Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - 1LCorvo

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Black Law Students / Re: BLSA...optional or mandatory?
« on: May 19, 2007, 04:18:53 PM »
Quick question.  Do the majority of black law students participate in BLSA?  I know it is not mandatory but is there an unstated assumption that as a black law student, you more than likely will participate?  Are there "others" that distance themselves from BLSA in fear of appearing too black? 

There's probably an unstated assumption. It's hard to determine, considering the fact that the assumption is implicit. Yet, even if we accept that there is an implicit assumption, it is still optional for students to join. However, who is the party that is implicitly assuming? I suppose that the assumption will vary from student to student. So, for Student A this might be an assumption, while for Student B it will not. Ergo, the answer to your question is a definitive yes or no.

As for the question, "will you join"...I'm not really interested. The purpose seems to want to address issues among black law students, to foster diversity in the legal world, and things of that nature. And personally, this does not really interest me. However, I'll probably check out a few meetings.

On another note, anyone thinking about joining the Federalist Society?

I did not read through every post, so excuse me if I'm redundant...

In any case, before we have a discussion on whether morality is relative, we must define what morality is. From studying it (conceptually), it appears as if the term is rather amorphous. That is, there does not seem to be definite concept of morality...some argue that it deals with how a society ought to properly conduct itself. While, in some areas, morality is a strict set of codes that are determined for people to follow. Bernard Gert writes that, "How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism." Ergo, if you presume that morality is a set of codes (i.e. ten commandments, kant's categorical imperative, golden rule, etc.), then often it will lead to relativism. This is so because no one code of conduct is universally accepted as objective truth.

Concordantly, one might argue that this standard is too high. That is, it is pratically impossible for every person to agree on one moral code of conduct, ergo it is impossible to have an objective moral standard. This response can be interpreted (and responded to in a few ways). First, one might suggest that this proves the very point that morality is relative. If we all can't agree on a specific moral code, then there isn't one (or hasn't been found). While, one might suggest that we reject the standard that is being used to determined a moral code.

In my experience, I've come to accept that morality is somewhat relative. Considering how you define it, it is often not the same in many socities. We might believe that it is morally wrong to sacrifice animals and people, while others might not. How might we prove that our moral belief is the correct one? Once you've answered that, then my skepticism regarding morality might vanish.

I'll answer the question! Why does it matter what their LSAT scores are to us? After suffering through the test, and talking to lawyers who didn't do well on their LSAT, I really don't believe the LSAT measures anything other than your mental pain threshold.

But if this is just another one of those "mine is bigger than yours contests", I don't have the right equipment to compete.

Its not supposed to be a competition thing, disclosing one's score is a way of providing guidance to future applicants (the whole reason LSN exists in the first place).  However thanks to the comment feature some people turn it into a forum for anti-AA diatribes leaving a number of AA benefactors reluctant to post their scores.   

much respect for Gordon Gekko
"anything worth doing is worth doing for money"


probably to avoid harrassment from other students about their LSAT score and AA...i guess it didn't work

Are you saying that blacks who post their LSAT score on LSN will face harassment? Does this mean that blacks who do not post their LSAT score on LSN will avoid harassment? Could you please explain?

Any explanation is, at best, probable (nothing seems definite). And the things you inferred do not follow. But, in all honesty, I have the slightest idea. I would imagine that there are a variety of factors...but i thought all this talk of numbers ended after getting in? that's a nice way of saying i don't really feel like speculating; sorry dude.


dude might be obsessed...just move on man its over


probably to avoid harrassment from other students about their LSAT score and AA...i guess it didn't work


  hahaha there's nothing like a crappy ending

"It's so interesting when I see the African-Americans that are fortunate enough to attain a high level of education automatically assume that becuase they did it that there are no problems, obstacles, or barriers for the rest of their representative race.

Hey buddy I'm genuinely happy about your academic fortunes, but that does not automatically qualify you to make such statements. Just consider yourself fortunate and keep it moving.

Perhaps you feel a little insecure that once you start LS that people will think you benefitted from AA and not becuase of your merit, and this post is a result of the underlying insecurities. I don't know, I never was good at playing Dr. Phil. lol"

I'm not sure how we deviated to this topic (which is incidentally about my character).In any case, I never assumed that there were no problems, obstacles, or barriers for the rest of African Americans. That's certainly not true. However, we must have an honest discussion on whether these "obstacles" are severe enough to deter blacks from becoming lawyers. More importantly, we must discuss whether these "obstacles" are detrimental to the point where AA is justified (like the 60s). That is why I propounded these questions.

It would be preposterous to assert that AA is wrong in all cases. However, we must access whether current AA programs are consistent with the actions of today's society. I suppose that they are not. Hence the title of the thread.


I'm just playing devil's advocate

So, how is this thread (topic i presume) probelmatic?

it does serve a point (albeit subtle)...and the tern "lame" is awfully subjective


I think captain longshot's position on AA is the most just one.

So, it is not a refusal of AA, just a slight modification.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8