Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: East Indians not URM??? why not?????  (Read 5259 times)

BuckFush

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2005, 03:19:59 AM »
You do not understand at all the intent of not only AA but what URM means.  AA was originally designed to aid those people who are members of a race that have historically been denied equal access and opportunity in this country by the white majority.  This means black people.  American native Indians can also be included among this group.  The reason that blacks are underrepresented is not because of inferior intellect or lack of motivation, but because of denied opportunity.  East Indians do not qualify.  You have not been historically denied equal access in this country for generations and hundreds of years.

desi desi desi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2005, 08:26:32 AM »
indian immigration to this country had NOTHING to do with civil rights.  it was purely an economic decision.  in the 60s and 70s, this country had a need for a white collar labor force with a high level of technical or scientific knowledge.  thus, the first wave of indian immigrants were members of the upper castes of india, with a solid base in medicine or engineering (the US needed engineers especially) and a solid understanding of the english knowledge.  so don't equate an economic policy choice with the civil rights movement. 

once again, across the board, indian people are educated and well represented in most professions.  there is no need, now or ever, for URM status. 

pop_tort

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2005, 10:47:20 PM »
indian immigration to this country had NOTHING to do with civil rights.  it was purely an economic decision.  in the 60s and 70s, this country had a need for a white collar labor force with a high level of technical or scientific knowledge.  thus, the first wave of indian immigrants were members of the upper castes of india, with a solid base in medicine or engineering (the US needed engineers especially) and a solid understanding of the english knowledge.  so don't equate an economic policy choice with the civil rights movement. 

once again, across the board, indian people are educated and well represented in most professions.  there is no need, now or ever, for URM status. 

Yeah, you're point applies to the *minor* amount of Indians who move to america, who are already from wealthy or upper middle class families. It's a very small amount compared to the actual population in india. There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Indian people living in POVERTY in India, and over 40$% of the population is illiterate. Aside from the tech industry, what do you consider "well represented"?? Even though there might be a large amount of indian lawyers in Artersia, CA, the numbers certainly wouldn't qualify the group to be "well reperesented", even in CA. AA status for Indians would probably be on a case by case basis, just the same way it is for any applicant. Hate to break it to ya buddy, but there are disadvanteged Indians in America!!

And by the way, Indian immigration has A LOT to do with civil rights - if the civil rights movement had not taken place, do you really think Indians would have immigrated to the US? NO WAY! Why would Indians leave their home where they were still recovering from the atrocities of Colonial Rule by the British, only to get slaped with the atrocities that were taking place in the US all the way through the 1950s and 1960s???

 Believe me, if the Supreme Court had not changed the law of the land, Indians would be just as "colored" as the next "Negro".....


jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2005, 11:15:38 PM »


Yeah, you're point applies to the *minor* amount of Indians who move to america, who are already from wealthy or upper middle class families. It's a very small amount compared to the actual population in india. There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Indian people living in POVERTY in India, and over 40$% of the population is illiterate.


How does the condition of Indians living in India have any affect whatsoever on the determination of URM status in the United States?  Which, last I checked, was the topic of this thread...

Denny Crane

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5383
  • Where's my Shirley Schmidt-ho?
    • View Profile
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2005, 11:16:46 PM »
exactly.  Indians from India are a whole other subcategory of applicant.  They would be considered as international applicants. 
Yale.Law.School.2010

pop_tort

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2005, 12:52:50 AM »
indian immigration to this country had NOTHING to do with civil rights.  it was purely an economic decision.  in the 60s and 70s, this country had a need for a white collar labor force with a high level of technical or scientific knowledge.  thus, the first wave of indian immigrants were members of the upper castes of india, with a solid base in medicine or engineering (the US needed engineers especially) and a solid understanding of the english knowledge.  so don't equate an economic policy choice with the civil rights movement. 

once again, across the board, indian people are educated and well represented in most professions.  there is no need, now or ever, for URM status. 

Desi is the one who brought up the issue of immigration and the caste system, and then followed that by made the sweeping generalization that "across the board, Indian people are educated and well represented in most professions...." You could say 'Indian people in America' was implicit, but after following his/her comments, my point is just that he/she shouldn't be so quick to jump and say "across the board" his opinion is fact.

As far as URM status, Indians are in no way in abundance in the legal field. Maybe in the tech industry, and a sizable amount in Medicine, but I wouldn't say "well represented across to board" as Desi states. And last time I checked, URM in LAW SCHOOL and the LEGAL FIELD is what matters here...


desi desi desi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2005, 09:01:13 AM »
no URM in LAW SCHOOL and in the LEGAL FIELD is not what is important here.  under-representation across the board determines whether a group gets URM status.  across the board, indians are over-represented in the majority of lucrative professions.  there is no need for URM status for admissions process - in engineering, medicine, and yes, law.

XYZZY

  • Guest
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2005, 09:25:17 AM »

there may be different criteria for URM status.  There of course is the lower barrier, including education and ethnic background which most think of for URM consideration.  This is the entry barrier.  On the other hand there is exit criteria and the glass ceiling effect.  Although this is popular with woman and can be explained by different reasons (motherhood, family committments), the effect is still seen for minorities across the board at the corporate and executive level.  Having a low representation in the given field doesn't help matters much.

I think what you'll find is medicine and academe are merit based, which explains the success of some minority groups in these fields.  On the other hand there is the corporate and legal world where minorities, are much less represented at the upper levels.  This by itself does not indicate disfairness, but the fact that some minority groups that do excel in the other intellecutally challenging disciplines could indicate some pattern of inequity.  In a field, such as law where communications skills, assertiveness/aggressiveness, and command of the English language are critical, there are stereotypes that work to the detriment of asians and indians.


Denny Crane

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5383
  • Where's my Shirley Schmidt-ho?
    • View Profile
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2005, 09:45:54 AM »
Indians are well represented in the legal field and especially the medical field relative to their population size.  This is why they are not considered to be underrepresented.  Their total numbers may be small, but so are their numbers in the general population.  Outside of major urban centers (NYC especially) you are unlikely to find many, if any, people of indian descent.
Yale.Law.School.2010

desi desi desi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: East Indians not URM??? why not?????
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2005, 08:10:43 PM »
Outside of major urban centers (NYC especially) you are unlikely to find many, if any, people of indian descent.

You should get out more often.