Why is it considered acceptable...

[devildog_jim]

Matthies, I just find it odd that you can take such a strong stand on personal responsibility (+1) on the one hand, but then come out in favor of racial preferences (AA) at the same time.  What you are saying, and correct me if this is not what you mean, is that white people can handle being responsible for their own actions, but URM's can't and need a leg up.  If the URM happens to be the privileged African-American son of two T14 alumni while the white applicant is the child of two refugees it is the wealthy African-American applicant that gets the admissions boost.  Why?  It's fairly obvious that the African-American family has already overcome the past, while the white applicant has overcome a language barrier and a huge socioeconomic hurdle to be in the position of applying (credibly) to a T14 school.

It seems to me that everyone can write about their "history of overcoming adversity" in their personal statement if they so choose, whether or not that adversity was due to their race.  This, and not some boilerplate bubble-in-your-race question, should determine preference (if we must have one at all).

BTW, I'm in at all my schools so far, so no one took my spot.

[Matthies]

Matthies, I just find it odd that you can take such a strong stand on personal responsibility (+1) on the one hand, but then come out in favor of racial preferences (AA) at the same time.  What you are saying, and correct me if this is not what you mean, is that white people can handle being responsible for their own actions, but URM's can't and need a leg up.  If the URM happens to be the privileged African-American son of two T14 alumni while the white applicant is the child of two refugees it is the wealthy African-American applicant that gets the admissions boost.  Why?  It's fairly obvious that the African-American family has already overcome the past, while the white applicant has overcome a language barrier and a huge socioeconomic hurdle to be in the position of applying (credibly) to a T14 school.

It seems to me that everyone can write about their "history of overcoming adversity" in their personal statement if they so choose, whether or not that adversity was due to their race.  This, and not some boilerplate bubble-in-your-race question, should determine preference (if we must have one at all).

BTW, I'm in at all my schools so far, so no one took my spot.

No, that's not what I am saying. The one particular problem I have is with basing admissions on socioeconomic status of your parents alone, white or black. If your 30 years old have lived on your own for 10 years and your still poor, ok maybe, but 22 basing on your parents income? When do you become an adult? Poverty is not an inherited condition. The difference is one of choices, you can be born poor and become rich, you can’t be born black and become white (unless you’re Michael Jackson). My point is if were are going to pick something, lets pick something that has nothing to do with choice. The US is full of people who came here (white people) and becaumse sucessful and lived the american dream staring from nothing, it was not so for minorties, who lag behind, once they reach some type of parity (the same % of black children go to college as do white children [taking into account thier respetive % of the population] then we can end it).

[devildog_jim]

Yeah, but I must have missed the "1st or 2nd generation white" box on my applications, because AA assumes white means white.  So long as you were born here and went to US schools the child of a Ukrainian farmer is just "white" on his application, with nothing but the personal statement to inform the Adcom of his circumstances.  Meanwhile, the child of two T14 grads can get automatic preference simply based on the color of his skin, so long as the school wants more people of that particular hue.

The best part is that race is self-declared.  Only Native American can be verified, everyone else belongs to whichever race they identify as on their paperwork.  So it's not even your skin color that matters, it's the skin color you mark on your application.

Further discussion: shall we hold Matthies to the three-generation rule for everyone?  Because I'm ok with that.  Can we start the count from the voting rights act of 1965?

[devildog_jim]

Poverty is not an inherited condition.

Really?  Then why is this important:

once they reach some type of parity (the same % of black children go to college as do white children [taking into account thier respetive % of the population] then we can end it).

The same way we waited for Irish, Polish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants (not to mention non-URM preference ethnic minorities, which I haven't even touched yet) to reach parity?  Or are they just expected to make it, and when they don't it's a result of their choices?

[Matthies]

Yeah, but I must have missed the "1st or 2nd generation white" box on my applications, because AA assumes white means white.  So long as you were born here and went to US schools the child of a Ukrainian farmer is just "white" on his application, with nothing but the personal statement to inform the Adcom of his circumstances.  Meanwhile, the child of two T14 grads can get automatic preference simply based on the color of his skin, so long as the school wants more people of that particular hue.

The best part is that race is self-declared.  Only Native American can be verified, everyone else belongs to whichever race they identify as on their paperwork.  So it's not even your skin color that matters, it's the skin color you mark on your application.

Further discussion: shall we hold Matthies to the three-generation rule for everyone?  Because I'm ok with that.  Can we start the count from the voting rights act of 1965?

Dude wait until you get to law school to see why its fair. I drive 20 mins to school, on that drive I’ll see maybe 10 black people walking, driving, waiting for the bus. But when I get to school, I’ll see two maybe three if I count the guy that works in the lunch room. Even if I spent hours there. And I go to one of the more diverse law schools. Blacks and Hispanics don’t come near representing their respective percentage of population in law school enrolment. Why? I tell you what we got, an overabundance of white poor kids. Seems like only poor kids go to law school, everyone is “poor” but funny how many of them have yet to live on their own at 22, they are poor because their parents are poor. My parents are Catholic, I’m not, yet should I be able to claim catholicness of my parents at age 22 as a reason to let me into law school? 

[Matthies]

Poverty is not an inherited condition.

Really?  Then why is this important:

once they reach some type of parity (the same % of black children go to college as do white children [taking into account thier respetive % of the population] then we can end it).

The same way we waited for Irish, Polish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants (not to mention non-URM preference ethnic minorities, which I haven't even touched yet) to reach parity?  Or are they just expected to make it, and when they don't it's a result of their choices?

So if I lined up a Pole, an Italian, an Irish, and a mutt Amercan you could pick out who was who from 20 feet without them doing or saying anything? Its make it easier to assimulate when you look like the ruling magority. Your really want to balme someone for the ills of AA, womez, they started it all, they make up 52% of those in law school. They should be home cooking dinner and makin babaies, its the womenz who are taking all the poor white mens spots.

[Matthies]

Let’s take this hypo as an example. A white kid is adopted by two black parents. At 22 he decides to go to law school. I think everyone would agree it would be unfair for him to check African American as his race to get a leg up in admissions, simply because his parents are African American. But some seem to be arguing that a white kid at 22 should be able to check some box saying “poor” to get a leg up on admissions simply because his parents where poor. Parents don’t = kid is what I’m saying. The kid maybe poor on his own, then judge him for that, but the poorness of his family should not be a factor in admissions just as the race of someone’s family should not be a factor if that person does not share that race.  I mean most people don’t want to claim their parent’s income for need based financial aid because they will get less that way, but they would be willing to claim them for admissions purposes if it gave them an edge.  At some point people became adults and individuals, and should be judged as such regardless of their parents race, age, income, left handiness, balding, fat whatever.

And then we have the argument that black people should not rely on what has happened in the past to get special treatment in the future. Ok, fair enough. But its OK for poor white people to rely on a past of being poor for three generations, because um, that’s different?

What all this comes down to, this entire AA bs every time someone brings it up, like to admit it or not, is purely human nature. We don’t like things that we think unfairly benefit others, but we can justify things that unfairly benefit ourselves.

[Netopalis]

Then let's get rid of both AA and need-based scholarships, making it wholly merit-based.  I'm OK with that.

[Jamie Stringer]

Then let's get rid of both AA and need-based scholarships, making it wholly merit-based.  I'm OK with that.

What does merit mean? Note: I'm not asking for a dictionary definition.  I'd like to know how you would define merit in the context of law school admissions.

How can merit be measured in your scenario?

How can we make the tools used to measure merit equitable (since I assume most of the squawking about AA has to do with equity)?

[devildog_jim]

I'm not saying that being poor should get you into school either.  The calculus that seems to go on here is white = priviliged = others need a leg up to "even the feild" against them.  I don't think ANYONE should get preference, but if you feel that your background as a group that traditionally has been excluded from the legal profession merits aditional consideration for admission then I challenge you to find a standard that is fair.

What you seem to be saying is that the color of your skin matters more than, and indeed determines, your circumstances.  You're telling me that a black child whose parents have the same means as his white counterparts, who attends the same schools with the same teachers, who participates in the same activities, somehow needs additional points on his aplication.  I'm saying bunk.  Either you need points to make up for your limited access to resources and everyone from a poor family should qualify, or everyone competes on what they bring to the table regardless of their background.  To say that having darker skin qualifies you for extra admission points strikes me as the height of racism.  What about someone with one blakc parent?  Is he black or white?  One black grandparent?  At what point did he experience enough of a disadvantage due to his darker skin that you feel he is entitled to a lower standard?  Does it change if his grandparents have a building named after them at Emory?  What about an Itallian with a really dark tan that everyone mistakes for Hispanic?  Did he experience enough discrimination for you?