Should North African Arabs be considered URMs?

[Maintain FL 350]

People seem to forget that one of the main goals of taking URM status into account is to attempt to "make up" for past discrimination. It is possible that a newly arrived immigrant from North Africa may experience discrimination, but it is the effect of multiple centuries of officially sanctioned discrimination suffered by African Americans that affirmative action programs have tried to alleviate.

African Americans, ie; the descendents of slaves, have been subject to particularized forms of discrimination that are not necessarily experienced by modern immmigrants who arrive in the U.S. voluntarily. It would therefore not seem to make sense to extend beneficial URM status to individuals who have not been confronted with same historical hurdles.

The other key aspect of URM status is the "underepresented" facet. Not all minorities are underepresented in higher education.   

[avarist]

People seem to forget that one of the main goals of taking URM status into account is to attempt to "make up" for past discrimination. It is possible that a newly arrived immigrant from North Africa may experience discrimination, but it is the effect of multiple centuries of officially sanctioned discrimination suffered by African Americans that affirmative action programs have tried to alleviate.

African Americans, ie; the descendents of slaves, have been subject to particularized forms of discrimination that are not necessarily experienced by modern immmigrants who arrive in the U.S. voluntarily. It would therefore not seem to make sense to extend beneficial URM status to individuals who have not been confronted with same historical hurdles.

The other key aspect of URM status is the "underepresented" facet. Not all minorities are underepresented in higher education.

The last setence is the only part of that which matters. Many URMs may not be "decendants of slaves" (not of any importance one way or another)
And it's not meant to "make-up" for slavery or anything else.-Just to reflect that they are under represented.
Afterall if it were meant to mean that, then why would a fresh immigrant from Africa who is black be treated 100% the same as the decendant of a slave? Answer: It obviously has no impact in any way whatsoever.

[Maintain FL 350]

Many URMs may not be "decendants of slaves" (not of any importance one way or another)
And it's not meant to "make-up" for slavery or anything else.-Just to reflect that they are under represented.
Afterall if it were meant to mean that, then why would a fresh immigrant from Africa who is black be treated 100% the same as the decendant of a slave? Answer: It obviously has no impact in any way whatsoever.

You can't separate underepresentation from past discrimination, the two are not mutually exclusive. When affirmative action programs gained steam in the late 60's and early 70's the entire idea was to make up for past discrimination. There was a recognition that African Americans' underepresentation in higher education was directly tied to historical prejudices. (Check out the background info in Bakke.)

The idea of affirmative action as a means to promote "diversity" (that is, actively seeking to admit underepresented minorities regardless of past discrimination) is relatively new, and didn't get fully recognized until Grutter (2003). 

The OPs question was why aren't North Africans considered "African American" for the purposes of law school admission? That's the specific question I was addressing. The answer is because "African American" has a specific meaning; it describes black Americans of African descent. Those Americans were denied access to education for hundreds of years, which resulted in underepresentation. That is why the term "African American" does not simply describe any person from the African continent who now lives in America.

[avarist]

Many URMs may not be "decendants of slaves" (not of any importance one way or another)
And it's not meant to "make-up" for slavery or anything else.-Just to reflect that they are under represented.
Afterall if it were meant to mean that, then why would a fresh immigrant from Africa who is black be treated 100% the same as the decendant of a slave? Answer: It obviously has no impact in any way whatsoever.

You can't separate underepresentation from past discrimination, the two are not mutually exclusive. When affirmative action programs gained steam in the late 60's and early 70's the entire idea was to make up for past discrimination. There was a recognition that African Americans' underepresentation in higher education was directly tied to historical prejudices. (Check out the background info in Bakke.)

The idea of affirmative action as a means to promote "diversity" (that is, actively seeking to admit underepresented minorities regardless of past discrimination) is relatively new, and didn't get fully recognized until Grutter (2003). 

The OPs question was why aren't North Africans considered "African American" for the purposes of law school admission? That's the specific question I was addressing. The answer is because "African American" has a specific meaning; it describes black Americans of African descent. Those Americans were denied access to education for hundreds of years, which resulted in underepresentation. That is why the term "African American" does not simply describe any person from the African continent who now lives in America.

You need to get a reality check. It may have started for those reasons, but Obama is an "African-American" and none of his Family were ever slaves (although some may have owned some)
Just because Arabs are not considered African-American, any black Kenyan fresh off the boat is. Hope that simplified it for you. If not, too bad I guess. It's still true. (no one in their right might would ever ask you to "prove" you had slave relatives, find one example anywhere if you want to prove me wrong)

Oh, and just in case you havn't learned this yet "background info" (and even "dicta" written by the judge and attached to the case itself) is not law.

[Maintain FL 350]

(no one in their right might would ever ask you to "prove" you had slave relatives, find one example anywhere if you want to prove me wrong)

A battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

Of course no one has to prove "slave relatives", and no, dicta is not law. Your powers of perception are amazing. Yes, Obama (a black American of African descent) is certainly African American. That's exactly my point.

The answer is because "African American" has a specific meaning; it describes black Americans of African descent.

See?

Please go back to preparing to fail the bar exam.

[avarist]

(no one in their right might would ever ask you to "prove" you had slave relatives, find one example anywhere if you want to prove me wrong)

A battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

Of course no one has to prove "slave relatives", and no, dicta is not law. Your powers of perception are amazing. Yes, Obama (a black American of African descent) is certainly African American. That's exactly my point.

The answer is because "African American" has a specific meaning; it describes black Americans of African descent.

See?

Please go back to preparing to fail the bar exam.

Yes, my actually understanding what dicta is and what a URM is (and your follow up of "oh wait I said the opposit, but no duh) makes me such a failure. -Run for Politics Son, your made for it.