Poll - If you were given URM advantage, would you take it?

[Trevor]

Your ideas are confused and I'll prove it.

If you're saying competitive advantage based on race should not be offered to anyone, but if it were offered to you, you would take it. That would not be hypocritical by itself. However, it would be hypocritical if you then criticize any URM who takes advantage of race based favoritism.

If you said that people in general should turn down race-based offers, but would accept it if offered to you. That would be hypocritical.

So which is it? Or is it something else?

Whence all this about criticising people who take advantage of URM?  I say no such thing, and as you point out it is entiely inconsistent with my position.  Why attribut it to me then?

I do not criticize any URM who takes advantage of race-based favoritism.  Even if I thought that AA was unjust, I would not blame URM candidates for taking advantage of the advantages offered them.  Everyone should take advantage of whatever edge they can get.

My point was, and remains, that one can legitimately criticise affirmative action programs without commiting oneself to some kind of noble sacrifice.

[goodadvice (account resigned)]

I see, so you're criticizing the program, not the people who take advantage of it.

So you're criticizing the people who designed and implemented the program.

OK.

[goodadvice (account resigned)]

But would you still criticize the program and its designers, if the benefits were offered to your people? If your answer to this question is anything but yes, then I think your position is either hypocritical, so self-serving that no one would take it seriously, or devious, based on the same reasoning as my earlier post, below.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,21532.msg310865.html#msg310865

[Trevor]

Firstly, as I have said before, affirmative action programs aren't necessarily or automaticaly unjust.  I don't know the specifics of any particular program, and don't particularly care to.  I don't think it's that important.  However, yes, I reserve the right to criticize any program.  Criticising individual minority students would be pointless.

Hitting closer to home, heavy weighting of LSAT scores is probably unfair in my favor.  I'm really good at standardized tests, and I work well (maybe better) under time pressure.  I have specific skills that I did not work hard to acquire (perhaps they are heriditary) that make me disproportionally good at taking the LSAT.  I've said it before too.  But what are you going to do?  I'm not going to go out and try to write a test that will better predict success in law school (or better yet, legal practice), though that would be a worthy endeavor.

[goodadvice (account resigned)]

I see. You would criticize the program which benefits you, but at the same time you would take advantage of the program. This is not necessarily hypocritical as we've shown.

Thought provoking. It still doesn't "smell right" though. I'll have to think about why and get back to you.

[goodadvice (account resigned)]

Nope. Your position would still be completely immoral.

As proof I sight the story of Noah's Ark. This was based on a town in which everyone was corrupt. In this town, many criticized the corruption, but also went along with it to "maximize their advantage" as you might say. God had no mercy on these people and drowned them all. He only saved the one person who refused to partake of the advantages. So I don't think its moral to take advantage of a program, while at the same time criticizing it. If you sincerely dislike the program you should not take advantage of it.

So your position, although technically not hypocritical, and possibly not even unethical, and which at first glance seems sympathetic, is actually highly immoral in my opinion.

[Sgee44]

i think you would be an absolute moron not to take it.

i would GLADY take any top-14 acceptance any way i can get one.  i have no shame, if i got in because of connections i would be perfectly fine.  you have to take advantage of every opportunity you are given if you want to succeed.

I agree with casa, there would be NOTHING keeping me from taking it

[Trevor]

Nope. Your position would still be completely immoral.

As proof I sight the story of Noah's Ark. This was based on a town in which everyone was corrupt. In this town, many criticized the corruption, but also went along with it to "maximize their advantage" as you might say. God had no mercy on these people and drowned them all.

So your position, although technically not hypocritical, and at first glance seeming sympathetic, is actually highly immoral.

I also note your blog name "T Sinister." You are seemingly a devious and "sinister", although highly intelligent, person. I hope good people are able to stop you before you corrupt others.

First of all, I reject biblical authority as a source of morality.  However, the Noah's ark story is useful as a parable.

I agree that a person can't simply accept a system they see as immoral.  There is a moral responsibility to make a reasonable effort towards changing bad social systems.  In a system of throrough corruption, drastic measures and stances may be warranted.

However, in the specific case of affirmative action, this is not so.  American society is, on the whole, well-ordered.  Further, while race-based social injustice is a significant problem, I consider the affirmative action debate to be a peripheral issue, and probably doing more harm than good right now simply by distracting from the real issues and disrupting potential consenses by polarizing the electorate.  FInally, I have virtually no means of directly affecting affirmative action programs, which at most need subtle tweaking.  I could try to vote for political candidates with precisely the right view on affirmative action, but politics is a blunt instrument, mine is only one vote, and frankly if I'm going to be a single-issue voter, it'll be about something else.  It's one of those things where you just have to ask for the serenity to accept what you cannot change.  Actually, I probably could have the most influence over affirmative action by writing persuasively about it. 

As for my name, please allow an explanation.  I like plays on words.  In the rhyme a line thread in general discussion, you can see a brief verse of mine that's basically a big pun on the literal German translation of Doppleganger (literally: one who goes two ways).  In Latin, "sinister" means simply "of the left."  ("dexter," the root of dextrous, means right).  My name is Trevor, and I am left-handed.  I also happen to be left-leaning politically, a prospective law student, and do enjoy the occaisional bout of subversive deviousness, all of which deepen my appreciation of the name.  But the primary thing is not to declare my allegiance to evil, but to make a bit of a pun.

[goodadvice (account resigned)]

I see. So if affirmative action were a very important issue, you would take a more forceful stand against it. However, since its a relatively unimportant issue, you just mildly criticize it.

I took the stuff about your name out.

[goodadvice (account resigned)]

Actually, your argument is still incomplete. You showed why it wouldn't make sense to forcefully fight affirmative action. But ... you haven't shown why you need to utilize the advantages offered by affirmative action. You could turn them down. So if you are sincerely critical of affirmative action, it still seems as if you should turn down it's advantages.