Be honest URMs: why does race-blind admissions really bother you?

[Miss P]

My basic point is that in a lot of situations, AA doesn't do what it wants to do. If you let in an upper middle class black kid (or one like Carlton on Fresh Prince), how are you helping the underprivileged people of society?

Let's try this: a white kid and a black kid with the same numbers. Black kid is from an upper class family, white kid is poor. Is it still promoting diversity to let the black kid in over the white kid?

Also, just because I'm white doesn't mean that I should have to work three times as hard to get where I want to go. I don't mind helping people who genuinely try and just need a little boost, but the black kid that my first example was based on had a lower GPA/LSAT because he drank and partied all through college. He was hungover when he took the LSAT. The white kid only partied on the weekends and put a lot of effort into school and the LSAT. That's where the different numbers actually came from.

If you take the race box off the applications (because honestly if you don't check an answer, you're probably white), you can still explain any hardships you've been through in your personal statement. Couldn't they use other information to choose the people that bring diversity to the school? I just don't think that race is enough to prove diversity.

Let's use an example from college. Every organization on my campus got graded based on diversity. The Republican organization which allowed anyone to join, was rated low in diversity, but organizations that required members to be black or Indian rated high. That is my problem with diversity. It's only diverse if it includes a lot of URMs, even if they are all the same minority.

Are you serious? It promotes diversity because all the other kids in the class are likely to be white. If you took the race box off of applications, then you're going to make it MORE difficult for Blacks and other minorities to get in because their numbers in the applicant pool are so much smaller.

I'd like to add that the diversity rationale for affirmative action in school admissions is not just about admitting "representative" members of each race.  The idea is that you need to have a critical mass of each of the major racial groups so that the black students, Latino students, etc., are themselves diverse.  Among other things, this helps break down people's stereotypes about those groups.  To that end, yes, the Carltons (not that there are as many of these as the anti-AA types believe) should be admitted and sometimes given admissions preferences.  Obviously, there also needs to be diversity among the white people who are admitted.  I agree that law schools should do a much better job of admitting people from poor and working-class backgrounds, of all races.  I don't think ending race-based affirmative action has anything to do with this.

[CTL]

AA is a strange beast.  When my ex (who happens to be Hispanic) was applying to grad school, I really tried to convince her to take advantage of any advantages that might come from checking the hispanic box on the applications.  She wouldn't have it.  It offended her that the schools even asked. 

My argument was basically, if schools want to discriminate, and it can only be positive, why not let them?  You're not lying or gaming - if anything, they are. 

She didn't want to always feel as though she was only good-enough 'for a latina'.  I totally understand where she's coming from.  The spectre of wondering WHY she got in would always have haunted her.  She picked the 'no comment' box instead. 

I guess to each his/her own, but I thought it was an interesting perspective.

[Miss P]

Eh, I don't see that there's any room for pride in law school admissions.  And the racists are going to assume she has lower credentials anyway.  But yes, to each her own.

[CTL]

Why do you think there is no room for pride in law school admissions? 

[Miss P]

Why do you think there is no room for pride in law school admissions? 

I don't know.  I think people get it twisted and start believing that applying to law school is, in itself, some kind of personal achievement.  It's not.  It's just how you get into schools.  Why not do everything (ethical) within your power to get into the school of your dreams?  

[CTL]

Well, I don't know...

I think what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that school is just a means to some other end.  Getting into school x is not really so much of an accomplishment, unless it directly/indirectly augments your potential to fulfill the ends that you seek to achieve. 

I guess I can get on board with that, but isn't one able to feel a sense of accomplishment that he/she got into school x because it increases the potential of that individual to achieve the aims he/she has?  I mean, I would feel proud that I got into HYS over Syracuse or something, just because it would allow me so many more opportunities.  I don't know...

[Miss P]

Well, I don't know...

I think what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that school is just a means to some other end.  Getting into school x is not really so much of an accomplishment, unless it directly/indirectly augments your potential to fulfill the ends that you seek to achieve. 

I guess I can get on board with that, but isn't one able to feel a sense of accomplishment that he/she got into school x because it increases the potential of that individual to achieve the aims he/she has?  I mean, I would feel proud that I got into HYS over Syracuse or something, just because it would allow me so many more opportunities.  I don't know...

I guess.  But it's not a test of your self-worth, and you don't have very much control over how you do.

ETA: I just realized that this sounds much more bitter than I intended it.  Don't mind me!  It's a slightly grumpy morning. 

[CTL]

True.  I think those who discuss AA often forget about certain privileges that are more common among certain white communities.  I hesitate to use the term white privilege, because it's more 'class' privilege.  It just happens to be the case (coincidence?) that most of the upper/upper-middle class are white. 

Sure, there are examples of multi-generational wealthy minority families, but I heard a piece on npr that said that for every $1.00 of wealth that white Americans have (as a group, mind you), African Americans have $0.12, and Latinos have $0.17.  This has little to do with current incomes and 'some' holding positions of power (yes, I know our president is African-American, but that doesn't mean that all other people of color are suddenly wealthy/successful/have tons of opportunities).  Instead, this disparity of wealth has everything to do with estates and access to (and knowledge of) markets and investment vehicles.

I mean, ignoring these facts and claiming that access to positions of power and racial disparities no longer exist because there are a FEW wealthy persons of color is disingenuous, if not asinine.

[Matthies]

My basic point is that in a lot of situations, AA doesn't do what it wants to do. If you let in an upper middle class black kid (or one like Carlton on Fresh Prince), how are you helping the underprivileged people of society?

Let's try this: a white kid and a black kid with the same numbers. Black kid is from an upper class family, white kid is poor. Is it still promoting diversity to let the black kid in over the white kid?

God this mythical rich black kid and all to numerous poverty stricken white kid law school applicant comparison drive me nuts

Your poor if:

Your single parent and four siblings share a 2 bed room one bath apartment

The five of you share a 15 year old car with no A/C and roll down windows

Your “health insurance” is Medicare and the emergency room

When you want to call your girl friend you have to walk down to 7-11 and use the pay phone

It’s a monthly struggle for your parents to pay the heat/rent/food without giving up on something else

One or more of your family members could not make it to graduation because they had to work, and they only get paid for the hours they work

Your family save up for a month to take you out to Dinner at Sizzler for your HS graduation

You work two jobs and take student loans for school just so you can help your family out with expenses

To post on LSD you have to take a city bus to the public library where you wait in line to get on one of the computer terminals for an hour block

If this is your life, black, white or purple, yea, dude you’re poor, and you should get a leg up in admissions.

You’re not poor if:

You and your sister had to share the same bathroom growing up

Your moms car is four years old, but your dads truck is only three, and your car is about seven

You had to settle for an 8gig Nano over the 16g one you really wanted.

Your Motorola RAZOR is not cool any more because everyone else has got one

Your family has more than one TV

You have extended digital cable, but can’t afford the movie channels

Your netfilx program only allows you to get one movie at a time

Your two year old Macbook works fine, but you don’t think its fair other people can afford MacBook Pros

Your worked during UG, but most of the money you made went to buying $100 jeans, going to concerts, paying for your own gas, getting DVDs and drinking premium beer at bars

Your DVD player does not upscale to 1080i

Your parents make more than $36,000 a year combined

Your have been to the dentist, and eye doctor or some specialist in the last 12 months and not had to pay full price or make  an 18 month payment plan to do it.

This is not poor. This is the average, non minority, working/middle class American family. There are a hell of a lot of you applying to law schools.

Now, are there white people who are really poor, yes, but there are a lot more minorities who fit the poor description than white applicants. Stop with this mythical poor white kid, he’s a s rare as Michael Jordon’s son applying to Yale. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of people applying to law schools are white, middle class kids who have no suffered extended financial hardships or racism, they may not be rich, but they are not poor either. Should you have to work 3 times a s ahrder to get in, yea, becuase theye are 100x as many of you applying to law school and to pick from than minorities.

This entire arguemnt is never about fairness, its allways really about the fact that some folks don't like others getting an any advatage over them but are more than willing to give themslves an advatage oversome else if it works out best for them (i.e. OMGZ no fairs! I'm the poor white kid who the rich black kid is taking my spot! Balck people should not be given prefrence but the poors like me should!)

[Susan B. Anthony]

My basic point is that in a lot of situations, AA doesn't do what it wants to do. If you let in an upper middle class black kid (or one like Carlton on Fresh Prince), how are you helping the underprivileged people of society?

Let's try this: a white kid and a black kid with the same numbers. Black kid is from an upper class family, white kid is poor. Is it still promoting diversity to let the black kid in over the white kid?

Also, just because I'm white doesn't mean that I should have to work three times as hard to get where I want to go. I don't mind helping people who genuinely try and just need a little boost, but the black kid that my first example was based on had a lower GPA/LSAT because he drank and partied all through college. He was hungover when he took the LSAT. The white kid only partied on the weekends and put a lot of effort into school and the LSAT. That's where the different numbers actually came from.

If you take the race box off the applications (because honestly if you don't check an answer, you're probably white), you can still explain any hardships you've been through in your personal statement. Couldn't they use other information to choose the people that bring diversity to the school? I just don't think that race is enough to prove diversity.

Let's use an example from college. Every organization on my campus got graded based on diversity. The Republican organization which allowed anyone to join, was rated low in diversity, but organizations that required members to be black or Indian rated high. That is my problem with diversity. It's only diverse if it includes a lot of URMs, even if they are all the same minority.

Did you even read my post?