Do Blacks/ people of color really need the boost?

[sunglee]

I'm Black, and accept for the fact that I was probably the only black person in about 95 per cent of my classes, I do not think I have been particularly disadvantage. I went to a great public university. I have always been one of the top people in my classes, even higher than many whites. And with regards to my LSAT (which I'm still studying for) I'm scoring just as good or better that my white/ non-minority friends.

Don't get me wrong, if i get a 166 and can still get into NYU,I will be there...but I can;t help but feel a little uneasy.

I guess my question is, why do blacks or African Americans or People of Color get the extra boots?

Thanks peeps!

[sunglee]

sorry "accept" is supposed to be "except"

[EarlCat]

sorry "accept" is supposed to be "except"

...and "disadvantage" is supposed to be "disadvantaged." 
BTW, you can fix mistakes with the "modify" button.

Anyhoo, I think that AA is well intentioned but flawed, because it over-emphasizes race and under-emphasizes background.  ("Should the Cosby kids get AA?")  Of course, it's not entirely meant to help the economically disadvantaged.  There are many arguments that standardized testing and undergraduate testing/grading have racially biased/skewed results, and AA purports to alleviate that somewhat.  Meh.  If they're offering a leg up, I say take it and be happy.  We all have doors opened for us in one way or another.

[sunglee]

thanks for your non-answer...jerk, and why was my posting moved???

[non parata est]

1. How was that a non-answer?

2. Jerk?

3. Perhaps your post was moved to a... more relevant forum?

4. What are these extra boots everyone's always talking about?

[iamluke20]

To answer the OP question.  No, African Americans do not need the boost.  They are just as capable as any other group. 

What needs the boost is the legal community.  AA is meant to make the legal field look more like the rest of the population.

The mistake people make about AA is looking at it on an individual level.  In my case, I am white so I often wonder what schools I could have gotten a second look at if I were a URM.  It feels unfair to me as an individual bc I grew up in a poor family and was the first person to go to college in the famuily. 

But I still think that AA is needed and justified because its goal is not to help individual people who happen to be minorities, but to help the legal profession become a more diverse and representative population.  The marketplace of ideas will lead to the best and most just form of the law, IMO. 

AA is fair on the macro level, unfair to the individual.   

[EarlCat]

1. How was that a non-answer?

2. Jerk?

3. Perhaps your post was moved to a... more relevant forum?

This.

[CTL]

thanks for your non-answer...jerk, and why was my posting moved???

Wow...way to show some class to one of the most valuable posters on the board.  I think that Earlcat answered your question directly. 

Obviously, people of color with scores within the acceptance range don't need the boost, while people of color with scores below that range DO need the boost.  Now...whether that boost for people well below acceptance ranges for the applying population at large is justified is another story (one that has been debated ad infinitum on this board).  Most of us get 'boosts' in different ways throughout our lives, and this is just a somewhat more transparent process than we are used to. 

I don't think I would feel comfortable checking an URM box for the sole purpose of increasing my odds of acceptance, any more than I would be comfortable appealing to legacy status at a school for the sole purpose of increasing my odds of admission.  Now...if I self-identify as a certain race, or a legacy of school X, that is another story. 

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

thanks for your non-answer...jerk, and why was my posting moved???

Not too wise to call a moderator a jerk.   

And your post was simply moved to the appropriate section of the board b/c of its subject (affirmative action)

I guess my question is, why do blacks or African Americans or People of Color get the extra boots [sic]?

And I generally don't get into AA discussions due to the intense feelings on both sides of the fence, but to offer an answer to your question one only needs to look at the big picture. As one of my law professors (who happened to be white) once said, everybody is a beneficiary of affirmative action...some people just call it everyday life.

Consider this: according to the American Bar Association, there were 1,143,358 lawyers by the end of 2007.

Only 4% of them (literally 45,000 lawyers out of the 1 million) are black.  When placed in this context, the answer to your question should reveal itself since it is difficult to deny that such a large disparity exists in our legal profession. 

Your question actually contains a false assumption:  the majority of African American applicants are actually admitted to some ABA accredited law school without Affirmative Action.  However, without AA, the 4% figure, which is already low, would be reduced even lower.


Now, of course, all of this assumes a fundamental premise that we agree that diversifying the legal profession to more closely resemble our diverse nation is a good thing.  If you don't think our legal profession should be more diverse, then there is no answer to your question.