Russian = URM?

[amelus]

a) I effectively responded to your post in my reply to UBH. I did not feel like hashing through the same argument twice. You are saying the same thing and I will counter your points the same way.

b) Your response to blunts failed to address the focus of his question. Normally, when educated people are asked why something functions in a certain way, they do not repond by telling you why it doesn't function in other ways, because that's called avoiding answering the question. The exceptions your provided and the conclusions you drew are based on the erroneous premise that URM's for AA purposes were not selected becuse of a historical group disadvantage that continues to be prevalent today.

no, your points to her have not directly and clearly addressed what i asked, but you're clearly not going to go back to that.  as per your stats, the way you cited them certainly indicated that the percentage of BA's held overall were divided by categories of race.

"Normally, when educated people are asked why something functions in a certain way"

what did i write here to deserve such an uncivil, demeaning, ad-hominem attack toward my intelligence.  i've challenged your understanding of what urm is about (and what it should be about), never your intelligence.  i ask that you do the same.

before explaining why my counter to blunts was an accurate response i want to remind you that you have, as of yet, explained sufficiently the central point umhbmom and i have made. that point follows: 

urm means underrepresented minority.  the goal is to make sure that at law schools throughout the country different groups are given adequate representation.  different groups, such as some groups of immigrants, are ignored in law schools' application of urm and this should be addressed.  in addition, the issue of past injustices etc... is not relevant to urm in law school admissions. 

law schools ARE concerned, and should be, with an individuals socioeconomic hardships.  race can play a crucial factor in this and that can be adequately stated by any given applicant within his or her PS or some optional essay.

[amelus]

i think the root of your not understanding why my response to blunts is on point is your lack of understanding of my original point (perhaps that is why you have, as of yet, given any reasonable counteragrument?)

i have said that the idea that the idea that the source of urm is b/c of previous disadvantages is incorrect.

for this to be the source, the main idea, the reason behind urm (i'm trying to use every term i can think of to make this as clear as possible to you) those who have had previous disadvatages should be considered urm.  if groups who are currently considered urm have had previous disadvantages that does not demonstrate that THE central reason for urm is previous disadvantages unless the groups excluded have not had previous disadvantages.

i think it is a fairly simple idea and the very words underrepresented minority show that the idea is to help ensure that those groups who are currently underrepresented in law schools end up with adequate representation.

that some, perhaps even most, of the groups have had previous disadvantages might be a reason to explain why they are currently underrepresented, but that does not make it THE reason they gain URM stauts today.  they gain urm status today simply because they are urm.

i do hope you can now see the distinction.

[TLFKARG]

It is not my fault that you and UBHmom read that stats incorrectly.  They represent, once again, the percentage of advanced degree holders within a specific racial group.  The stats were actually pulled from a group of graphs, which indicated the levels of education and corresponding percentages within a racial group.  I pulled out the advanced degree stat from each, as it was pertinent to our discussion.  The rest of the numbers are quite scary as well, indicating that a disproportionately low percentage of people within groups defined as URM attain levels of education that are attained by nearly all non-URM's.  

The central focus of your argument seems to be that others should be given the benefit of AA based on SES.  This isn't a novel idea and I am certain one that was considered and discarded during the process of creating and implementing various AA measures.  The point is, arguing tha Russians ought to be considered URM's is largely pointless.  They aren't.  When you asked why they were not, blunts and I pointed out the common denominator shared by those groups that were defined as URM's and explained that Russians did not share this common denominator.  Your proceeded to argue that AA is not based on the said common denominator, although I think you intended to argue that it shouldn't be based on it.  IF the definition of URM's were based on the criteria you have porposed, Russians would be deemed URM's.  Currently, they are not, leading to the conclusion that URM is defined based on some other set of criteria.

The summary of this argument seems to be as follows:

Concussion: Are Russian's URM's (for law schoool admissions purposes)?

Ruskie, Blunts:  For law school admissions purposes, they are not, because they do not share a common denominator with the three groups defined as URM for that purpose.

UBH, amelus:  But they share these other characteristics.  They should be URM based on those.  

[amelus]

your dismissive tone, your complete MISunderstanding of what i wrote, and inability to apologize for rude comments astonish me. 

i never mentioned AA, you did.  i focused exclusively on the idea of urm within the application process to law schools.  your entire response misinterpreted what i wrote.  i will assume u didnt do it purposefully, and therefore instead of re-writing the same thing, i'll encourage you to read what i wrote in past 2 posts and respond point by point in a clear fashion.

as per your statistics, yes, perhaps in the context you read them it was clear what they were talking about, but by plucking just that piece it sounded as though the percentage of BA's was broken down by race.  i simply have no idea why you refuse to see this

in general, totally unrelated to the current disagreement, but stemming from your choice of words throughout this discussion, i am sorry you feel so threatened intellectually or whatever that you need to write in such vicious terms when i, the one one disagreeing with you, never used such awful, biting, language.  i do hope in general you'll eventually be able to strongly disagree with someone on serious issues without resorting to ad-hominem attacks.  it is not at all impressive to write in any number of ways "you're an idiot."   of the many students in t-10 law schools that i've had discussions and disagreements with you are the only one i know to constantly resort to this.  i just dont know why you do this.

[HBCU.EDU]

I'm glad I'm black.

[amelus]

Man, y'all need to get a life.

It would probably help you get admitted to law school...then you wouldn't have to worry about affirmative action so much.

i'll just assume you didnt read anything written on the board and simply saw term AA and therefore made this remark.  otherwise i'd have to say that is a pretty sad comment on your part. 

regardless, your comment of "needing to get a life so that you can get admitted into a good law school" is not only rude, but also pretty stupid since ruskie is already in a fine law school and i have been accepted to several good law schools.

[TrojanChispas]

look the question is whether a russian immigrant is a URM right?

you say yes because his ethnicity is underrepresented, ergo he is an underepresented minority

we say no because #1 under your definition every immigrant would be a URM which ( i dont think) is not for what URM status was intended.  #2 i bvelieve that URM status was intended for those communities and groups of people that faced HISTORICAL hardship in the US, the effects of which are STILL appearant today.
So the Asian community recovered and the Jewish community recovered but the Black and Hispanic communities have not and are URM.

[amelus]

1) Nope, I didn't read everything.  I just posted after looking at the last couple of comments.  And I'm okay with that.  Why does this bother you so?

it doesnt bother me to enter a discussion after reading last few posts.  it does bother me that someone just decides after reading a post or two to chime in with some dismissive comment saying "you all need to get a life."  there's a clear distinction.

2) FYI, you would be the first person ever to call me rude. Congratulations.  (I think you might be a bit oversensitive. I'd hate to see your reaction if someone were actually rude to you.)

your cynism is noted.  when someone has a disagreement over a serious issue and a third party jumps in, without even reading the posts to help understand the substance of the issue at hand, to say to one side "get a life"  that's not rude?  what is that?

3) I know Ruskie goes to Boalt.  I like Ruskie - she's actually one of my favorite posters on the board.

great, your bias is now also noted.

4) Congratulations on your acceptances.  Why are you so fixated on AA? (I'm not judging this by this thread in particular, but in combo with other threads) Do you plan to go into work with social policy?  Wanna be a civil rights attorney?  If not,

why are you so fixated on telling people what they should and should not discuss

[amelus]

did not ignore your post blunt. have to run, but will respond later.  your ability (unlike others) to actually discuss the matter at hand, and only the matter at hand, is appreciated.

[futurejd20]

LOL.