Why I don't agree with AA

[Susan B. Anthony]

You are being entirely inconsistent, Wally, which is why I think you're also either being disingenuous or haven't thought this through.

And I don't think it's much of a problem being firmcentric in this discussion because, quite frankly, that's primarily what people get upset about when they complain about AA. Perhaps to a lesser extent academia, big government positions, high profile business positions - but for much of that it's really the same deal.

[Susan B. Anthony]

I already expressed my disagreements with that argument, and you weren't able to refute them adequately.

Also, it's not so much that you're arguing both sides as it is that you're entirely changing the foundation of your argument.

[goaliechica]

The only, and I say only, AA argument that seems to hold any type of water is the diversity at firms argument.  But firms could as easily go down to BU and find some minority candidates, instead of picking them up at CLS.

DUDE.

Diversity at the schools themselves. That is the argument. See 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

" However, in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court affirmed Powell's opinion, rejecting "quotas," but allowing race to be one "factor" in college admissions to meet the compelling interest of "diversity.""

ETA: The "compelling interest of "diversity" reasoning is that everyone benefits from the experience of going to school in a diverse environment, and that schools have the right to use race as one admissions factor among others in order to meet that goal. To benefit everyone. That is the argument.

[Susan B. Anthony]

What goalie said.

Also, here's the difference. On an exam, if your professor wants you to argue both sides, you don't take a new set of facts to argue the other side. You use the same set of facts and make the counter-argument. Here, at one point you're saying "the school you go to matters! It makes a huge difference!" and to make the counter-argument you're saying "the school you go to doesn't really matter"

[Susan B. Anthony]

Oh, please.  Like it matters whether an AA or non-AA admit recites the facts of the case.

I'm sorry, but that is a bad argument when you compare the professional advantages of sitting at the right place and reciting those facts.

Um.

Yeah, except a. that's not all that law school classes consist of and b. that's not all that the law school environment/experience consists of.

[goaliechica]

Oh, please.  Like it matters whether an AA or non-AA admit recites the facts of the case.

You are becoming more petulant, mean-spirited, pointless, and intellectually dishonest as you go on. In case you were wondering. Getting in someone's face in an argument and then alternatively claiming that you are just playing devil's advocate, but not, but yes, but not is effing lame.

I'm sorry, but that is a bad argument when you compare the professional advantages of sitting at the right place and reciting those facts.

I am not telling you that the argument is a winner. I am telling you that you are mischaracterizing the argument. I don't know whether you're doing it intentionally or not, but you are.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Yeah, that didn't really work so well.

[goaliechica]

The only, and I say only . . . argument that seems to hold any type of water is . . .

You probably also want to avoid statements like this on an exam where you're supposedly arguing both sides of a question 

[Susan B. Anthony]

Depends on the professor and the exam, like absolutely everything else.

[Matthies]

Cady and Mu ruined the thread with their intellectual discussion of AA.   

The simple fact of the matter is AA would not be an issue if not for the poors and the womenz taking all the spots from the rich but under qualified white males. That’s the real problem, you have no one to blame but yourself for being born poor and not a white male.