I thought that it was already common practice for schools in different regions to define URM in different ways? I know that when it comes to discussing Asians, their URM status varies edpending on region. For example, I would clearly not get any preference in American Japan...er....California, but here in TX (Waco, specifically), Asians are specifically defined as URM. From Baylor's diversity statement:
Minority candidates are strongly encouraged to apply to Baylor Law School. We recognize that many racial and ethnic minorities are under-represented in the legal profession, and therefore, minority status may be considered as a “plus factor” in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant. Groups of people who are classified as racial minorities for affirmative action purposes include the following: Latino/Hispanic/Chicano; Black/African American; Asian/Pacific Islander; and Alaskan/Native Indian. I also believe that Asians get URM status in most of the midwest. I was wondering about Howard University, though. As an historically black college, all of the other races are under-represented in each entering class. Should whites get URM status at that school in order to encourage a more diverse class, or should URM status still include African-Americans because they are still under-represented
legally, even in the region that the school serves?
Blunts: Amelus is kinder than I am. You're an idiot. He broke it down to third-grade reading level
just for you and you still didn't understand his point. No one said you had to agree but to keep repeating the same obvious lack of understanding with your "holes" "argument" (I'm baffled as to which one deserves the air quotes more) makes me wonder how you did or will fare on the LSAT with your pitiful level of reading comprehension.
Point made:
Amelus-
many groups, different groups of immigrants being a prime example, deserve urm status since they fit within the true purpose of urm, giving different groups that are not properly represented at law schools the neccessary representation.
i highly doubt every immigrant would be a urm.
my point is that the reason that african-american should get urm and not the jewish person is because jews are represented plenty within law schools. african americans are not. they need representation. i dont care about personal background when it comes to URM.
Blunts' sad response-
bottom line: under your definition every immigrant would be considered a URM and be given preference. i think this is wrong...have you seen the holes on your reasoning?