.

[eastend]

I love how people say, 'what, that spot wasn't yours, the minority didn't take YOUR spot'.   No, nobody's saying you had your name on the chair, but you know without AA who'd be sitting there, and who'd be at a lesser rated school.   

unhappy with your school?

How perceptive.  Go Longhorns!

[OperaAttorney]

Wassup Nemorini,

Thanks for sharing. Here are some of my random thoughts...

If I may throw in my two cents...

My friend refused to reveal his race on his college applications. His relatives would jokingly say "you are a [black man] who thinks he's too good for other [black people]," except they were using the n-word, in my presence! (I couldn't hold it against them because according to one of his uncles, not using "polite talk" in my presence was a demonstration of closeness and acceptance) This kind of attitude, my friend argued, was the root of all AA-related problems. He has said on more than one occasion, "I'm not too good for my own kind, but I am DEFINITELY too good for this racist system that tells black, Hispanic and native American children everywhere, 'we've lowered the standards for you because we don't expect any better from you.'"

I applaud your friend for his ambition and exceptional work ethic, but I also question his anti-AA views--with good reason.  I know enough URMs (I'm one of them!) who have done exceedingly well in college because of AA (and not in spite of it). Here's the message I get from AA: "We realize the stark degree of inequity in society and want to even the playing field for those who have been and remain shortchanged by the current system."

My position on this issue has changed significantly since then. There is no question that the intended beneficiaries of AA are still systematically disadvantaged. I am not arguing that these disadvantages are born of some evil, racist policies. It's just statistics. A black or Hispanic child, statistically speaking, is less likely to have access to the kind of education, peer interaction and family upbringing which set people up for the best jobs, government positions, academic posts, etc. Can we trace this phenomenon back to slavery? Racism of the past? Maybe. I don't know and I DON'T CARE where the blame lies.

The answer to your 2 questions is a resounding YES.  And although I'm no "victimologist," I still don't see how one can effectively address current problems without a realistic appreciation of the past. Simply put, history matters and you SHOULD care about EVERY aspect of the "puzzle."

We can justify the need for bridging the socio-economic gap without citing historical or moral responsibility. Such gaps (which can easily be construed as having racial implications) have caused so much tension, hate and needless restriction on our ability to exchange ideas freely.  Real incidents of racism are often ignored. Innocuous mistakes or the results of free market competition are blamed on racism.

Here we must agree to disagree.  Many conscious scholars and intellectuals would argue that such "mistakes" are not "innocuous," that they are instead carefully implemented strategies with invidious ends.  These scholars & intellectuals would also reject the free-market-competition theory, since the capitalists in our country exercise a significant amount of control over circulation and availability.  Do you know the true story behind the '80s crack epidemic in the hood?

And I happen to believe that AA is not the right way to do this.

We don't live in a world of absolutes.  In fact, things are rarely completely right or wrong.  In most cases we go for the best case scenaro, and, in my opinion (of course), AA is the best case scenario at the moment. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But America without AA would be horrible for most underrepresented people of color.  Such an end would not justify the means that many anti-AA proponents propose.

An intelligent black student, who could have gotten 170+/3.8 with adequate guidance and an appropriate amount of societal pressure and expectation, ends up with a 3.5 and a 165 because everyone tells him that he will have a good shot at the nation's top law schools if he gets over 3.5 and 165.

I am a black male with "beautiful" numbers. No one has ever told me to settle for less because of AA. (Do you really believe this BS?)  And while there are URMs who think that AA will hold them up, I know of many URMs who work hard because they know how rough it is in the real world. 

Not only is the "shield" gone, many people, as a result of the widespread usage of AA, have negative preconceived notions about his general qualifications. This is entirely unfair to people like my friend whose unbridled success is attributable only to his talent, work ethic and refusal to give into AA's not-so-subtle message.

"Many people" (aka white people) have always attempted to discredit people of color. This ain't new! If AA did not exist, they'd look for something else.  And, for the record, your friend's "unbridled success" is in part due to the struggles of those before him, including the civil rights activists who fought for AA.  There's no such thing as a self-made man--we've all received a hookup at one time or another.

Instead of encouraging an underachieving student to do his best, we give him a training wheel, make him depend on it, and then take it away without warning.

Now I agree that we should encourage underachieving students to reach their full potential.  In fact, I have regular talks with Black freshpersons and sophomores who would rather party on the weekend than do their homework. Additionally, I know--on a concrete level--that my UG experience has been enriched by AA; I simply am a better law school applicant because of it. For me and countless others, it has not been a training wheel.

[Letsgo]

You never lived in Patterson.  You lived in Haledon or Wayne.  You don't need to lie to give yourself standing. 

[Nemorino]

Hey, OperaAttorney

Thanks for the welcome. Are you into opera? (I am, as my name indicates... but then again, if you weren't into opera, you wouldn't recognize the name )

"I know enough URMs--I'm one of them!--who have done exceedingly well in college because of AA (and not in spite of it). Here's the message I get from AA: 'We realize the stark degree of inequity in society and want to even the playing field for those who have been and remain shortchanged by the current system.'"

First of all, Kudos to you and all those around you who have done well. You are living proof that those who claim "why are we so afraid to admit the simple truth? [Insert minority type here] people are just not as intelligent!" are wrong. Unfortunately I met plenty of people (especially those of my own race) who actually believe this.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "because of AA" though? Later you say that your "UG experience has been enriched by AA; I simply am a better law school applicant because of it." What do you mean by that? I'm not trying to be a jerk - I'm just confused. How did AA enrich your experience? By expanding African American presence/influence on campus? How are you a better law school applicant, besides the simple explanation that your beautiful numbers shine even more against the backdrop of AA's lowered standards?

As for your interpretation of AA, while I don't want to make the cliched argument of "well my people have suffered in the past and I am at the bottom rung of society, so why don't I get preferential treatment," perhaps you understand why certain people - poor whites, Asians and Arabs, just to name a few groups - resent the idea. I don't necessarily endorse their arguments, and it is laughable to compare the current plight of poor whites to hundreds of years of slavery or a systematic massacre of one's ancestors, but I don't think AA's main stated purpose is to make reparations, as you imply. Otherwise, Hispanics wouldn't be in the mix. While the whole idea of measuring one ethnic group's suffering against that of another group is pretty absurd (who suffered more? African American Slaves, Chinese railroad workers, or Hispanic miners?), it is indisputable that a significant majority of the black and Native American students applying to colleges/grad schools today are descendants of those who were directly affected by America's dark past, and that a significant majority of the Hispanic, Asian, and Arabic students can't make similar historical reparations claims. AA, as the term "URM" implies, is all about under-representation, regardless of who's responsible for the phenomenon.

The answer to your 2 questions is a resounding YES.  And although I'm no 'victimologist,' I still don't see how one can effectively address current problems without a realistic appreciation of the past. Simply put, history matters and you SHOULD care about EVERY aspect of the 'puzzle.'

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here as well. I am a hard-headed law & econ guy. For example, even though I believe that a nation-wide ban on civillian ownership of every type of fire arm is a direct violation of the letter AND the spirit of the Second Amendment, I would fully support it because I believe it will raise our society's overall well-being. For me, very few laws, ideals, or historical tendencies are so sacrosanct that it can override utility. In the case of "bridging the racial gaps in social and economic standing," the question of whether we are morally obligated is nearly irrelevant for me. I just happen to think that reducing the gap will add to our collective well-being.


"Many conscious scholars and intellectuals would argue that such "mistakes" are not "innocuous," that they are instead carefully implemented strategies with invidious ends."

Really? I mean I'd buy the argument of "your slip-up demonstrates your deep seeded, perhaps unconscious prejudice against that minority group," but carefully implemented strategies? I would appreciate some examples in this arena. Maybe I haven't being paying enough attention. Who are the scholars that endorse this idea?

"These scholars & intellectuals would also reject the free-market-competition theory, since the capitalists in our country exercise a significant amount of control over circulation and availability."

Ditto. I wasn't speaking of the economic theory. Rather, I was referring to individual cases such as this: <http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/12/lawyer_of_the_day_charlene_mor.php>
"Free market competition," especially under the law firm model, doesn't just require general competence. It also requires congeniality, social and political savvy, and perhaps most importantly, an ability to restrain yourself from screaming at your bosses. Surely you must agree that it's absurd for the attorney in question to blame her termination on racial discrimination. Just about any person of any race (except perhaps the son/daughter of the firm's namesake partner) behaving in such manner would have been fired!

In most cases we go for the best case scenaro, and, in my opinion (of course), AA is the best case scenario at the moment. Is it perfect? Absolutely not.

Please read my second post. I think the best case scenario is to devote far more resources to the actual education of URMs from an early age, not pushing them through various educational institutions only to have a significant portion fail to make the socio-economic leap. I'd be happy to pay more taxes to support mandatory afterschool programs for the underperforming URM children, because that is getting to the heart of the problem.

No one has ever told me to settle for less because of AA. (Do you really believe this BS?)  And while there are URMs who think that AA will hold them up, I know of many URMs who work hard because they know how rough it is in the real world.

I am not denying the existence of URMs who push themselves hard despite the lower standard to which they are subjected. But you yourself have conceded that there are those who rely heavily on their URM status. I know plenty of people (many of whom are good friends of mine) who aim lower because of AA. Some of them have been told explicitly by their prelaw advisers that they don't have to aim higher than 170 to get into yale/harvard/stanford law schools. I don't hold it agianst the advisers either. It is a valid, rational advice. Perhaps you feel offended by this notion (because you happened to have given your best shot regardless), but I assure you, it's no BS.

"Many people" (aka white people) have always attempted to discredit people of color. This ain't new! If AA did not exist, they'd look for something else.

Ok, but as it stands, you can't discredit those people entirely. Beneficiaries of AA DO tend to underperform, both in school and in their career. See <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-sander26sep26,0,3998908.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail> for example. "Still, certain facts are indisputable. Data from one selective California law school from 2005 show that students who received large preferences were 10 times as likely to fail the California bar as students who received no preference."

Perhaps if we root out the cause of that doubt, maybe they will run out of semi-legitimate reasons.

"your friend's "unbridled success" is in part due to the struggles of those before him, including the civil rights activists who fought for AA."

Well I can't speak for the civil rights movement - I don't have any subject matter expertise - but wasn't the struggle about equal treatment? It is my understanding that not all civil rights activists (past and present) are proponents of AA. Just as those activists rejected "separate but equal," they would also have eschewed "separate but better for blacks," right? I thought the idea was to hold everyone to the same standard, regardless of the color of their skin. Dr. King wasn't endorsing the appointment of an incompetent man of color over a competent white man, was he? I am not being sarcastic here. I really don't know - because I moved to the US during the 11th grade, I missed a lot of social studies and US History classes.

Look, I am certainly willing to concede that AA has been a positive force on some people's lives. But there's plenty of data out there which suggests that so far, AA has been a limited success at best and a spectacular failure at worst. You can't just turn a blind eye to these findings. I am not arguing for a ban on AA with no contingency plan. Even though my motivations are different from those of many AA supporters, I do believe that we need to bridge the socio-economic gaps between various races. As you said in your post, we should strive for the best case scenario. And you must open yourself up to the possibility that AA is not the best case scenario. It's billed as one because a lot of people have made their careers out of defending it.

[upwithmontana]

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.

 

Sorry just came back to this one.  Hopefully you understand the difference in the time and resources required to obtain background info offered up in additional materials and full-on background investigations when no such info is provided.  If not, then I can't speak with you.  I'm white, poor, 1st generation college, came from a economically depressed area.  I told the schools as much (hopefully without being too whiny), and I think I got a bit of a boost. 

[OperaAttorney]

Ciao Nemorini!

L'ELISIR D'AMORE was the first opera I recorded on video.  Televised over a decade ago, the cast featured our beloved Luciano Pavarotti and Kathleen Battle, then at the height of her powers.  I still return to it. They're both great in their arias, as well as their 2 duets. Do you sing as well?

[OperaAttorney]

Hey NemorinO,

I like your response format much better.  So here goes...

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "because of AA" though? Later you say that your "UG experience has been enriched by AA; I simply am a better law school applicant because of it." What do you mean by that? I'm not trying to be a jerk - I'm just confused. How did AA enrich your experience? By expanding African American presence/influence on campus? How are you a better law school applicant, besides the simple explanation that your beautiful numbers shine even more against the backdrop of AA's lowered standards?

While my numbers as a college applicant weren’t shabby, they were not extraordinary, Nemorini.  Nevertheless, I worked hard to put together the best application package, hoping for the best. Consequently, I matriculated at one of the most prestigious UC campuses and am willing to admit that AA might have worked in my favor.   (I have several friends, including a first-generation college student, with similar experiences.)  And as an undergraduate, I have availed myself of every suitable academic-support program, as well as other programs/resources that exist because of AA (e.g., the African American Student Union, internships for students of color, minority mentorship opportunities, etc.).

I don't think AA's main stated purpose is to make reparations, as you imply.

How does sanctioning policies that seek to level “the playing field for those who have been and remain shortchanged by the current system” imply advocating reparations?

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here as well. I am a hard-headed law & econ guy.

I am a hard-headed crit who believes that contextual reasoning is of utmost importance.   I’m also not a law student yet—I’m applying this fall—so give me a year or two to catch up with you.  What did you study in college?

Really? I mean I'd buy the argument of "your slip-up demonstrates your deep seeded, perhaps unconscious prejudice against that minority group," but carefully implemented strategies? I would appreciate some examples in this arena. Maybe I haven't being paying enough attention. Who are the scholars that endorse this idea?

To this day, the Reagan administration is condemned for its key role in pumping crack into inner-city neighborhoods.  In addition, the mandatory crack/cocaine sentencing laws remain disparate. Michael Eric Dyson is one scholar who readily comes to mind.

Ditto. I wasn't speaking of the economic theory. Rather, I was referring to individual cases such as this: http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/12/lawyer_of_the_day_charlene_mor.php

I haven’t visited the above link, but you did not provide such details with your reference to “free market competition.”  Morrisseau sounds incorrigible, though.  If the stories are true, she deserved to get canned.

Please read my second post. I think the best case scenario is to devote far more resources to the actual education of URMs from an early age, not pushing them through various educational institutions only to have a significant portion fail to make the socio-economic leap.

While I agree that devoting more resources to the education of URMS at an early age is an urgent necessity, I do not believe that that alone constitutes the best-case scenario for URMs. People of color still suffer from institutionalized racism at higher levels, though that does not seem to be the case for the incorrigible Morrisseau.

Some of them have been told explicitly by their prelaw advisers that they don't have to aim higher than 170 to get into yale/harvard/stanford law schools.

Might they have been told that a URM with a 170 LSAT is a highly competitive candidate for admission to HYS?  I’m prepping for the June LSAT and am aiming for the elusive 180. LOL

Ok, but as it stands, you can't discredit those people entirely.

Yes, I can.  If I assume that every white person I meet is not prejudiced (until I am proven otherwise), why should a white person assume my qualifications are subpar because of my skin color? Those who do so can blame it on AA, but I know better.  My sister did not graduate at top of her med school class, but she’s an accomplished OB/GYN today.  Numbers only mean so much, Nemorino.

Well I can't speak for the civil rights movement - I don't have any subject matter expertise - but wasn't the struggle about equal treatment? It is my understanding that not all civil rights activists (past and present) are proponents of AA.

In order to secure equal treatment for everyone, "special" measures were taken to "protect" those formerly subject to discrimination.  AA proponents argue that such "protection" is still necessary.

I thought the idea was to hold everyone to the same standard, regardless of the color of their skin.

To transcend race issues, we must first confront and deal with race issues.

Dr. King wasn't endorsing the appointment of an incompetent man of color over a competent white man, was he?

How is competency defined? Who gets to define it? What biases are included/excluded?

I really don't know - because I moved to the US during the 11th grade, I missed a lot of social studies and US History classes.

You seem well-informed, Nemorino.  I don’t expect you to have full knowledge of the particulars; I know I don’t. Are you currently in law school?

Even though my motivations are different from those of many AA supporters, I do believe that we need to bridge the socio-economic gaps between various races.

I agree that socioeconomic status should be considered in law school admissions.  I do, however, reject the argument that race-based admission policies should be eliminated and have already shared why.  Besides, I have observed that many anti-AA proponents harbor unbenign motives.

[eastend]

This has gotten a little too self-congratulatory. 

[OperaAttorney]

This has gotten a little too self-congratulatory. 

Would you like to add your caustic commentary? 

[Nemorino]

I wish I could sing! Alas! One of the few ways in which I currently serve mankind is by keeping my mouth !

As much as I respect Pavarotti and Kathleen Battle, it must have been hell for the stage managers. When you put the world's biggest Divo and a contender for the world's biggest Diva together - well, that's how you end up with a contract mandating that the production staff provide a bowl of non-brown M&Ms for each performance.

And as an undergraduate, I have availed myself of every suitable academic-support program, as well as other programs/resources that exist because of AA (e.g., the African American Student Union, internships for students of color, minority mentorship opportunities, etc.).

As you might have guessed, I am a fan of these programs and opportunities. If you consider these to be products of (or an integral part of) AA, then I suppose I can't reject AA altogether. I would still argue that it's irresponsible for a school to admit underqualified URMs and then either (i) fail to provide adequate support designed to "pull them up" to the institution's standard (the kind you received, apparently) or (ii) fail to get those students to take advantage of the available support. And I contend that a lot of law schools are failing this two-pronged test. Otherwise, findings such as those mentioned in Richard H. Sander's study don't make sense. Here are some direct quotes from The Chronicle of Higher Education:

"After the first year of law school, 51 percent of black students have grade-point averages that place them in the bottom tenth of their classes, compared with 5 percent of white students."

"Among students who entered law school in 1991, about 80 percent of white students graduated and passed the bar on their first attempt, compared with just 45 percent of black students."

<http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i12/12a03501.htm>

These are hard facts, even though the rest of the study is a statistical extrapolation which seems credible but not fully proven... because the State Bar of California, under heavy pressure from AA proponents, refuse to grant Prof. Sander - and hundreds of other interested scholars - access to recent and detailed raw data.

How does sanctioning policies that seek to level “the playing field for those who have been and remain shortchanged by the current system” imply advocating reparations?

If not for historical reparation (i.e. our moral obligation as a society to give preferential treatment to the victims of slavery and their descendants), why do you insist on race as a critical factor, as opposed to socio-economic standing alone? I'd hate to delve into this cliched realm of the AA debate, but a strict reading of your interpretation (without inferring historical reparation) should allow the poor white folks living in the heart of Appalachian Mountains, who "have been and remain shortchanged by the current system," to enjoy the benefits of AA.

Besides, your previous statements such as "The answer to your 2 questions is a resounding YES" and "Simply put, history matters and you SHOULD care about EVERY aspect of the 'puzzle'" led me to believe that you consider reparations as at least one of the justifications for AA.

To this day, the Reagan administration is condemned for its key role in pumping crack into inner-city neighborhoods.  In addition, the mandatory crack/cocaine sentencing laws remain disparate. Michael Eric Dyson is one scholar who readily comes to mind.

Well, without studying the facts of these allegations, I can still say without hesitation that if true, that's not the kind of innocuous mistake I was referring to. I was speaking of incidents such as the one at my old high school when a Jewish girl accused her friends of anti-semitism after they made fun of her big nose  Her friends were practically expelled (asked to go to the other school in the district, even though that school was 35 minutes away).

Yes, I can.  If I assume that every white person I meet is not prejudiced (until I am proven otherwise), why should a white person assume my qualifications are subpar because of my skin color? Those who do so can blame it on AA, but I know better.

I should have said, "one can't discredit those people entirely." You can dismiss their suspicions about yourself because your school records and the quality of your work will speak for themselves, according to your other post. But can you defend every other beneficiary of race-based AA? According to the statistics cited in Sander's study, many - at least 51%, apparently - of the African American law school graduates can't necessarily do the same. If someone told me that they consider every white person to be prejudiced unless proven otherwise, I wouldn't agree with their position. Nonetheless, knowing well that there are plenty of prejudiced white people out there, I'd have to conclude that there is at least a modicum of legitimacy in their suspicion. When backed by hard facts such as those I cited earlier, I can't blame someone for feeling similarly about AA.

My sister did not graduate at top of her med school class, but she’s an accomplished OB/GYN today.  Numbers only mean so much, Nemorino.


But there are certain numbers that really, really matter: % of bar passage rate, for example. When 43% of African American law school graduates never become lawyers because they fail the bar multiple times, there is a problem with the current system.

<http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010522>

Besides, I have observed that many anti-AA proponents harbor unbenign motives.

Ain't that the truth! But as I said in my initial post, I think you should understand - if not in your heart, at least through the power of reason - that people of all races are STILL shortchanged by the current AA system. I am not just referring to the poor white, Asian or Middle Eastern people. What about the 43% of the African American law school graduates who are $100,000 in debt($200,000 if they also went to a fancy college) with no law license?


I feel like I've said enough on the subject matter. I do appreciate the opportunity to re-examine, re-affirm and articulate my opinion on this divisive issue. There's no better catalyst for this process than an intelligent opponent, so thank you.

No I'm not a law student yet. I studied economics at a very good college (and yes I wrote my thesis on law and economics) and now I'm working in nyc. The elusive 180 is indeed elusive, but I am going for 178+. Eh, these numbers are pretty artificial anyway.

Best of luck to you!