the lives of millions through no fault of their own, and you want to keep pointing to isolated "yeah buts," then there is nothing more we can say.

Of course people discriminate against each other. Heck, Kobe Bryant's parents were estranged from him for years because he chose to marry a Hispanic. But this discrimination isn't "systemic," if "systemic" means as a result of an intentional, coordinated decision amongst numerous parties, of the sort seen in apartheid South Africa. Rather, discrimination of this sort is ad hoc.

However, AA *is* "systemic" discrimination. Trying to rectify largely invisible "ad hoc" discrimination with a very visible policy that institutionalizes "systemic" discrimination makes little sense, if you take into account that the extent to which "ad hoc" discrimination influences a decision, versus how much of a decision is influenced by other factors, and how much of it is morally repugnant enough to merit a change in policy, is totally unmeasureable.

Is ad hoc discrimination even morally repugnant? I'd argue that it largely depends on the area where the discrimination occurs. Clearly, ad hoc discrimination that prevents equal application of the law is repugnant, but such discrimination in areas such as choice of spouse (or, for that matter, choice of heir to the family business) may not be.

If you want to admit that there was systematic discrimination in the past, and that there is systematic discrimination currently, but argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and wail that affirmative action is just "reverse discrimination," then you're misconstruing what affirmative action really is and what it is being used for, as well as ignoring the reality of the minority's current position in society (and the power dynamic therein).

I addressed this point in my response to your previous one.

Furthermore, I asked whether "two wrongs make a right" to put Funia in the quandry of having to defend something she admitted was morally wrong. I don't agree that in all cases, two wrongs necessarily makes a wrong (which is what you've implied), but in this case I certainly do think that applies. Regardless, my employment of that question is largely tangential to my more substantiative arguments, rather than the main crux, as you have repeatedly posited with your numerous straw-men claims.

Affirmative action is certainly not ideal, but as of right now it is necessary. Perhaps some of you have a better solution?

How about institutions not providing politically-enforced privileged lowering of standards for politically-favored groups, and instead investing, with the cooperation of the groups, in means for those groups to meet the normal standards? That would translate into providing better schooling opportunities for those who would be future URMs, so they could meet the normal institutional standards.

Such a policy would rob the AA industry of a clientele, but would improve the human capital of the URMs, and this improvement of capital, which would allow them to succeed on their own right, would allow other groups to esteem URMs as worthy of respect, not handouts. I think this is a worthy trade-off.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 09:55:29 PM
I think once power and privilege is a bit more proportional, race perceptions should naturally ease and AA can be abandoned.

So, envy of the greater wealth and influence that people of a different skin color hold is what aggravates identity politicians, and to appease these envious people, we should redistribute wealth and influence?

Who should do the redistributing?

And should we appease the envious?

And are racial relations currently truly acrimonious, or is that assertion without evidence? As evidence to the contrary, I can offer my own undergraduate experience: of my 4 college roommates, two were black and one was Mexican, and I never encountered any examples of racial discord in all the time I spent with them.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: sharky on August 29, 2007, 06:26:15 AM
I'm not sure that I find the VP tale a particularly compelling justification for AA.  I had to fight my adminstrators to let me take honors courses, then AP courses, and then courses off-campus at the local community college all the way through school despite being clearly being one of the top students in my class.  I'm not a minority, so I imagine that it came down to the fact that I was fighting for myself when other people just had their important parents up there complaining.  I think everyone's run across an incompetent school administrator during their academic careers, and it's pretty conceivable that occasionally you'd run across a racist/paternalistic every once in awhile. 

Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 29, 2007, 06:53:30 AM
I'm shorter than 6". Do I have as good of a chance at playing in the NBA as someone who's 7"? No.

I'm not sure why six inches v. seven inches would have an effect on your chance at playing in the NBA.  :D

Oops, typo  :P
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 29, 2007, 07:10:13 AM
At some point we should also talk about improving public schools.  :(


Of course -- better K-12 education would be far more helpful than band-aid preferences at the college and graduate school level.

However, this would not affect wealthier folks that much, who can presumably already afford private schools. 

Better K-12 education would greatly improve the quality of minority students matriculating @ today's colleges and universities. But I've got to tell y'all about racism in private schools.

I first encountered racism as a teenager during the fall semester of my senior year at a private, Christian academy.  I hadn't take any honors courses, but I had performed extremely well as a junior, especially in Biology and Chemistry. In fact, I had helped several Honors Chemistry students with their homework even though I was enrolled in the regular Chemistry course. (They frequently asked why I didn't take the Honors Chemistry course).  Because of my ease with science courses and my stellar performance, I requested to enroll in the Honors Physics course, which led to a meeting with the vice-principal.  She told me she didn't think I could handle the Honors Physics course, because I had never taken an Honors class, and the Honors courses were much tougher than the regular courses.  In response I told her about my "unofficial" job as the Honors Chem tutor, but she acted like that meant nothing.  I also asked her if other students with no prior Honors coursework had ever enrolled in an Honors course.  As I expected, she revealed that some students had done so, but she emphasized that these were exceptional students. (Please note that the only non-A grade I'd received as a junior was in US History.)  At that point, I got indignant.  I wanted to ask if those "exceptional students" were white, but I decided to adopt a more diplomatic approach. (I didn't think showing out would do me much good since she was still the vice-principal.)  I prodded incessantly until she agreed to enroll me on a trial basis.  At the end of the semester I had the highest grade in Honors Physics, which meant that I could continue. End of story.

What's the point? I was old enough to discern her unspoken sentiment. Would she have reacted differently if I were white?  I'm not certain, but I'd bet you she would have.  Her polite condescension would have discouraged most other students, but my mama didn't no raise no fool!  I was determined to take Honors Physics, and would have gone to any length in order to enroll in the course.

I'm currently studying for Summer School finals, so I'm letting TJ and Piggy battle the AA-bashers for now. I need to keep a high GPA. After all, I don't want to piss off  my future presumptious law-school classmates who may think I got into a t14 law school with pathetic #s due to AA.

Cheers,

What happened was a real shame. I'm glad you did well in the end, though, despite your principal's interference.

I definitely understand that these types of circumstances would lead someone to support AA in an effort to make up for opportunities lost due to such people. I don't think AA is wise, but that doesn't mean I condone the lack of judgment shone by your vice principal (especially considering your academic record).
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 29, 2007, 09:24:05 AM
I'm not sure that I find the VP tale a particularly compelling justification for AA.  I had to fight my adminstrators to let me take honors courses, then AP courses, and then courses off-campus at the local community college all the way through school despite being clearly being one of the top students in my class.  I'm not a minority, so I imagine that it came down to the fact that I was fighting for myself when other people just had their important parents up there complaining.  I think everyone's run across an incompetent school administrator during their academic careers, and it's pretty conceivable that occasionally you'd run across a racist/paternalistic every once in awhile. 



I just chose to share my story. I didn't offer it in justification of AA.

I'm not surprised at your response though LOL :).
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: UNAS on August 29, 2007, 11:05:23 AM
The largest issue I have with this debate is the fact that those individuals opposing affirmative action are trumping up the consequences/adverse effects of it. Though discrimination is very difficult to prove, because of the systemic controls in place to prevent such detection, it still can be unveiled (pardon my sentence structure). Perhaps republicans taking a stand against corporate lobbyist for less transparency in employer/employee relations would make evidence of discrimination available for public consumptioin. Nonetheless, at the end of the day the powers that be can always vet the compensation of a Black man, White man, White woman with similar academic and job related experience. These negligible adverse consequences you all continue mention are just that, negligible. Furthermore, instances where privileged minorities are, as you all seem to think, taking advantage of the system are few and far between.
Secondly, quotas particularly regarding employment were put in place because qualified minority candidates were often overlooked for their less qualified White counterparts. Instances of discrimination like this ran rampant, which if I am not mistaken was the root cause for AA coming in to being.
Title: Re: No more AA at Michigan Law?
Post by: PNym on August 29, 2007, 07:43:32 PM
The largest issue I have with this debate is the fact that those individuals opposing affirmative action are trumping up the consequences/adverse effects of it.

Well, if a policy proposal causes more adverse consequences than it ameliorates, then it makes little sense to implement it. That is, if the costs exceed its benefits, then the proposal should not be enacted. This seems like a sensible way of evaluating any proposal - why do you have issues with this?

Though discrimination is very difficult to prove, because of the systemic controls in place to prevent such detection, it still can be unveiled (pardon my sentence structure).

What systemic controls? Given the political climate, where discrimination of any kind is frowned upon, it is likely that most discrimination is ad hoc (consists of individual cases) rather than systemic (intentional, and coordinated amongst different parties, usually parties playing some institutional role).

Perhaps republicans taking a stand against corporate lobbyist for less transparency in employer/employee relations would make evidence of discrimination available for public consumptioin.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this point.

Nonetheless, at the end of the day the powers that be can always vet the compensation of a Black man, White man, White woman with similar academic and job related experience.

Who will do the vetting? If the vetting (comparison of qualifications) is done by someone pushing AA and outside the company or with no accountability to the future of the academic institution, it's likely that the qualifications they will examine and prioritize will be different from those that would be valued if the evaluator were accountable for the future quality of the organization.

These negligible adverse consequences you all continue mention are just that, negligible.

I've given several reasons why I don't think the effects are negligible (although I might not have provided them in this particular thread). If you don't remember what reasons I gave, ask and I'll repost them in this thread.

Furthermore, instances where privileged minorities are, as you all seem to think, taking advantage of the system are few and far between.

I don't know how much of this occurs, but it's galling when it does.

Secondly, quotas particularly regarding employment were put in place because qualified minority candidates were often overlooked for their less qualified White counterparts. Instances of discrimination like this ran rampant, which if I am not mistaken was the root cause for AA coming in to being.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, AA, the brainchild of either the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, had originally aimed primarily at increasing resources dedicated to finding qualified candidates amongst minority populations. This original program didn't lower the standards for minority candidates, nor did it provide any advantage for minority candidates who were selected for later rounds of evaluation - the program merely increased the manpower used to find candidates in these populations.

Quotas and preferential hirings came later, once AA administrators wanted additional power and authority and saw that the political climate had become favorable to more radical steps to increase minority hirings/admissions/contracting.