AA -- Bad for Everyone, Except Unqualified URM's

[Lindbergh]

Bad for whites, especially for italians, poles, greeks, arabs, and other "white" ethnicities already underrepresented in law school.

Really bad for asians, who are discriminated against most by AA, and the desire for proportional representation, given that they tend to excel the most academically before law school, and get basically just get pitted against each other in admissions.  (Despite the fact they also theoretically experience the same discrimination and prejudice of urms, of course.)

Worst for qualified urms, who have their legitimate achievements tarnished and stigmatized by AA, while also having to fact the greater ethnic resentment produced by AA. 

Oh, and it's also bad for unqualified urms, of course, as they're simply placed into situations they're not generally equipped or prepared to handle.  Result:  higher academic failure rates than would've occurred in appropriate schools, higher bar failure rates, etc. 

Who does it help?  No one, except maybe the consciences of rich whites, who feel bad about their advantages, which also make the costs of AA essentially meaningless to them.  Which, of course, is why it exists, despite overwhelming recognition of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of this particular form of lingering state discrimination.

[TimMitchell]

Don't forget the Irish!

[meggo]

bleurgh n/m.

[Freak]

It does help unqualified urms who step-it-up in ls & as lawyers, which helps the whole urm community.

[008]

Bad for whites, especially for italians, poles, greeks, arabs, and other "white" ethnicities already underrepresented in law school.

Really bad for asians, who are discriminated against most by AA, and the desire for proportional representation, given that they tend to excel the most academically before law school, and get basically just get pitted against each other in admissions.  (Despite the fact they also theoretically experience the same discrimination and prejudice of urms, of course.)

Worst for qualified urms, who have their legitimate achievements tarnished and stigmatized by AA, while also having to fact the greater ethnic resentment produced by AA. 

Oh, and it's also bad for unqualified urms, of course, as they're simply placed into situations they're not generally equipped or prepared to handle.  Result:  higher academic failure rates than would've occurred in appropriate schools, higher bar failure rates, etc. 

Who does it help?  No one, except maybe the consciences of rich whites, who feel bad about their advantages, which also make the costs of AA essentially meaningless to them.  Which, of course, is why it exists, despite overwhelming recognition of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of this particular form of lingering state discrimination.

I take it you are a highly qualified law school applicant who has been jilted by the unqualified URMs?

Newsflash - AA doesnt exist.  There are no quotas and any benign racial discrimination must pass strict scrutiny, which is strict in theory, but usually fatal in fact

There are many worthier causes to waste err, allocate your time fighting

HTH

[Kirk Lazarus]

1. Bad for whites, especially for italians, poles, greeks, arabs, and other "white" ethnicities already underrepresented in law school.

2. Really bad for asians, who are discriminated against most by AA, and the desire for proportional representation, given that they tend to excel the most academically before law school, and get basically just get pitted against each other in admissions.  (Despite the fact they also theoretically experience the same discrimination and prejudice of urms, of course.)

3. Worst for qualified urms, who have their legitimate achievements tarnished and stigmatized by AA, while also having to fact the greater ethnic resentment produced by AA. 

4. Oh, and it's also bad for unqualified urms, of course, as they're simply placed into situations they're not generally equipped or prepared to handle.  Result:  higher academic failure rates than would've occurred in appropriate schools, higher bar failure rates, etc. 

5. Who does it help?  No one, except maybe the consciences of rich whites, who feel bad about their advantages, which also make the costs of AA essentially meaningless to them.  Which, of course, is why it exists, despite overwhelming recognition of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of this particular form of lingering state discrimination.

I broke your observations down numerically just to help the organization of my response.

1. I don't see how you attribute this to affirmative action without providing the raw data on how many from those groups apply to law schools.

2. I don't see how you attribute the plight of Asians in admissions to affirmative action either. Asians applying to law school tend to do better academically than similarly situated whites. Seems like white applicants benefit from a sort of affirmative action over asian applicants. Indeed, it may not be affirmative action, but the desire to keep certain minority group's actual percentage of a student body artificially low compared to the majority group which hurts Asian applicants. There's some interesting questions there that have yet to be resolved. Doubtful you can place the blame on affirmative action.

3. I suppose this is the case with some people, but then again there's that guy running for President.

4. Makes a legitimate point I suppose, but Sander's study has been challenged by other thoughts. I would also point out that affirmative action is designed to produce opportunity, not results. You would expect individuals without opportunity to have a harder time breaking through than people who have had a history of opportunity. To the extent that there is an alarming number of failures, I think more focus should be placed on the affirmative action success stories like Ben Carson and others.

5. Well first of all, it helps QUALIFIED women and minorites get opportunities that they otherwise would not have gotten. Why? Because affirmative action is an apparatus which recognizes minorities and women even in the sea of white male applicants. If gender/race were not things that could be considered, it would be difficult numerically to identify qualified minorities for admissions. It helps disadvantaged kids get opportunities they would otherwise not have had. What they do with that opportunity is up to them, but they are given the chance to benefit from certain scarce resources. It helps beneficiaries expand their contact base and it non-beneficiaries benefit from more diverse points of view.

The real question is who does it hurt? It only hurts, individually, applicants at the margins who instead of going to HLS have to go to CLS. People displaced by AA aren't objectively qualified to be at that school anyways. The school would have to find some non-numerical justification to admit them as well. What's wrong with giving some person who hasn't had access to opportunity or is part of an unrepresented group a chance? You're both unqualified numerically. Or is it that you're angry because you're not qualified numerically and someone even less numerically qualified gets in over you? At that point, tough luck. I mean, there are numerically unqualified white students at even Harvard and Yale.

This is not to say that there aren't problems with affirmative action. There are. My pet peeve is that it benefits children of professionals and the black middle-upper class instead of kids with real pervasive disadvantages that would justify a race-based preference. And, at least over the last decade, affirmative action hasn't really been a vehicle expanding the black middle class, but instead it is keeping it static. Do I really give a damn if some affluent black kid has to go to Emory instead of Duke? Not really.

[Maddie]

The real question is who does it hurt? It only hurts, individually, applicants at the margins who instead of going to HLS have to go to CLS. People displaced by AA aren't objectively qualified to be at that school anyways. The school would have to find some non-numerical justification to admit them as well. What's wrong with giving some person who hasn't had access to opportunity or is part of an unrepresented group a chance? You're both unqualified numerically. Or is it that you're angry because you're not qualified numerically and someone even less numerically qualified gets in over you? At that point, tough luck. I mean, there are numerically unqualified white students at even Harvard and Yale.

You see, this is actually the best point I have seen anyone make in awhile about AA (which I am against, for the record.)  The vast majority of the time, it is not so much that a numerically qualified person is displaced, it's that a numerically unqualified non-URM gets rejected and an equal or less numerically qualified URM does get in.  It does make for a weak argument, but you can't blame the people who get lost in the shuffle for feeling indignant about it.  If you are an extremely rich or well-connected white person, you can get into HYS if you are unqualified.  If you are a numerically under-qualified URM, you can get into schools well above the range of a typical applicant with your numbers.  This leaves a group of people that have to hope they can write a diversity statement good enough to get them a second look and I am fairly certain these things get thrown in the trash, figuratively speaking.  Schools like numbers, money and statistics.  There will always be anecdotal exceptions people can point to, but overall this is the reality.

I have always said that I would be fine with race-blind, income based affirmative action, but I am not optimistic about that becoming the norm.

[Pacavelli]

It does help unqualified urms who step-it-up in ls & as lawyers, which helps the whole urm community.

And it also helps the whole discourse community of law by welcoming more powerful, diverse perspectives.  Go figure.

"Unqualified" URM's is such a harsh generalization, and a misrepresenatation of the situation.  Just because my academic indicators are lower than 75%-80% of my class does not mean that I am unqualified.  My acceptace likely means that I am a well rounded applicant that has received the favor of some AdComm that had respect and admiration for the obstcales that I had to overcome to even be worthy of consideration.

I'm tired of these fuxin threads! Get over it people, AA is here, URM's will continue to benefit.  Blame your forefathers, not us.

[Maddie]

I'm tired of these fuxin threads! Get over it people, AA is here, URM's will continue to benefit.  Blame your forefathers, not us.

I don't think anyone was blaming URMs for taking advantage of a system that is in place to benefit them. It would be pointless not to take advantage of everything you can in a very competitive process.  But it's also not an entitlement.  You may be sick of these threads, but some people are sick of AA, so they have a right to discuss it.

[008]

Seriously, I dont think it exists the way people thing it does or to the extent.

Also, the whole system is tilted against minorities since the beginning of time and in this one area, just few are getting a slight bump.  I dont see why there is an uproar.

And, no one bitches about legacy admits to the extent they female dog about AA.

How's this: certain American families give back the land, money, and resources it either stole or appropriated, pay for the free labor and we call it even.  We'll get rid of legacy admits, criminalize ALL forms of intoxicants instead of just the ones minorities tend to use, equalize the sentencing for "white" collar and other crimes, and strictly prohibit all forms of racial profiling.  How's that for a good start to a level playing field?