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 - BoRNnTHeUSA

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
Black Law Students / Re: Online Degrees....
« on: May 21, 2007, 08:42:00 PM »
It really depends on the area of study.  I wouldn't want a Doctor or Dentist or anyone practicing  in the medical profession earning their full degrees via online.  Some courses yes;  things like Sociology, Psychology, etc.  I have taken several online courses (Statistics, Micro/Macro Economics, etc.) and really appreciate the flexibility. 

When you really think about it, how many times do you pull out reference materials for certain issues.  I have yet to completely remember anything without using either my course books or the internet to help.  So I really don't have a problem with people using their text books during exams. More online degrees and courses should be offered.  It really doesn't matter how you learn it in school, the application -- based on the employer -- will be different and relearned.       

Black Law Students / Re: Post Your Interesting News Articles Here
« on: May 21, 2007, 08:16:07 PM »
Porn Star Goes to Law School
by: Kriti Sood

Article Highlights:

  • A graduating senior at CSUN and veteran of the adult entertainment industry, Traci, who goes by the alias Anita Cannibal, accepted to The University of West Los Angeles School of Law.
  • Traci has been in the porn industry since 1994.
  • Licensed as a legal prostitute in Nevada.
  • Made thirty grand in Brothel after working twenty-something days.
  • A business, finance and real estate major planning to provide online tutoring in which models wear a bra and underwear.
  • She said the decision to expose will rest with the members; they could choose from sitting naked to simply flashing their feet or talking about sex.

4 Page Article, Only Page 1 is posted...  To access entire article, see link at bottom.

Porn Star Goes to Law School is the tag line of Traci's, aka Anita Cannibal's, MySpace profile page. These few words describe her excitement these days as she recently got accepted to The University of West Los Angeles School of Law.

A graduating senior at CSUN, Traci has been in the porn industry since 1994. Her list of movies goes up to about 129 in number and range from small feature films to big-budget movies.

Some of the recent movies that Traci has done include "Mature Women with Young Girls 16" (2006), "Barnyard Babes" (2005), "Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy" (2001) and "White Lightning" (2000).

According to Traci, her choice of profession was not something sudden, but a childhood interest.

"I was always in to it even as a little girl," she said. "I was born an exhibitionist. You know how some people are born gay. I guess the glitter and glam from the movies in seventies, when I was growing up, impacted me."

Although Traci has been primarily involved with the porn movies, she speaks of making a good amount of money from dancing.

"I danced on Burbank Street, on Broadway across from David Letterman Show," she said.

"I made a lot of money from dancing. I made like a million bucks when I was hot. Now, I am starving like any other student. I don't dance anymore, I don't feature."

Traci might not be featuring in the same amount of movies like before, however, the 36-year-old says that she still does some and will be doing one this week.

Movies and dancing has helped Traci make a fortune, but what she enjoys most is going to the brothels in Nevada.

"Going to brothels and getting license as a legal prostitute was the coolest thing," she said. "As a student, I had no social life, no contact with sexuality. I made thirty grand in twenty-one days last winter at brothels.

It was the best time ever. Guys that go there are the sweetest. You do a movie, you get off the set, it feels like you have been beaten up.

Black Law Students / Re: Baby or Scholarship
« on: May 13, 2007, 06:02:32 PM »
"But if she lost her scholarship solely as a result of being pregnant, it would be a violation of Title 9," said Jocelyn Benson, who teaches a class on Sports and Inequality at Wayne State Law School. "There have been cases on that exact point."

According to the interview on ESPN, Memphis' action was a blatant violation of Title 9 (The federal law that does not permit discrimination on the basis of sex and mandates that you cannot discriminate on the basis of pregnancy).

So this isn't a contracts issue?  It could have been, right, if the information to 'pregnancy' was left out.

Black Law Students / Re: Baby or Scholarship
« on: May 13, 2007, 03:37:47 PM »
No, I don't think she should have been forced out of school.  I think she should have been given a leave. In the end they allowed her to return to the team and eventually gave her another scholarship.  Why? It just seems a big waste to begin with.  The policy should allow for 'life'. B/c it happens. 

Do you think there is a double standard for males and females?  Do you think the males should be forced out? Is the real concern the student's health, b/c if that is the case, leave not termination is a better remedy.

Black Law Students / Re: Baby or Scholarship
« on: May 13, 2007, 03:29:25 PM »
How are you going to run track while pregnant?

Alci, do you think they should have suspended her, or given her a leave.  Instead of terminating the scholarship altogether. She did eventually return, but under no scholarship.  It appears she was able to walk on the team and after a year she re-earned the scholarship.

Black Law Students / Baby or Scholarship
« on: May 13, 2007, 03:21:18 PM »
A college student lost her track scholarship after becoming pregnant.  According to the school's policy, scholarship eligibility is lost if you have a child.  Yet, male students who father children while holding scholarships are treated differently.  Should the male students be held to the same standard?

The article slightly touches on the dilemma of abortion.  The student is forced to make a decision between the scholarship that s/he earned or the life of the unborn child.  What do you think????

Becoming a mother a dilemma and victory
Memphis Commercial Appeal
Geoff Calkins

She took the test on an October day during her sophomore year, in her boyfriend's apartment, confused and terrified and unwilling to believe.

The first strip turned blue. She was pregnant.

"There must be something wrong with the strip," she said.

She took the test again. The strip turned blue again.

"I immediately thought about my scholarship," she said.

Cassandra Harding had a full scholarship to run track at the University of Memphis. She also had a full understanding of what would happen if she told the coaches she was expecting a child.

"I'd lose the scholarship," she said. "That was understood by everyone on the team. So then I had to choose, 'Do I keep the baby or do I keep my scholarship?'"

Why would we want anyone to have to make that choice?

Keep the baby and lose your scholarship.

Lose the baby and keep your scholarship.

"It's crazy," said Donna Lopiano, CEO of the Women's Sports Foundation. "I don't think it's right or legal."

But according to Harding -- who will tell her story to the country this morning on a Mother's Day edition of ESPN's "Outside the Lines" -- that's exactly the choice she was left with under a policy implemented by the Memphis track team.

"We had to sign a contract," Harding said. "It said that we'd lose our scholarship if we fought, or if we got in a verbal conflict with a coach, or if we got pregnant. I didn't think twice about it. I said, 'That's not going to be me.'"

Harding, from Killeen, Texas, was determined to get her college degree. For as long as she could recall, she had been told she could go to college if she could earn a scholarship.

"That's why I got A's and B's in high school," she said. "Nothing was going to stop me."

And then, the home pregnancy test strip turned blue. And so did the second one. A trip to the doctor confirmed everything.

"My boyfriend wanted me to keep the baby the whole time," she said. "But I wasn't going to lose my scholarship. I kept going back and forth, putting it off. When I finally went for the abortion they told me it was too late, that I'd have to go to a place in Little Rock. When that happened, I said, 'You know, I guess this isn't the thing I'm supposed to do. I'm going to keep the baby.'"

Even then, Harding didn't tell her coaches until she was six months pregnant. She competed in her specialty, the triple jump, throughout the indoor season.

"I finally told coach (Kevin) Robinson," she said. "He was my jumping coach at the time. They let me stay through the end of the semester, then they took the scholarship away."

Harding went home to Texas and delivered the baby in July. That fall, she returned for her junior season and walked on to the team, but did not compete.

"For me, being from out of state, it was expensive," she said. "If my brother hadn't signed a $10,000 loan for me, I wouldn't have been able to do it."

After a year, Harding's scholarship was restored. Saturday, in Houston, she participated in the Conference USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships.

"How do I feel about wearing Memphis colors?" she said. "I don't hold a grudge on my shoulders. But, no, I don't think I should have lost my scholarship because I got pregnant."

Legally, she might be wrong about this. Athletes lose their scholarships all the time for medical reasons unrelated to athletics.

"But if she lost her scholarship solely as a result of being pregnant, it would be a violation of Title 9," said Jocelyn Benson, who teaches a class on Sports and Inequality at Wayne State Law School. "There have been cases on that exact point."

Lopiano, of the Women's Sports Foundation, said "our position paper on pregnancy has to do with possible restrictions on playing. It never even occurred to us to include any retribution, i.e., the withdrawal of a scholarship."

Memphis officials weren't saying much about the case. Athletic director R.C. Johnson said, "We don't think we did anything wrong." Beyond that, Johnson referred to a prepared statement that said "The University of Memphis does not believe it is in violation of any federal law."

Unfortunately, neither Johnson nor anybody else at Memphis was willing to expand on the university's position. Maybe the school has a different version of the facts. Let's hope that's the case.

Otherwise, why were Darius Washington and DeAngelo Williams able to keep their scholarships after having children while a woman athlete could not? Isn't that the essence of discrimination?

And how about the practical effect of the policy? Why would a university support a policy that even inadvertently encourages female athletes who get pregnant to have abortions? Whatever your personal position on abortion, can't we all agree that the decision as to whether to terminate a pregnancy is difficult enough without being complicated by the potential loss of a scholarship?

Asked about this, Johnson said, "That's far-fetched. That's taking it a bit too far."

But is it? Really? Student-athletes sacrifice their entire lives to earn scholarships. Think they wouldn't consider other sacrifices?

"I know a couple people on the team who had abortions for that reason," Harding said. "They're not on the team now, but since I've been there. This isn't an uncommon thing. This is something women athletes are faced with that men aren't faced with."

Somehow, it all ended happily for Harding. She had her baby. She named her Assiah. She's left her back in Texas, under the care of her mother, until she finishes up her degree in December.

So the hard times are days like these, a Mother's Day, as she flies back to her life and work in Memphis, her baby girl far away.

"She's awesome," Harding said. "She's sooooo awesome. I can't believe I almost didn't have her."

"The rise of Jews began to rise dramatically"?   :o

If I understand it correctly, your argument here is "White people a century ago discriminated against Jews, so you shouldn't complain about AA, because you white people started it anyway."  Those weren't my chickens, so I don't see how they're coming home to roost.

When the process was working to the benefit of those who created it, there wasn't any 'irking' going on, they set by passively and watched.  Now that the same process is working against you, there is some sort of righteous indignation. Stop the whining, change the process.  But be certain that whatever change is instituted, it is not one that again works to your advantage.  Don't cry for change to benefit just you, but CRY for what will benefit all affected.

No, Bosco, it might not be your chickens, but it is the chickens of the predicament that we find ourselves in today.  Policies and practices were instituted to exclude.  Regardless of the intended 'undesirable', the affected outcome is still the same. 

Did you really just cite a book by publisher and price? And you're going to law school? Really?

No, I cited text from a article that included the publisher and the price (I thought if someone was interested in the book, the information pertaining to publisher and price would be useful).

Then again, if I have made any error in the manner in which I cited information, Legal writing and research would further help to correct that right?

Again, Chickens' coming home to roost!!!!

The current admission's practices did not come into existence until 1922.  Starting in the fall of 1922,

"applicants were required to answer questions on "Race and Color', "Religious Preference,' "Maiden Name of Mother,' "birthplace of Father,' and "what change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? Explain fully).'"


According to sociologist Jerome Karabel in "The Chosen" (Houghton Mifflin: $28), "The rise of Jews began to rise dramatically... The administration and alumni were up in arms.  Jews were thought to be sickly and grasping, grade--grubbing and insular.  They displaced the sons of wealthy Wasp alumni..."

Again, not a rant, just Chickens' coming home to roost!


Chickens' coming home to roost!!! I love it ;D

Thank your ancestors for the current standards.  Had they not conspired to keep out certain 'undesirables', the admissions process would not include check boxes for race, biased standardized tests, LORs, or other subtle practices designed to exclude.

So if you must be 'irked', be 'irked' that your ancestors initiated practices that arbitrarily deny fair opportunities for both their decedents as well as the decedents of the 'undesirables' they sought to exclude.

Who are you or anyone else to say that a person who has a lower LSAT score or UGPA is less deserving of the opportunity to attend Law School or any other institution.  The LSAT is not an aptitude test (as conceded by the LSAC), it is an achievement test.  It only measures your ability on the topics you are tested on; NO MORE!!!!!  As for Hardwork and grades, don't get it confused.  Just because an individual receives a lower grade in any particular subject, doesn't mean they didn't work hard.  I have known people to really struggle, really work hard, and yet the grades fail to reflect the actual effort exhorted.

Why not be 'irked' that you are an American Citizen and the one institution that controls every aspect of your life is limited to a 'select few'.  I thought it said 'For the people, by the people'.  People is plural right.  Why are you okay with being denied your right to participate in due process. 

There is a cancer that plagues the American culture. Until we rid out the root and remove all vestiges of its existence, it will continue to distract us from the REAL issues.

Edit: added we and comma


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10