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

[Lindbergh]

Actually, I'm urm, and it doesn't bother me at all.  I sincerely doubt it bothers any qualified urms.

Just had to mock the other ridiculous, self-justifying urm poster with the dumb thread title.

[008]

How about America gives back the land it took, pays for the labor it was unjustly enriched by, gets rid of legacy admits, criminalizes all intoxicants instead of just the ones minorities use, abolishes the distinction between white collar crime and other crime and then strictly prohibits racial profiling?  What is it about that that really bothers you?

[Kirk Lazarus]

Race-Blind System Hypothetical:

Yale Law has a 7% acceptance rate.

Ok, let's keep it simple. Let's say you have 100 applicants to Yale Law. Obviously, there can only be 7 admits.

Let's say that only 49 applicants have a GPA/LSAT range that Yale would accept. And an additional applicant is close numerically, but not quite at par, but he has parents who donate big money to yale.

so you're looking at an applicant pool of 50 that has to be trimmed to 7.

Also assume that 47 of those qualified applicants are white and 3 are Black.

Now stop the hypothetical right there and assume that all 50 applicants are roughly equal in their numerical scores, eductional backgrounds, and work experience (except for the 1 legacy who is not black).

What are the odds that any of the three black qualified applicants gets admitted in this hypothetical under a race-blind system?

After you answer this question, i'll ask another.


 

[Freak]

How about America gives back the land it took, pays for the labor it was unjustly enriched by, gets rid of legacy admits, criminalizes all intoxicants instead of just the ones minorities use, abolishes the distinction between white collar crime and other crime and then strictly prohibits racial profiling?  What is it about that that really bothers you?

1. Why don't you start with your first house?
2. Those labor thieves are dead. Last I checked I'm not liable for even a murder my father commits.
3. What? Crack vs. Alcohol? Unsure what you mean here.
4. White collar crime is distinguished because it generally doesn't deal with direct physical attacks on people. Sorry mate, there's a huge difference between sticking a gun in my face to take my money and stealing from my bank account. What you ask? The weapon.
5. As for racial profiling, yes I agree it should not happen. It does, if it happens to you and you suffered some tangible damage - lost wages, confinement, etc., then find a lawyer. Actually, I am a lawyer, send me a pm and we'll sue or I'll find you a lawyer who will.

[008]

How about America gives back the land it took, pays for the labor it was unjustly enriched by, gets rid of legacy admits, criminalizes all intoxicants instead of just the ones minorities use, abolishes the distinction between white collar crime and other crime and then strictly prohibits racial profiling?  What is it about that that really bothers you?

1. Why don't you start with your first house?
2. Those labor thieves are dead. Last I checked I'm not liable for even a murder my father commits.
3. What? Crack vs. Alcohol? Unsure what you mean here.
4. White collar crime is distinguished because it generally doesn't deal with direct physical attacks on people. Sorry mate, there's a huge difference between sticking a gun in my face to take my money and stealing from my bank account. What you ask? The weapon.
5. As for racial profiling, yes I agree it should not happen. It does, if it happens to you and you suffered some tangible damage - lost wages, confinement, etc., then find a lawyer. Actually, I am a lawyer, send me a pm and we'll sue or I'll find you a lawyer who will.

1. First house?
2. Yeah, but you wouldnt be able to keep any of the proceeds of your father's theft or murder.
3. Crack, marijuana v. alcohol and cigarettes
4. Maybe there is a huge difference, but why should someone who embezzles vast amount of money go to a minimum security prison where someone who sells drugs gets mixed in with the rapists and murderers? 
5. It is a fact that african americans are more likely to get pulled over merely because they're black - it's called DWB

[Pithypike]

Galt, what is your point? 

I really don't understand.  Why should a URM be the one to win the Yale lottery just because they are a URM? 

[JeNeSaisLaw]

I think Galt's point is that the class will be all white.

To answer Galt's question, though, the chances are the same as any group of 3 from the pool. That would be the point of race-blindness. It's not a relevant factor in picking.

[Pithypike]

It was a rhetorical question. 

I just wonder why Galt wants one of the URMs to be the one chosen over a similarly qualified white applicant.  It makes no sense to me. 

[Kirk Lazarus]

I think Galt's point is that the class will be all white.

To answer Galt's question, though, the chances are the same as any group of 3 from the pool. That would be the point of race-blindness. It's not a relevant factor in picking.

Correct. The chances, under my hypo, of a black person getting selected initially are 3/50; while the chances of a white person getting selected are 47/50. That's a 6 percent likelihood versus a 94 percent likelihood. Since each selection is independent of the next, at least with respect to race, the odds that the next person selected would be 3/49 black and 46/49 white - (6.1% and 93.8 percent, respectively)

Although race blind in policy, under my hypo it virtually ensures an all white class. Is that the purpose of race blind? Answer this question and I'll ask another.

Also, remember the question posed in the thread is not the benefits of a race-blind system, but rather why qualified minorities might not want it.

[Pithypike]

I think Galt's point is that the class will be all white.

To answer Galt's question, though, the chances are the same as any group of 3 from the pool. That would be the point of race-blindness. It's not a relevant factor in picking.

Correct. The chances, under my hypo, of a black person getting selected initially are 3/50; while the chances of a white person getting selected are 47/50. That's a 6 percent likelihood versus a 94 percent likelihood. Since each selection is independent of the next, at least with respect to race, the odds that the next person selected would be 3/49 black and 46/49 white - (6.1% and 93.8 percent, respectively)

Although race blind in policy, under my hypo it virtually ensures an all white class. Is that the purpose of race blind? Answer this question and I'll ask another.

Also, remember the question posed in the thread is not the benefits of a race-blind system, but rather why qualified minorities might not want it.

Like I posted above, why should one of the URMs be the one to luck out and be selected?  What is so inherently bad about an all white class, if all of them deserve to be there and were selected on the basis of their qualifications?

I understand that diversity improves the educational setting, but how much more diverse is a rich URM from the burbs versus a white guy that grew up in the inner city and had to scrap for everything they have?  I think there are better ways to take into account diversity of opinion and thought than race. 

But if a URM writes a really bitchin diversity statement or PS about how growing up as a minority has influenced them and made them more prepared to contribute in a classroom setting, then I see no reason why that shouldn't be taken into account.  I just don't think race should automatically qualify someone as having diverse life experiences.