Why I don't agree with AA

[Matthies]

So its ok for whites to reap the benefits of laws enforcing racial discrimination for 250 years, then defacto discrimination for another 100 years until the late 1960s. A legacy the practically kept all blacks out of the law school, much less top law schools, and almost entirely out of the legal profession until the last 30. All that discrimination was OK, but reverse discrimination is not. Because now the discrimination is against whites so its bad? So, what your saying is it cool for whites to discriminate, but not for blacks. We have moved away from that, all discrimination, even if it helped us in the past is bad now, if it hurts us now.

So two wrongs make a right? You endorse that principal with that argument. Life is not fair, it never has been fair, and until the hearafter, life will never be fair. Justice means correcting wrongs by making individual wrongdoers pay. Does a thief's son have to repay the victims of his father's crimes? Of course, not that would be absurd. AA means a thief's grandson or even great-grandson or even a recent white immigrant whose ancestors never owned slaves or tolerated slavery, must pay.

Go read Fredrick Douglas - he knew what he was talking about.

Social justice and criminal justice are two very diffrent things not to mention the macro or micro levels of the issue its not a zero sum game.

[Matthies]

And can everybody pay attention here--I don't think anyone has argued that poverty should not be a basis for additional AA programs.
That is all.

I've agruged that, but I'm a classest through and through

[Freak]

So its ok for whites to reap the benefits of laws enforcing racial discrimination for 250 years, then defacto discrimination for another 100 years until the late 1960s. A legacy the practically kept all blacks out of the law school, much less top law schools, and almost entirely out of the legal profession until the last 30. All that discrimination was OK, but reverse discrimination is not. Because now the discrimination is against whites so its bad? So, what your saying is it cool for whites to discriminate, but not for blacks. We have moved away from that, all discrimination, even if it helped us in the past is bad now, if it hurts us now.

So two wrongs make a right? You endorse that principal with that argument. Life is not fair, it never has been fair, and until the hearafter, life will never be fair. Justice means correcting wrongs by making individual wrongdoers pay. Does a thief's son have to repay the victims of his father's crimes? Of course, not that would be absurd. AA means a thief's grandson or even great-grandson or even a recent white immigrant whose ancestors never owned slaves or tolerated slavery, must pay.

Go read Fredrick Douglas - he knew what he was talking about.

Social justice and criminal justice are two very diffrent things not to mention the macro or micro levels of the issue.

Ok - social justice - torts. Driver A negligently rear-ends Driver B, but A lacks the money to pay because B now needs surgery and regardless will be in a wheelchair for life. So, clearly, A's son and grandson must pay. Clearly B's life is now shot and this adversely affects his children as he lacks the energy to raise them properly. They go on to become uneducated without job skills.

Furthermore, the laws do not require A to have insurance (see Wisconsin), so all the citizens of Wisconsin are now responsible, right? In fact, not only the living citizens, but also the future citizens have responsibility to B's children and children's children because the laws in place screwed up their lives by allowing A to drive without insurance. This despite the fact that new law, passed by the future citizens, require each driver to have a million dollars in insurance.

Two wrongs do not make a right - unless, justice is not your goal.

[Matthies]

So its ok for whites to reap the benefits of laws enforcing racial discrimination for 250 years, then defacto discrimination for another 100 years until the late 1960s. A legacy the practically kept all blacks out of the law school, much less top law schools, and almost entirely out of the legal profession until the last 30. All that discrimination was OK, but reverse discrimination is not. Because now the discrimination is against whites so its bad? So, what your saying is it cool for whites to discriminate, but not for blacks. We have moved away from that, all discrimination, even if it helped us in the past is bad now, if it hurts us now.

So two wrongs make a right? You endorse that principal with that argument. Life is not fair, it never has been fair, and until the hearafter, life will never be fair. Justice means correcting wrongs by making individual wrongdoers pay. Does a thief's son have to repay the victims of his father's crimes? Of course, not that would be absurd. AA means a thief's grandson or even great-grandson or even a recent white immigrant whose ancestors never owned slaves or tolerated slavery, must pay.

Go read Fredrick Douglas - he knew what he was talking about.

Social justice and criminal justice are two very diffrent things not to mention the macro or micro levels of the issue.

Ok - social justice - torts. Driver A negligently rear-ends Driver B, but A lacks the money to pay because B now needs surgery and regardless will be in a wheelchair for life. So, clearly, A's son and grandson must pay. Clearly B's life is now shot and this adversely affects his children as he lacks the energy to raise them properly. They go on to become uneducated without job skills.

Furthermore, the laws do not require A to have insurance (see Wisconsin), so all the citizens of Wisconsin are now responsible, right? In fact, not only the living citizens, but also the future citizens have responsibility to B's children and children's children because the laws in place screwed up their lives by allowing A to drive without insurance. This despite the fact that new law, passed by the future citizens, require each driver to have a million dollars in insurance.

Two wrongs do not make a right - unless, justice is not your goal.

Change the hypo to a large magority of Drivers rear end driver B, and the law says becuase he's a B you don't have to pay for his damages. This is not as simple as tying it to torts. And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

[Freak]

Change the hypo to a large magority of Drivers rear end driver B, and the law says becuase he's a B you don't have to pay for his damages. This is not as simple as tying it to torts.

Do you have any idea how many car crashes occur? And unfortunately, no insurance really means most people without insurance don't pay. Likewise, Jim Crow laws required reading exams and poll taxes, those did not overtly prohibit blacks from voting, but had the same effect. Ask a crash victim what they want more, a normal life physically or the right to vote. Answer - a normal life, probably right up there with freedom.

And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

 

[Thistle]

And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

really!  join the f-ing peace corps or something 


hiya freak, whereya been?

[Matthies]

And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

really!  join the f-ing peace corps or something 


hiya freak, whereya been?

He's been busy sueing the man and oppressing minorties 

[Freak]

And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

really!  join the f-ing peace corps or something 

hiya freak, whereya been?

Hey rev. I'm one of those ambulance chasers    now and usually lack the time for the board. Although when I'm on here I generally just annoy people.

Currently, I have the secretaries so backed up that there's little point to giving them more dictation to transcribe.

How about you?

[The Artist]

Asians, Indians and Persians DESTROYED the false assumption that poor minority groups cannot rise from poverty to upper-middle class/rich without AA type help. Chinese and Japanese citizens showed that even when unfairly oppressed by the US, they could still quickly overcome this and became among the most successful groups in America. We are about to (hopefully) have a Black president.

Like I said earlier, the only people who support AA are (1) Blacks, Latinos, etc (2) Liberal white kids who usually don't fully understand the true implications of AA. Even the most liberal Asian and Indian kids I know are STRONGLY opposed to race based AA. Do you realize it is harder for an Asian to get into a good school than a WHITE person (no, that is not a typo. There has been research on this involving Ivy league schools)? America is NOT Black and White. It's also Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Irani, Arabic, Israeli, Vietnamese (you get the picture). Almost all the first generation immigrants from these countries come with little money. Many of them don't speak English well (or at all). Yet they have to climb a higher hill than even the white student! WTF! My URM roommate in college had an SAT score 200 points lower than mine and a lower GPA (no, he didn't have great ECs). Not only did he get accepted to my dream school (which I got rejected from while being in their target range), he got a FULL RIDE to our school. I didn't get any scholarships at all.

Honestly, if AA was a case of "in a tie, give the Black/Latino person the edge" I wouldn't have a problem with it. But look at the URMs on LSN. It's total horseshit the schools these URMs get into with low numbers. URMs with my numbers got into Columbia this year. I couldn't even get into Notre Dame!

So seriously, @#!* race based AA. It IS racism.

Now where are the cliche "300 year head start" responses at?

[Thistle]

And if justice was my goal why the F would I be in law school?

really!  join the f-ing peace corps or something 

hiya freak, whereya been?

Hey rev. I'm one of those ambulance chasers    now and usually lack the time for the board. Although when I'm on here I generally just annoy people.

Currently, I have the secretaries so backed up that there's little point to giving them more dictation to transcribe.

How about you?

   i'm not ruling out any type of law practice.  there is only one thing i'm concerned with -- does the check clear?

me, aside from drastically changing pretty much EVERYTHING, i'm finishing up 3L next fall.  was supposed to go subjugate colorado with matthies, but it looks like the funding is falling through on that deal...one shot left, though.

working this summer actually defending the man against civil rights suits and constitutional law stuff. will finally get to use my student practice certificate IF they follow through on their promise to let me argue the summary judgment motion i spent a month writing.

other than that, life goes on