Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Diversity  (Read 1227 times)

ibisgolfer

  • Guest
Diversity
« on: June 29, 2005, 09:40:51 PM »
v

Jwebony956

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • Planning my work, working my plan
    • View Profile
Re: Diversity
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2005, 05:25:01 PM »
For those on the board who support race preferences in law school admissions, who supports using race as a factor soley on the grounds that taking race into account will "diversify" the incoming classes? 

I ask because I feel from reading so many of these AA threads that both supporters and opponents of AA continue to fail in comprehending the reality that racial preferences are the law of the land SOLEY because SCOTUS ruled them ok based upon the compelling educational interest of DIVERSITY.  The old arguments about past wrongs and socioeconomic hardship and racism are not a part of SCOTUS endorsing AA - so I am curious why so many still hang their arguments on items that have been moved off of the agenda.

This is for my own use- im simply curious if pro-AA ppl have adopted the view that diversity is paramount or whether it was merely a convienient argument when proponents needed to overcome strict scrutiny before SCOTUS.

I think you are contradicting yourself. You connect racial preference to diversity-- which indicates to me that SCOTUS defines diversity on the basis of race---and then you state that the historical racism  of this country and one's socioeconomic stance has no influence on SCOTUS endorsing the AA policy.

I however, believe that the historical racism of this country is the very foundation of their endorsement---they realize URM--particularly those of African descent--have never been given the same opportunities as others have and wish to provide some means to "diversify" the educational system in an attempt to counter the ramifications of racial inequality. It is my belief that SCOTUS' decision was a direct result of their realization of past wrongs of this government and the past and present effects of racism in this country. I hope I have made myself clear, but still am unsure if I answered your question.

OH yes, I am in "support of using race as a factor soley on the grounds that taking race into account will "diversify" the incoming classes" :) 
Top 6 Choices:
Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, UChicago, Northwestern

bobwil50

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Diversity
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2005, 05:42:51 PM »

I think you are contradicting yourself. You connect racial preference to diversity-- which indicates to me that SCOTUS defines diversity on the basis of race---and then you state that the historical racism  of this country and one's socioeconomic stance has no influence on SCOTUS endorsing the AA policy.


Well, not exactly.  Historical racism can be the cause of a lack of diversity while not being the justification for AA.
LSAT: 168
GPA: 3.8

Jwebony956

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • Planning my work, working my plan
    • View Profile
Re: Diversity
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2005, 05:53:23 PM »

I think you are contradicting yourself. You connect racial preference to diversity-- which indicates to me that SCOTUS defines diversity on the basis of race---and then you state that the historical racism  of this country and one's socioeconomic stance has no influence on SCOTUS endorsing the AA policy.


Well, not exactly.  Historical racism can be the cause of a lack of diversity while not being the justification for AA.

Can be? Look at the US of A...historical racism IS the cause of there being a lack of diversity, and as result is a foundational basis in justifying AA. Ibis states that SCOTUS' realization of there being a lack of diversity in the educational system resulted in their endorsement of AA. Why was there a lack of racial diversity in the first place? Because of this country's historical racism and the long term affects it had on this country. Simply put, it all connects.
Top 6 Choices:
Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, UChicago, Northwestern

Jwebony956

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • Planning my work, working my plan
    • View Profile
Re: Diversity
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2005, 06:16:40 PM »
For those on the board who support race preferences in law school admissions, who supports using race as a factor soley on the grounds that taking race into account will "diversify" the incoming classes? 

I ask because I feel from reading so many of these AA threads that both supporters and opponents of AA continue to fail in comprehending the reality that racial preferences are the law of the land SOLEY because SCOTUS ruled them ok based upon the compelling educational interest of DIVERSITY.  The old arguments about past wrongs and socioeconomic hardship and racism are not a part of SCOTUS endorsing AA - so I am curious why so many still hang their arguments on items that have been moved off of the agenda.

This is for my own use- im simply curious if pro-AA ppl have adopted the view that diversity is paramount or whether it was merely a convienient argument when proponents needed to overcome strict scrutiny before SCOTUS.

I think you are contradicting yourself. You connect racial preference to diversity-- which indicates to me that SCOTUS defines diversity on the basis of race---and then you state that the historical racism  of this country and one's socioeconomic stance has no influence on SCOTUS endorsing the AA policy.

I however, believe that the historical racism of this country is the very foundation of their endorsement---they realize URM--particularly those of African descent--have never been given the same opportunities as others have and wish to provide some means to "diversify" the educational system in an attempt to counter the ramifications of racial inequality. It is my belief that SCOTUS' decision was a direct result of their realization of past wrongs of this government and the past and present effects of racism in this country. I hope I have made myself clear, but still am unsure if I answered your question.
 


I don't know if you've read the majority's reasoning in Grutter and the plurality opinion in Bakke, but my point is exactly that SCOTUS in both cases rejects the historical racism discrimination argument as relevant.  Justice Powell in Bakke stated that the first rationale amounted to nothing more than preferring race for race sake, which was clearly unconstitutional.The second rationale, concerning remedying past discrimination, was also insufficient because it concerned societal discrimination in general, rather than remedying a specific discriminatory act. Powell said that the use of racial classifications to remedy past discrimination can only occur pursuant to "judicial, legislative, or administrative findings" of discrimination. The existence of specific violations provides a substantial interest in vindicating the rights of those harmed, and also permits oversight to ensure minimal harm is done to innocent parties.In contrast, Powell characterized the purpose of addressing the effects of societal discrimination as "an amorphous concept of injury" insufficient to justify racial classifications.

However, Justice Powell, in what is perhaps the heart of his opinion, said that the school's fourth asserted interest, "to obtain the educational benefits" of a diverse student body, was a compelling interest sufficient to justify race as a factor in admissions decisions.In recognizing this, Powell stressed that universities have academic freedom and related First Amendment interests in selecting their own student bodies.

Flashforward to O'Connor's majority opinion in Grutter.  Nary a word is mentioned about "past wrongs" and societal racism and discrimination as the reason Affirmative Action survives strict scrutiny.  try a lexis nexis word search.  you cant find any talk about discrimination or racism, it is SOLEY because of Michigan's right to have diversity, no more than I may want a diversity of cars in my garage (e.g. BMW, Mercedes, Lexus) as opposed to all Fords, is the reason why SCOTUS allows Michigan to treat ppl differently in the admissions process on the basis of race. 

The whole point of my OP is to make the point that many AA supporters fail to remember this when they get into heated arguments.  No longer do those who favor the policy have the arrow in their quiver concerning racism and past wrongs, SCOTUS wiped that out and the folks defending Michigan gave up their greatest argument (discrimination) in favor of purely diversity rationale because they knew it was the only one that could survive strict scrutiny AND i might mention open up preferences to others besides African Americans groups that havent had the US Govenrment perpetrate crimes against them but still want preferences based on the rainbow quality of diversity.

SCOTUS' decision basically allowed higher education institutions to use their own discretion in what they consider to be "diverse"--which still allows for race to be a factor in deciding who gets accepted into their schools. I know UMich no longer basis admission on race and I believe CA outlawed race to be considered a factor in gaining admissions into their public schools. To be quite honest, I doubt this new ruling will change anything and "open up preference to others besides African Americans", because after all, it is up to the university to decide on what factors they would consider for admittance into their respected schools ;D   
Top 6 Choices:
Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, UChicago, Northwestern

psr13

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • Isn't my niece adorable?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Diversity
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2005, 04:51:37 PM »
Quote

SCOTUS' decision basically allowed higher education institutions to use their own discretion in what they consider to be "diverse"--which still allows for race to be a factor in deciding who gets accepted into their schools. I know UMich no longer basis admission on race and I believe CA outlawed race to be considered a factor in gaining admissions into their public schools. To be quite honest, I doubt this new ruling will change anything and "open up preference to others besides African Americans", because after all, it is up to the university to decide on what factors they would consider for admittance into their respected schools ;D   

In California, race is not considered at all. There is no question on the application that asks what race the applicant is. That is howall of the state schools are run.
"What's with today, today?"
-Lucas from "Empire Records"

tegra8

  • Guest
Re: Diversity
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2005, 05:06:10 PM »
Quote

SCOTUS' decision basically allowed higher education institutions to use their own discretion in what they consider to be "diverse"--which still allows for race to be a factor in deciding who gets accepted into their schools. I know UMich no longer basis admission on race and I believe CA outlawed race to be considered a factor in gaining admissions into their public schools. To be quite honest, I doubt this new ruling will change anything and "open up preference to others besides African Americans", because after all, it is up to the university to decide on what factors they would consider for admittance into their respected schools ;D   

In California, race is not considered at all. There is no question on the application that asks what race the applicant is. That is howall of the state schools are run.

and how all schools should run