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 - UNAS

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
Black Law Students / Re: What box to check?
« on: November 09, 2007, 08:05:53 PM »
Pretty sure Jennifer Beals self-id's as more black than one might think by looking at her. (She's done interviews and stuff where she talks about this. Also, I love her.) Read: I don't think there's a reason to think she self-id's as less black than Alicia Keys just because she looks less black than AK does.

i don't want to get into a debate about this, not that you do either but I just have not heard any representation from Jennifer about her roots. Black or White. Much in the same way as Slash. They both are very neutral when it comes to their background. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

However, in my opinion and in my reality, white folks treat and look at biracial people like regular black folks. For every biracial(specifically black/white) person there is a black person who has the exact same features who's parents were both black. of course there are exceptions to the rule.

consequently, at the end of the day if genarlow wilson or the jena 6 were biracial(again black/white) they would have received the exact same discriminatory treatment.

Black Law Students / Re: What box to check?
« on: November 09, 2007, 07:39:04 PM »
Really, she's mixed?  Nicole Ritchie would be another good example.

ETA: Wiki says Biel is not mixed with black: Biel was born in Ely, Minnesota, daughter of Kimberly (Kim) Biel (nťe Conroe) and Jonathan Edward Biel, an entrepreneur.[1] She is of mixed Native American (Choctaw) and European (German, French, Irish and English) ancestry

Wrong Beal.  UNAS was referring to Jennifer Beals, who is biracial.

thats what i meant thanks

Black Law Students / Re: What box to check?
« on: November 09, 2007, 11:41:07 AM »
Suprise Suprise

Yeah. Her pops is Black and moms is White

Black Law Students / Re: What box to check?
« on: November 09, 2007, 11:11:35 AM »
Additionaly, I think if a mixed person has to ask than they already know.

For example, Alicia Keys or Jason Kidd would not hesitate to check black
On the flip side Jessica Beale would probably put "other" or white (no disrespect to her, its just the way I see it)

Black Law Students / Re: What box to check?
« on: November 09, 2007, 06:58:01 AM »
The only credited response to this question is to click whatever benefits you most when applying.

No, the credited response is that I have no interest whatsoever in helping people who identify as black only for purposes of admissions, nor would I want any such people admitted to my law school by doing so.  Therefore, I will advise "confused" people to check what they identify with most.



Just thought I would drop this one by.

I have no rage or anger towards this gentleman and I wish him the best. I am just pointing this out. Damn I just realized something, i just wasted 5 minutes that I could have been ignoring legacy admits again to propagate the hyperbole of racial tension cause by AA

On a serious note, I went to an HBCU an though white folks received monetary incentives to attend for the purpose of diversity I think it is safe to say that racial tension did not exist. I will also submit those students brought some value added to the HBCU experience because of their difference in background.

On a related note. For racial tension to exist two or more parties have to feel tense. If only one party is tense it is no longer racial tension, but rather racial anxiety. At this point you have to look internally

What I would like to know is how law students white black or otherwise function with being saturated in racial tension day after day because of AA. How can the students get their work done? Jeez, I can only imagine. It must be like Higher Learning only in real life. The only experiences I can liken to the racial tensioned caused by AA on law school campuses nationwide would probably the tension caused by hanging a nuece under a tree to intimidate black students, maybe the tension in rosewood, fl after the 1922 riots or what about the tension on a plane with a few arab passengers immediately after 9/11. Boy, law school is really a ticking time bomb. This AA has really got to go if us law students are to live our lives without the mental encumbrance caused by AA

Sounds like someone didnt get into law school.

The fact that he compares legacy admits to selling arms to al quaeda made me pee my pants a little.  The detriment of selling guns to al quaeda is people's lives, whereas the only detriment to schools who allow legacy admits is you piss off the bottom 5% of the prospective class who cant get in.

Whereas AA fuels racial tensions, legacy admits only fuel claims of nepotism, which our society sees as much less of a potential problem.

Its all about the almighty dollar and keeping your successful alumni base happy... some schools do it by paying 5 million dollars a year to hire new football coaches, some schools do it by letting children of alumni in.

PS - His anti-semitism argument is hilarious.

Are you trying to say that the gentleman who parents own a summer home two doors down from me in the dormitory and the culture clash that comes with my middle class background won't be a powdered keg in the making...if thats the case than you are right.

The article is meant for comedy not to be taken as my primary evidence in a AA debate

For all the opponents of AA, can you all please stop inflating the how negatively AA affects race relations. PArdon the redundancy but I have never seen such gross use of hyperbole

Subject: Ouch!

Legacy Admissions are Stupid

By J.D. Porter


I like rich, academically incapable idiots as much as the next guy, but Iím beginning to wonder if Columbia should stop admitting so many of them. Iím speaking, obviously, of legacy students. Despite claiming to care about diversity, our school still gives them preference in admissions. For some reason people donít seem all that infuriated about this, even though the whole concept is about as fair as picking a deranged child to rule a nation because heís the firstborn. Well, the time has come to destroy that sickly child.

Legacy admissions initially came about because Ivy League administrators hated Jews. In the 1920s, they noticed that someone had been educating Jewish people, who were now better qualified for their schools than the traditional student body, the bored children of various industrial barons. Horrified, the people at Yale, for instance, decided that only someone whose dad had gone to Yale could truly understand Yale pride (like white pride, but richer), and legacy admissions were born. Since Jewish parents had mostly spent their college years in Lithuanian shtetls and disease-ridden tenements, the old order was restored.

Itís unclear why Yale somehow found legacy admissions more acceptable than simply announcing a formal policy of anti-Semitism, but there must have been a reason, because we at Columbia still find it acceptable today. Obviously our administrators arenít intentionally racist, but they do endorse a policy that tries to set racial diversity back at least one generation. Iím all for celebrating our heritage, but only if that heritage isnít appalling and stupid, like most of Americaís racial history. The Wall Street Journal estimates that 10 to 15 percent of Ivy League students are legacy students. Admitting about one-hundred-plus students a year based on an at-best twenty-year-old model of diversity is the academic equivalent of keeping separate drinking fountains just for old timesí sake.

Of course, we have to remember that in addition to being racist, classist, and probably misogynist, legacy admissions also contribute nothing to our educational experience. Itís tough to envision a scenario in which a class discussion pivots on one studentís explanation of what his dad thought when he was here. At least student athletes actually have to do something in exchange for admissions leniency, like kicking a ball, or rowing a paddle. This puts them far beyond the value, and probably skill set, of any legacy student.

The one viable argument for continuing legacy admissions is that legacy families are often big University donors. Those Jew-hating Yalies may have been unscrupulous, but they knew the importance of that crucial robber-baron dollar. The tenement kids might deserve to get in, but their sob-stories arenít going to buy any new science buildings. Columbia has to court the wealthy, even if they are mostly white guys. On the other hand, they might not all be white guys if we would stop with the legacy admissions.

Either way, the ďit makes moneyĒ argument is specious to begin with. You could apply the exact same rationale for selling arms to terrorists, but that doesnít mean Columbia should contact al Qaeda. Legacy admissions may not be punishable by international tribunal, but they are obviously wrong, and our need for money doesnít make them OK. We might as well drop the charade and just allow people to openly pay their way into the school. It wouldnít hurt to have a guarantee that those kids you hate had to fund your building maintenance. Every one I know wishes they would shut up and go away. People arenít qualified to do things on the basis of their parentsí skill sets. My dad was the top marksman in his class at West Point, but it would not be wise to choose me to defend America, or even a single American. Similarly, when we admit students because their parents were smart, we increase the chances of having dumb students on campus, and that ruins things for everyone.

Iím sure that not every legacy student is a privileged idiot gliding his way through college en route to an undeserved executive position in a major corporation. Some could even potentially be smart. Clearly Ivy League parents are more likely than average to send their kids to good schools. If thatís true, however, then legacy kids already have an advantage over others without us making it worse. In 2003, the Journal reported that legacy kids at Harvard had a 40 percent admission rate, compared to 11 percent for everyone else. Itís like Mike Tyson goes into the ring with a small child, and the Ivies are yelling ďItís not fair! That kid gets to use both hands!Ē

The utter ridiculousness of legacy admissions is not even really debatable. Itís a concept born out of racism and parochial fear, and it remains retrogressive in nearly every sense. It may cost us some money, but Columbia has an opportunity here to do something big and truly progressive. Oxford and Cambridge donít practice legacy admissions, and although it has lost them some funding, they havenít exactly become safety schools. If legacy kids deserve to go here, let them get in on their own. Otherwise, youíre not fooling anyone. Not even the dumb students.

J.D. Porter is a Columbia College senior majoring in English and comparative literature.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15