.

[CoupDeGlace]

Anyone who thinks that AA is a "racist and harmful" program is obviously racist.  It's not about crying, whining or asking for handouts. It's about providing equal opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.  Why is that so hard for people to understand.    Please provide a logical response.

That's a stretch. To say that "anyone who thinks AA is racist and harmful is racist" is a gross generalization.

Yes, some people against AA are in fact racist. It's just like how some people who are in favor of ending illegal immigration favor that position because they hate Mexicans and think they're lower than Whites. But that's ignoring the valid arguments of many people who are against illegal immigration for the fact that it exploits the immigrant to the benefit of a few, as well as those immigrants who endure years of bureaucratic red tape to get a chance to come to this country legally.

My point being, there's more than one camp that believes affirmative action is wrong.

To me, affirmative action has a noble intention but in the end what it's doing is creating a further entrenchment of ideas of racial inequality. What it's saying is that people of color need lower standards in order to get into schools, get jobs, etc. that, if they were white, would require a lot more to get in.

This is doing nothing to dispel racist notions that black people are intellectually inferior to whites, for example. All it's doing is allowing people to discount the achievements of people of color. Say you have a black man at an Ivy League institution, and he had a 3.95 GPA and a 170 LSAT. Too many people would look at him and not assume he was there for that reason, but rather, that he had far lower numbers and got in because he's black.

I'm looking at it from another standpoint too. I'm from a biracial family. I'm white, however, my younger brother is biracial, black/white. He's incredibly bright, and I know that if he keeps up what he's doing, he is definitely destined to do well.

Yet, the thought of people discounting his achievements and thinking he got an 'easy in' is annoying. But this is what a lot of people think, and why? Because a lot of people that do have lower standards have been getting in due to Affirmative Action.

There is no way we're going to ever have a country of racial equality until we get rid of Affirmative Action, because it is what it is, positive discrimination. Now, I'm not saying that we're at a state of racial peace and harmony where blacks aren't still more or less economically disadvantaged compared to whites. Maybe this isn't the best time to end AA, but eventually it'll have to be done.

I also don't see, however, how arguments like yours about the past abuses against African-Americans will ever be assuaged by Affirmative Action. It's not ever going to turn back the clock and prevent those things from happening. And until we realize that we need to start where it matters, at the lowest levels of education when these kids are young, all it's going to do is continue to justify lower standards for minorities in this country. Are we doing anyone a favor by continuing to perpetuate this?

I firmly believe that this is more of a question of socioeconomic status than race. I'd be all for a version of AA which was based on socioeconomic status. This is because it would still cover a large proportion of the minority communities, as much of them are disproportionately economically disadvantaged. Yet it would also remove the issue of race. And it would also present opportunities for those whites who are from equally disadvantaged backgrounds, and yes, there are many in this country. I know the argument goes that AA doesn't hurt those people, but at the same time there is no policy to help these people either. Whites are expected to have higher test scores, higher GPAs, more achievements, but when someone is economically disadvantaged and goes to a horribly funded public school system, there's just as much of a chance of a poor white having lower scores and grades as a poor black or a poor Latino. Why? Because race has nothing to do with potential for achievement.

[clairel]

as someone who was intuitively against AA pre-law school , yet is now pro-AA, i wanted to interject one idea into this discussion. most URMs who are admitted into a school they would normally be rejected from are basically qualified in raw term; for instance, many URMs admitted to HYS have lsats over 163-165 and high gpas. how are we concluding that they are "unqualied" for HYS based on scoring in the 92-95th percentile of test-takers? i was sorry that i was not admitted to harvard with a slightly higher lsat and slightly higher gpa, but i don't see that my career prospects are limited that much more by being admitted to CCN or MVPN?

i would be anti-AA if it meant that URMs were admitted to HYS with the same scores as me being admitted to schools that were ranked 10-20 spots lower. as it is, most URMs get one boost up: they get into HYS with the same scores as any other candidate getting into a t6 or at least a t-14. why is this so intuitively offense? there are plenty of caucasian candidates who also get into t14s and tier 1s with relatively low scores below the 25th percentile (look for LondonBoundJD and other applicants on the Where Should I Go Next Fall? board). that's the nature of law school admissions; it's usually numbers-driven, but sometimes an applicant gets a boost based on their addendums or personal statements.

so feel free to continue this debate. i just wanted to reiterate that basically, URM status only promotes people one step up the law school rankings scale. someone who is objectively unqualified for HYS or a t-14 (an lsat score in the 140s/150s) is unlikely to gain admission. if they have a slightly lower lsat but still are in the 95th percentile of lsat takers, they're potentially qualified to attend most highly ranked law schools, and it is up to such schools to reject/waitlist them accordingly. otherwise, the free market (especially in the private school sector) has spoken.

[charlottem]

Anyone who thinks that AA is a "racist and harmful" program is obviously racist.  It's not about crying, whining or asking for handouts. It's about providing equal opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.  Why is that so hard for people to understand.    Please provide a logical response.

I'll take a stab and then bow out because I don't want to get into this:  The reason, I think, that people can't understand the justification for AA is because they do not see it as providing equal opportunity.  They see it as providing more opportunities to minorities.  I AM NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE, but I see a lot of them where I live.  I think it's because there are not a lot of opportunities for people in my locale to see the real disadvantage that exists in areas with more minorities.  I would not, however, go as far as to say that all of these people are racists just because they point out that it's not an equal opportunity system in all cases; because they are right, it's not.  Everyone can agree that not all whites are privleged and not all minorities are unprivleged.  There will be instances where an advantage (or disadvantage) will be given to someone who doesn't really need the help.

The justification, as far as I have concluded is best described using something like LS admissions as an example:  Say a school gets 6500 apps per year.  It cannot feasibly seach into the economic and social advantage of every one of those applicants.  So it concludes based on the averages.  If I walk down the street, see a black guy, and assume he is poor based on his being black, I will be wrong plenty of times (on many levels).  But if I make the same judgment about a white guy, I will be wrong on an economic level many more times.  Sure, maybe a white applicant came from a poor background, his parents passed away early, he dealt with prejudice because is was in a wheelchair, whatever.  Yeah, maybe a black girl grew up as the daughter of a wealthy businessman and got a Mercedes onher 16th, OK.  But if the adcomms are going to get decisions out before August, they are going to have to trust the numbers a little bit.  Besides, the white disadvantaged can indicate that they are such in additional materials and receive a boost as well.  Is this racism?  If making determinations about somebody based soley on race is racist, then, yes.  But I bet not a single person would ever want it to be necessary.  But, I think it is, right now.  The people who are against AA simply disagree that anyone should be entitled to an advantage over others.  Many of them do not realize just how deep American history has cut minorities.  Some are racist.

As someone said earlier, AA will continue to be justified until there is an proportionate number of minorities who are in influential positions.  This tends to infiltrate higher education first.  Asian Americans are not given URM staus because they are not underrepresented anyomre.  But they still benefit from AA in the workplace as far as I have seen (although, that is dwindling too).  Once the rest of the minority groups catch up, I bet you'll see URM status become less and less of an issue in higher education.  To me, therein lies the only commendable reason to support AA:  practice it now with the hope that doing so will prevent you from having to in the future.  I think we're still a long way from the tipping point.



 

Which is it?
Adcomms don't have the time to figure out if you're socioeconomically disadvantaged so they should just go by race and that's fair because proportionately there are more disadvantaged URMs.
or
Adcomms can look at your additional materials if you're white and disadvantaged and then give you the big old boost too.
Honey, reality check:  You could've have been raised by wolves, never seen the inside of a school and have no shoes,  but if you happen to be white TOO - Guess what, you do not get the 10/12 point LSAT boost that the rich, black female is going to get.
Let's not argue about what's fair. 
Let's just go forward on the basis that white guilt and political correctness are ruining everything this country stands for. 
If you're a urm, you are benefitting from this system and your opinion is irrelevant.
If you are white, count yourself lucky if that urm didn't take your spot.

 

[filet o' fish]

Which is it?
Adcomms don't have the time to figure out if you're socioeconomically disadvantaged so they should just go by race and that's fair because proportionately there are more disadvantaged URMs.
or
Adcomms can look at your additional materials if you're white and disadvantaged and then give you the big old boost too.
Honey, reality check:  You could've have been raised by wolves, never seen the inside of a school and have no shoes,  but if you happen to be white TOO - Guess what, you do not get the 10/12 point LSAT boost that the rich, black female is going to get.
Let's not argue about what's fair. 
Let's just go forward on the basis that white guilt and political correctness are ruining everything this country stands for. 
If you're a urm, you are benefitting from this system and your opinion is irrelevant.
If you are white, count yourself lucky if that urm didn't take your spot.

Your spot?

Were you given that spot? Are you anymore entitled to it than anyone else?

Why is it shocking or upsetting that there is a positive social agenda that, in some cases, does not apply to a white person (at least directly)?

[Oldguy48]

I posted this in another thread where a similar sentiment was voiced and then (naively) set about to see if this was an isolated occurrence.  I was surprised to find a more blatant example here.  Sigh.




I probably should just skate on out of here and keep my opinion to myself but I find some of this spouting particularly small minded and not a little disappointing.  I am in somewhat unique situation in that I am applying to law school as an older (part time) student at the same time as my oldest daughter is applying to college as an undergraduate.   I am (we are) white middle/upper middle class.  I have spent a good amount of time talking to my daughter who is terrific student about realizing that she is going to be competing against lots of really talented other students some of whom are of different cultural and racial backgrounds and not only are the colleges going to be trying to create a diverse student body which would be to her benefit because in the world she is going to live and work in it would be great disservice for her not to be exposed to as many different and varied peoples as is possible, but also because I hope it will continue to shape her perception of the world as place in which it is natural for all different kinds people to co-exist and function homogenously.

I have also tried to prepare her for the fact that there will be people of color who will be given an advantage in the admissions process.  In short, that schools will be accepting students with lesser grades and scores than she and while it might be tempting to be angry and see this as unfair, it is important to understand that it exactly the opposite; It is her chance (albeit not volitional) to help redress a situation that had been firmly entrenched in the American Psyche from it's inception (1617?) until (arguably) 1968.  Perhaps it is because I remember life in the 1960s (although just a child) I realize that the disadvantages and biases that existed for so long cannot begin to be reversed or mediated in just one generation, or two or maybe even 5 and in some areas of the deep south 10 or more.  Although we all would like to see the sun rise and set on our own desires and expectations I believe (and I would never assume that anyone else should have to believe what I believe) that we have a moral obligation to look at the world as being more than that-- it should be a collective, a continuum.  While it is easy to say "It wasn't me who was a bigot," or "I never owned slaves, my great-grandparents never owned slaves, why should I have to be punished?" or even more insidiously "He grew up in a middle class neighborhood, His family has more money than me, why should he get in over me with worse grades?"  realize that until 1954 in the Sweatt V. Painter case (thats only 54 years a long time I suppose if you're 21 but for those of you talk to your grandparents about what life was like in the 40's and 50's) blacks could be and were routinely excluded from "white" law schools (even if their scores were higher).

I have told my daughter that we are able walk down the street and no one sees us and identifies us by our SAT or LSAT scores; We carry that inside and can choose or not to show or disclose it and thus can avoid being judged or categorized fairly or unfairly at our discretion.  With hope, someday the same may be true of race, but until that day comes what we can do to help move toward that end is to allow with grace and dignity someone whose color has been made for centuries an ignominious badge,  to stand in front of us, higher or lower scores not withstanding.

I will try to take what acceptances I get and be grateful.  I hope many of you can do the same.

[eastend]

I posted this in another thread where a similar sentiment was voiced and then (naively) set about to see if this was an isolated occurrence.  I was surprised to find a more blatant example here.  Sigh.




I probably should just skate on out of here and keep my opinion to myself but I find some of this spouting particularly small minded and not a little disappointing.  I am in somewhat unique situation in that I am applying to law school as an older (part time) student at the same time as my oldest daughter is applying to college as an undergraduate.   I am (we are) white middle/upper middle class.  I have spent a good amount of time talking to my daughter who is terrific student about realizing that she is going to be competing against lots of really talented other students some of whom are of different cultural and racial backgrounds and not only are the colleges going to be trying to create a diverse student body which would be to her benefit because in the world she is going to live and work in it would be great disservice for her not to be exposed to as many different and varied peoples as is possible, but also because I hope it will continue to shape her perception of the world as place in which it is natural for all different kinds people to co-exist and function homogenously.

I have also tried to prepare her for the fact that there will be people of color who will be given an advantage in the admissions process.  In short, that schools will be accepting students with lesser grades and scores than she and while it might be tempting to be angry and see this as unfair, it is important to understand that it exactly the opposite; It is her chance (albeit not volitional) to help redress a situation that had been firmly entrenched in the American Psyche from it's inception (1617?) until (arguably) 1968.  Perhaps it is because I remember life in the 1960s (although just a child) I realize that the disadvantages and biases that existed for so long cannot begin to be reversed or mediated in just one generation, or two or maybe even 5 and in some areas of the deep south 10 or more.  Although we all would like to see the sun rise and set on our own desires and expectations I believe (and I would never assume that anyone else should have to believe what I believe) that we have a moral obligation to look at the world as being more than that-- it should be a collective, a continuum.  While it is easy to say "It wasn't me who was a bigot," or "I never owned slaves, my great-grandparents never owned slaves, why should I have to be punished?" or even more insidiously "He grew up in a middle class neighborhood, His family has more money than me, why should he get in over me with worse grades?"  realize that until 1954 in the Sweatt V. Painter case (thats only 54 years a long time I suppose if you're 21 but for those of you talk to your grandparents about what life was like in the 40's and 50's) blacks could be and were routinely excluded from "white" law schools (even if their scores were higher).

I have told my daughter that we are able walk down the street and no one sees us and identifies us by our SAT or LSAT scores; We carry that inside and can choose or not to show or disclose it and thus can avoid being judged or categorized fairly or unfairly at our discretion.  With hope, someday the same may be true of race, but until that day comes what we can do to help move toward that end is to allow with grace and dignity someone whose color has been made for centuries an ignominious badge,  to stand in front of us, higher or lower scores not withstanding.

I will try to take what acceptances I get and be grateful.  I hope many of you can do the same.

Yeah.
AA will make them whole.  It will right the wrongs.  I didn't realize what a beautiful thing AA really is. 
Diversity of ideas is far less important than diversity of skin tone. 

[Oldguy48]

Yeah.
AA will make them whole.  It will right the wrongs.  I didn't realize what a beautiful thing AA really is.
Diversity of ideas is far less important than diversity of skin tone.

I imagine you cannot be so limited in your thought process, but then perhaps my belief that anyone trying to become a lawyer must be capable of proficient critical thinking is as foolish as your statement above.  I suppose by your reckoning conservation, or fair labor practices, or even driving sober are all without merit since they don't "right the wrongs" of the past, of extinct species, women killed in factory fires, kids killed in DUI accidents. Instead of seeing AA as looking to change the past look at it something trying to effect a change in the future.

[eastend]

Yeah.
AA will make them whole.  It will right the wrongs.  I didn't realize what a beautiful thing AA really is.
Diversity of ideas is far less important than diversity of skin tone.

I imagine you cannot be so limited in your thought process, but then perhaps my belief that anyone trying to become a lawyer must be capable of proficient critical thinking is as foolish as your statement above.  I suppose by your reckoning conservation, or fair labor practices, or even driving sober are all without merit since they don't "right the wrongs" of the past, of extinct species, women killed in factory fires, kids killed in DUI accidents. Instead of seeing AA as looking to change the past look at it something trying to effect a change in the future.

Uh huh.  You sure told me. 

[The Knight]

I posted this in another thread where a similar sentiment was voiced and then (naively) set about to see if this was an isolated occurrence.  I was surprised to find a more blatant example here.  Sigh.

...blah blah blah...

This is it.  This is the disconnect.

(Most) people from your generation see AA as a component in the "righting of wrongs." 
(Most) people from my generation (currently younger than 25) see AA as a continuation of racial highlighting.  At this point AA probably does as much harm as it does good.  Like all forms of discrimination it generates hate.  It is in the name of a good cause, but so are the suicide bombs that extremists strap to themselves before they run into a crowd of people.

My generation doesn't care nearly as much about race as your generation does.  As a matter of fact, I would say that if every American over 40 years old died right now, the level of racism (it's severity) in America would drop to 30% of it's current state.

I realize that this is conjecture.  I'm using the example to highlight how different our generations think. 

Are some members of my generation racist?  Yes.  However, racism isn't a naturally occurring trait.  Who did we learn it from?

My point is this: Racism is irrational.  Racism, just like every other irrational idea, will die out over time.  In the mean time, we need to do our best to keep our government away from the problem. 

For example, the day Senator Byrd dies America will instantly be about half as racist as it is now.  Hell, I bet a god damned unity rainbow will sprout over the Charleston Capitol building the morning of.

[Oldguy48]

I have no great desire to prolong this discussion but I would encourage you to look up and research the following facts (not silly conjectures about 'everyone over 40 dying' something which is not worthy of the thoughtful tone of the rest of your response):  Percentage of minorities (primarily black and hispanic)  in Prison vs. the percentage of the general population; percentage of residential homes rebuilt (of primarily minority owners) since Katrina vs. the percentage of hotels and casinos; percentage of minorities in highest positions of power in government and private enterprise.  For you to contend that racism will die a natural death is quite naive.  The reason that your generation is less racist than the one that came before is precisely because of active social programs like affirmative action.  My children have grown seeing and interacting with minorities which makes them feel that it is a natural thing.  That did not happen by accident and without continual work the situations that you find are illustrated above (if you look it up)  will not change.  It was only 30 years ago that Doug Williams was the first black quarterback of note in the NFL (there were one or two before which were less than anomalies). The prevailing "wisdom" was that African Americans were not smart enough to play quarterback.  Kids of color growing up after '54 weren't specifically forbidden to play the position but without any successful role models they were tacitly "encouraged" to take up running back, wide receiver etc.  We are all the beneficiaries of the fact now  the position of quarterback is mostly colorblind.   I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you that racism will not "die out over time" anymore than anti-semitism has died out the last 5000 years.  It requires that we who know better take the appropriate steps.