challenge to urm's

[Ninja1]

So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

[Ninja1]

They might be my words, but from reading this thread (and others), I don't doubt that's how you feel.

I honestly don't give much of a *&^% one way or the other. If you earn your spot, great. If you get gifted your spot, whatever, you're still already in the door. I hold no malice towards anyone in particular, just the system in general.

[bl825]

So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 

[Jamie Stringer]

They might be my words, but from reading this thread (and others), I don't doubt that's how you feel.

I honestly don't give much of a *&^% one way or the other. If you earn your spot, great. If you get gifted your spot, whatever, you're still already in the door. I hold no malice towards anyone in particular, just the system in general.

You might say that, but when, from the other side of your mouth, you say things like AA recipients are limited (amongst other gems), the connotative meaning skews closer to what I said.

[Ninja1]

So when does AA resentment cease? After they graduate from the school they were "un/underqualified" to attend? Or does it just follow them throughout their careers, since they shouldn't be in a position to take, let alone pass, the bar exam, be granted a license, get their cushy firm job (with the help of AA, of course) and practice law? How long will it take to get over it, move on and dictate your own future?

Then it becomes more of an agitation for those that MAY have received aa, even if they themselves didn't but could conceivably have. See Clarance Thomas' take on AA.

Um, no. I'm talking about resentment toward those who have benefited or could have benefited from AA, from those who could not benefit from it.

I don't think it's much worth worrying about after someone's already in or at lest graduated. That said, I do know a few people who seem leery of URM lawyers based on aa. I personally don't think it's a valid concern once they get the paper on the wall and pass the bar, but I suspect that outlook isn't representative of a large block of society.

[Ninja1]

So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 

Thus bringing us back to the question of when is enough enough? How long will it take for aa to fix the problems caused by things well beyond its control, or how long until URM culture addresses the problems itself?

[Ninja1]

They might be my words, but from reading this thread (and others), I don't doubt that's how you feel.

I honestly don't give much of a *&^% one way or the other. If you earn your spot, great. If you get gifted your spot, whatever, you're still already in the door. I hold no malice towards anyone in particular, just the system in general.

You might say that, but when, from the other side of your mouth, you say things like AA recipients are limited (amongst other gems), the connotative meaning skews closer to what I said.

Again, a reading comp problem. I never said aa recipients are limited themselves (if anything, they're overly enabled), what I said is that a greater number of people are limited by society, some of which happen to get the aa bump and some of which don't. You (and others) keep inferring "limited" to equal "some sort of URM, probably black", which it does not.

[Jamie Stringer]

Again, a reading comp problem. I never said aa recipients are limited themselves (if anything, they're overly enabled), what I said is that a greater number of people are limited by society, some of which happen to get the aa bump and some of which don't. You (and others) keep inferring "limited" to equal "some sort of URM, probably black", which it does not.

Perhaps a writing composition fail on your part?

But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

This really doesn't say what you think it says.

[bl825]

So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 

Thus bringing us back to the question of when is enough enough? How long will it take for aa to fix the problems caused by things well beyond its control, or how long until URM culture addresses the problems itself?

Okay so you're conceding at that "getting over it" is not always appropriate, and should only be done when enough has actually been done?

[Ninja1]

Again, a reading comp problem. I never said aa recipients are limited themselves (if anything, they're overly enabled), what I said is that a greater number of people are limited by society, some of which happen to get the aa bump and some of which don't. You (and others) keep inferring "limited" to equal "some sort of URM, probably black", which it does not.

Perhaps a writing composition fail on your part?

But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

This really doesn't say what you think it says.

Nay. Reading comp problem. I mean, I guess it wasn't super-elementary or anything, so maybe that can count against me...

Did you even sort of read the preceding posts? "Limited", as being used here, was a reference to people artificially limited by society in some way. That can include, but is not limited to, URMs of all flavors, really any minority, poors, women, young white males theseadays, Mid-Westerners, Southerners, etc. Basically, "limited" can be applied to anyone that has been hosed on some occasion on account of something outside of their control. Rich, old, white males are about the only people that don't fit the definition, but I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find some legit gripe in most of their cases. Like I said, society limits everyone in some way all the time.

Personally, I don't think anyone is really, truly limited unless they have some sort of serious medical ailment. Society certainly screws people on a regular basis almost indiscriminatly, but without society, what do you even have anyway?