« on: April 25, 2007, 02:02:02 AM »
Wow, just caught up with this thread since my original post on page one. Apparently I am the only person who needed to catch up on schoolwork from a lazy weekend filled with Sopranos, Entourage, and NBA playoffs. Anywho, there was a person saying "how far can a society come in 50 years?" I think our society has unquestionable come leaps and bounds in the past 43 years since Brown v Board of Education and in the past 33 years since the ruling actually became integrated. That said, we have a ways to go. I think some people here are using extreme examples in attempt to prove their stubborn points. Should a person be judged solely on their race? No. They should be judged on the quality of their character which is, in certain instances, spurred by the color of their skin. Race does play a role in how some people are brought up. However, on that same note, so do many, many other circumstances that are not captured on a checkbox located on the front page of most applications. Personally, I am a poor white kid that used athletic skills to earn a scholarship and used my grades from college and a good GMAT score to get in to a Master's program, which I paid for from internship money. I say this because there is no box that you can check on the first page of an application saying "Are you poor? [ ] Yes, [ ] No"... If you want to speak about something that has played a role in your upbringing, you can do so in your PS or in a Diversity Statement. We have all had the appropriate undergraduate time to show what we can do in a collegiate environment. Our actual college coursework should speak be able to speak for itself.
As potential legal students, we should look for potential problems that may arise when rulings are made. For instance, if we allow race to be indicated on the application, what else should we include? Should you be required to check your sexual orientation? How do we know that applicants are not being discriminated or advantaged based on this? Should you be required to check your socio-economic status as well? If so, will economically disadvantaged white students begin taking URMs places in classes? If not, will the progression and eventual (hopefully) leveling of status between the races produce instances where a wealthy, third-generation Ivy-Leaguer is admitted to a school with lower scores and less experience than a poor white student with a more solid application?
I may not be successful in my attempts to stay on the outside and provide thoughtful comments, and if I have voiced some undermining or blinded opinion it was not my intention. Where I grew up, I was not treated well because I was white and I was not safe walking home from school because my classmates were scared of a white kid. I was treated well because I could ball and I was safe walking home from school because I was fast, strong, and a good athlete. As an athlete, you tend to look past race since you're lining up with maybe 3 or 4 races on your side of the ball at any given time. You see people for what they bring to the table. I played with guys who busted their ass to earn our championships and one who died during conditioning because he was going so hard. When you see someone laying on the field, you don't see a black or a white guy, you see a teammate and a fellow human being. Perhaps sports don't teach every life lesson, but growing up where I grew up and playing on teams with all different races teaches you a lot about race relations and looking past color of skin to what your teammate brings to the table in talent. Don't know if this helps, but I tried to blend a message in there. The end.