I'm a URM and I'm opposed to racial AA. How about we replace it with class AA?

[shana2077]

Trying being denied something not because of intelligence, but by color of your skin. Hmm... white person with a 3.4/160 and black person with a 3.4/160 both apply, white person is denied and black person is let in. White person is denied because their skin color isn't dark enough. Yeah... that system makes COMPLETE sense.

I guess now you see what we black people have suffered from for centuries.Your experience still does not compare...white people still have it much easier in our society...Explain to me why it is that even with AA the number of blacks that get accepted and attend law school is still significantly lower than that of white people? If we did not have AA...damn some of us would not even have a chance. I guess that would make you feel better.

[MauveAvenger]

Trying being denied something not because of intelligence, but by color of your skin. Hmm... white person with a 3.4/160 and black person with a 3.4/160 both apply, white person is denied and black person is let in. White person is denied because their skin color isn't dark enough. Yeah... that system makes COMPLETE sense.

I guess now you see what we black people have suffered from for centuries.Your experience still does not compare...white people still have it much easier in our society...Explain to me why it is that even with AA the number of blacks that get accepted and attend law school is still significantly lower than that of white people? If we did not have AA...damn some of us would not even have a chance. I guess that would make you feel better.

Maybe because there ARE fewer blacks in this country. Maybe of that minority number, not as many apply to law school as whites do. Maybe there is __% of blacks because that's the percentage of the applicant pool they make up. Doesn't mean standards should be lowered, often 8+ LSAT points, just to let more in to law school.

[shana2077]

Trying being denied something not because of intelligence, but by color of your skin. Hmm... white person with a 3.4/160 and black person with a 3.4/160 both apply, white person is denied and black person is let in. White person is denied because their skin color isn't dark enough. Yeah... that system makes COMPLETE sense.

I guess now you see what we black people have suffered from for centuries.Your experience still does not compare...white people still have it much easier in our society...Explain to me why it is that even with AA the number of blacks that get accepted and attend law school is still significantly lower than that of white people? If we did not have AA...damn some of us would not even have a chance. I guess that would make you feel better.

Maybe because there ARE fewer blacks in this country. Maybe of that minority number, not as many apply to law school as whites do. Maybe there is __% of blacks because that's the percentage of the applicant pool they make up. Doesn't mean standards should be lowered, often 8+ LSAT points, just to let more in to law school.

You are just oblivious to the reality that we live in. I value your opinion and I understand your frustrations, but you just don't get it. We as a race were suppressed for centuries and were prohibited from things such as reading and attending good schools. We were and still are denied access from many resources.  Having said that many African-Americans do not succeed at a rate that could succeed, because many are not given the resources to do so. That is why the bar is lowered for minorities.

[Matthies]

I do not think that people can defeat racism with racism. Also, how can a school determine whether a person has been the object of racism? If you are black, does that mean you have faced discrimination? If you are white, does that mean you have not faced discrimination? I think it is absurd that some people believe that everything that is wrong in the black community is a result of racism. If AA is necessary, how long will it take before it will become unnecessary? In my opinion, AA is reverse racism. I do not think it helps to alleviate racism, but further promote it. An example of this is Clarence Thomas. Many people think that the only reason he got into Yale was because of AA, not because of his brilliance and hard work. With AA in place, many people assume that their black classmates are there as a result of AA, not a result of their talent. This needs to stop. We do not need to constantly class people by their physical characteristics. We do not need one race believing that another race owes them something, or one race thinking another has an unfair advantage just because of the color of their skin. I was born in 1986, do not hold me accountable for something SOME WHITE people subjected SOME BLACK people to long before I was born.

And after 100 tears or so of reverse racism I think we could call it even then. I know as a whitey I would like to say, whoops sorry about that whole slavery thing, jim crow laws, not letting you into our law schools until 30 years ago and everything else we did bad, but alls forgiven now, we are equal now, I was not born then, so lets just get rid of any benifit you have no matter how small it is in comparison to the benifit we had for 200+ years, thats fair right? kthxbi.

Beside this whole conversation has nothing really to do with AA and has more to do with certain peoples sense of entitlement that they should be able to go to certain school, like they have that right, and someone is taking their spot so they are pissed. You know who’s taken your spots? Not the blacks, the damn womenz, they are are 51% of most entering classes, they should be in the home making babies. Want to blame someone for AA, women invented it, other minorities just saw what a great tool it was and picked up the banner. Mad you can’t get into Yale? Blame your mother for being so uppity and demanding equal treatment they ruined it for all white males.
 
Otherwise STFU life’s not fair, and thinking it is or should be is what we get for raising a generation of pampered coddled kids who got trophy just for playing in little league even though they lost every single damn game. You’re not gifted, you’re not special, you’re not entitled to go to some school just because you work hard, no matter what your mom told you. The world does not owe you anything and you don’t get rewarded just for trying hard. Sorry but that’s the breaks. Deal with it.

[j23]

And after 100 tears or so of reverse racism I think we could call it even then. I know as a whitey I would like to say, whoops sorry about that whole slavery thing, jim crow laws, not letting you into our law schools until 30 years ago and everything else we did bad, but alls forgiven now, we are equal now, I was not born then, so lets just get rid of any benifit you have no matter how small it is in comparison to the benifit we had for 200+ years, thats fair right? kthxbi.

Beside this whole conversation has nothing really to do with AA and has more to do with certain peoples sense of entitlement that they should be able to go to certain school, like they have that right, and someone is taking their spot so they are pissed. You know who’s taken your spots? Not the blacks, the damn womenz, they are are 51% of most entering classes, they should be in the home making babies. Want to blame someone for AA, women invented it, other minorities just saw what a great tool it was and picked up the banner. Mad you can’t get into Yale? Blame your mother for being so uppity and demanding equal treatment they ruined it for all white males.
 
Otherwise STFU life’s not fair, and thinking it is or should be is what we get for raising a generation of pampered coddled kids who got trophy just for playing in little league even though they lost every single damn game. You’re not gifted, you’re not special, you’re not entitled to go to some school just because you work hard, no matter what your mom told you. The world does not owe you anything and you don’t get rewarded just for trying hard. Sorry but that’s the breaks. Deal with it.

First of all, why argue against my argument by making my argument? Are you nuts? THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE ME ANYTHING? You are exactly right. Neither does the world owe anyone else anything based on the color of their skin. I am against the principle of affirmative action, not the people who receive the benefits of it.

[Jamie Stringer]

I do not think that people can defeat racism with racism. Also, how can a school determine whether a person has been the object of racism? If you are black, does that mean you have faced discrimination? If you are white, does that mean you have not faced discrimination? I think it is absurd that some people believe that everything that is wrong in the black community is a result of racism. If AA is necessary, how long will it take before it will become unnecessary? In my opinion, AA is reverse racism. I do not think it helps to alleviate racism, but further promote it. An example of this is Clarence Thomas. Many people think that the only reason he got into Yale was because of AA, not because of his brilliance and hard work. With AA in place, many people assume that their black classmates are there as a result of AA, not a result of their talent. This needs to stop. We do not need to constantly class people by their physical characteristics. We do not need one race believing that another race owes them something, or one race thinking another has an unfair advantage just because of the color of their skin. I was born in 1986, do not hold me accountable for something SOME WHITE people subjected SOME BLACK people to long before I was born.

The bolded is an example of racism that, according to you, still exists to this day.

Your rationale for eliminating AA (that some people have the racist tendency to think their black classmates aren't equally qualified to be in law school) isn't a good enough reason to scrap the system.  Arguably, that's enough of a reason to keep the system even longer.

[Kirk Lazarus]

I'll bite, albeit very, very hesitantly.

I don't think anyone would dispute that African-Americans, as a race, have endured a great deal of discrimination throughout American history. Then again, the same case could be made for Asian-Americans (see: Japanese internment camps during WWII, Chinese Exclusion Acts, etc.), Native Americans (obviously), Hispanics, and even in more recent cases but on a more limited basis, Arab-Americans. However, many of these groups do not enjoy the same type of easily identifiable bump in the admissions process, and the idea of quantitatively trying to weigh the pain and suffering of one race over the other seems to be inherently ridiculous.

So you noted that many African-Americans are not given the resources to succeed, and I won't dispute that either. However, is this due to discrimination or a lack of economic resources, and if it is the latter, is it exclusive to lower-income families solely of African-American descent? While discrimination does still exist in this country, I would argue that it does not have a large effect on the two primary factors for admission into law schools--the LSAT and your GPA, and does not exist among the overwhelming majority of adcomms. Now, a lack of resources may have a quantifiable effect on those numbers, especially if one has to support one's self throughout college (detracting from time that could be spent studying for class or getting involved in extracurriculars), and that should certainly be taken into account. But racism alone cannot justify one applicant getting in over another, and AA cannot function as a "make-up" for the sins of past generations when it basically handicaps future generations of other races who essentially were not involved in it. I don't think that the U.S. could ever really apologize adequately for what slavery was, but at the same time, it doesn't make sense to essentially punish the applicants of the present for those sins.

Given equal resources to prepare adequately for the LSAT and do well in school, it would seem unfair for you to benefit from the hardships your ancestors suffered. After all, under such an assumption, you have been given the exact same opportunity to succeed; why should you be allowed to hurdle over another applicant with identical merits? In a slightly perverse way, it shares a common thread with the argument against legacy admits--you shouldn't be able to get an edge based on the past accomplishments of your ancestors, nor should you be able to be able to gain an edge based upon the past injustices perpetrated against them. Grades on the law school level (at least one assumes; I'm not quite there yet, but I would hope that this is a fair assumption) are solely merit-based, so why should admissions be any different?

Hispanics and Native Americans do receive affirmative action. This is a well-documented fact. Many Asians do not benefit because remedying past discrimination cannot be the sole purpose for an affirmative action program, there must be another compelling state interest (see, Bakke). Since Asians aren't underrepresented, they don't get affirmative action. Of course, Bakke doesn't apply to private institutions, but again, Asians don't appear to be underrepresented at those schools.

I think you'd be wise to look at our trusts and estates system and how people pass on wealth and property to future generations. It is beyond argument that future generations benefit from the wealth, influence, and position of their ancestors. A bright young individual may think that his opportunities and success are solely a reflection of his abilities, but he's probably mistaken.

I won't go into a history of discrimination against African Americans unless you force me, but suffice to say, African Americans as a group had not been able to build significant wealth, contacts or political influence until the mid 1960s. Compare that to a group which had been building wealth for 10 or more generations. And I won't even get into housing policy or private loan discrimination which prevented significant black entrepreneurship well into the mid 1970s.

The point being is that the past discrimination has been determinative in the lack of economic resources for many Black Americans and that many young Americans today have actively benefited FROM that past discrimination even if they did not actively participate in perpetuating it.

Now, I think you gravely mis-characterize the affirmative action programs, at least how they exist today in our nation's colleges and universities. I don't think Black kids are getting in over white kids solely because of their race. If that were true, you'd have Blacks with sub-par scores getting over likely admits (in fact, affirmative action displaces white kids who probably would not have gotten in anyways). I think affirmative action works in two ways: 1) you have a small group of Black kids who are objectively qualified to get in to a particular school. Affirmative action assures that this group is admitted; and 2) you have a group of individuals are the margins and race is used as one of many factors to admit students to a class. It is my understanding that individuals admitted here must also have superior recommendations, great essays, etc. It should be noted, that some whites are also admitted with sub-par numbers. While it is true that race benefits Black applicants at the margins more than white applicants, the policy justification of diversity has been held to be constitutionally permissible. In fact, diversity positively impacts a student body in many ways that a homogeneous student body does not. This justification is separate from the remedying past discrimination rationale.

Having said all of that, the problem I have with affirmative action is that it in many cases negatively impacts African Americans economically. Because many African Americans have low entrance scores, they also (as one would expect) perform poorly in law school. Their poor performance 1) causes many Blacks to drop out of law school prior to graduation and 2)decreases the chances that they'll pass the bar.

The result is obvious. Now many of those African Americans have wasted 3 years in which they could be doing something else (an opportunity cost) and have also wasted thousands of dollars much of which are loans which they have to pay back. Obviously, this is not a problem at most elite schools, but becomes more of a problem outside of elite schools. I think schools should heavily monitor their African American retention and adjust their policies accordingly. If they are admitting students that simply aren't likely to succeed, then that does more harm than good imo.

 

[eruffin]

The below link lists LSAT scores broken down by race for Arizona, Arizona State, and Nebraska.  For these schools at least, the data suggests that many black/hispanic admits are decidedly under-qualified rather than only marginally qualified.  For example, the 75th percentile LSAT score for black applicants is below the 25th percentile for white applicants five of seven instances charted.  These numbers may not be representative of other law schools' admission practices.  However, to the extent they are representative, it seems that race is not one of many factors, but rather the determining factor for many minority admits.

This is not really an argument for or against AA;  the argument in favor might well legitimize the practice.  This does suggest, though, that it is incorrect to minimize race as a factor in admission decisions.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/arizona-arizona.html#more

[eruffin]

Now, I think you gravely mis-characterize the affirmative action programs, at least how they exist today in our nation's colleges and universities. I don't think Black kids are getting in over white kids solely because of their race. If that were true, you'd have Blacks with sub-par scores getting over likely admits (in fact, affirmative action displaces white kids who probably would not have gotten in anyways). I think affirmative action works in two ways: 1) you have a small group of Black kids who are objectively qualified to get in to a particular school. Affirmative action assures that this group is admitted; and 2) you have a group of individuals are the margins and race is used as one of many factors to admit students to a class

To me, at least, this minimizes the effect of race on admissions.

As to the point about a leap of faith, it seems to really be an argument in favor of de-emphasizing the lsat instead of an argument in favor of affirmative action.  As long as law schools treat the lsat as an important proxy for law school aptitude, a candidate's lsat score is by definition a large part of what makes a candidate qualified or unqualified.  If lsat scores were less a factor in admissions, this might not be the case.

So the admissions system (writ large) uses the lsat as a measuring stick to gauge qualification for law school (I think this is true, how many times is someone told to go retake on this board?).  Your argument about prep time, money, special classes, etc. strongly contests the validity of this measure (all other things are not constant).  But saying that the measure is flawed is an argument in favor of finding a better measure. Using the lsat as the would be objective measuring stick for most candidates while insisting that certain subgroups of candidates are qualified even though they would not be if judged as other candidates are seems unfair unless the discrimination between groups is aimed at addressing the disparity in access to prep.   

Race does not strike me as a particularly effective proxy for access to prep materials. Arguing that the lsat is a flawed metric because of unequal access to prep materials and classes seems to make a stronger case for socioeconomic based AA than for race based AA--on the grounds that socioeconomic status would make a better proxy for access to prep, good high schools, good colleges, etc.


 

 

[Clayton]

I'm against AA because of my life experience.

I went to a poor predominantly black (88%) high school. I had smart black friends and equally smart white friends. My black friends, who could not otherwise afford college, received scholarships. My white friends, who could not afford college, received no scholarships. My white friends are now stuck in relatively crappy jobs.



Just to highlight how extreme it was at my school. My friend Mike, who was white, scored a 1200 on the SAT (old score measure) 3.8gpa applied to 4 state schools, he was accepted to all but did not qualify for any scholarships. Mike is the son of single mom school teacher with 5 kids making 35k a year. He did not attend a university, while he hopes to someday too.
My other friend Dave, who was black, scored just over 900 on the SAT with a lower GPA, a low 3, applied to several schools and received a scholarship to most of them. He went to school for 2 years before dropping out.

With state undergrad institutions, I have issue with the awarding of scholarship money based on race. With grad schools, I have issues with basically every aspect. Grad school admittance and scholarship offers should be merit based.