How much Native American must you be to mark it on apps?

[in my eyes]

All schools will tell you to identify yourself however you wish. No documentation is needed.

Be honest with yourself. If you truely feel you identify with hispanic or NA roots then check the box. No one is going to put you through a DNA test to prove it.

[makalika]

Not that this radically differs from many of the previous posts, but its a self identification question.   There's no official test for this, but for those with ethics I think the test is fairly simple as to what you should select with good conscience. Its a common question to be asked what your background is.  If your normal answer is "Native American/whatever tribe" then obviously you self identify and should select it.  If you don't then the answer is obvious. 

Also, you should note that the amount of Native Americans in law school, particularly T14 law schools is really small.  I hear Yale admitted their first NA student in 3 years for the class of 2010 (I tried to back that stat up with a source, but I cant find their profile by ethnicity online, if this is an understatement I feel confident that at least the number is very low).  I was the only one in my entering class at CLS.  I got a list of the Columbia NA admits for 2011 today, not a long list.  It's not for lack of want of NA students by the schools, but the supply of NA students willing to apply with the grades/LSAT is low. 

The point is, for those who would lie, your going to be contacted by the other NA students at that school. You're not going to check that box and never hear about it again.   You're going to be approached by your NALSA (Native American Law Student Association) chapter reps.  You're going to be approached when its time to recruit NALSA moot court teammates.  It would be really awkward if you turn out to be lieing, which will probably come up at some point unless you come up with some detailed lie and keep it up for 3 years.  I've never encountered someone who  lied about that, but if it happened, I think that would be awkward for that person.  You don't want to tarnish your reputation.  So basically, use good judgment. 

Hope this is helpful.

[SabrinaK]

In Michigan, if you are at least 1/4 NA and can prove it, they pay tuition for any level of post-high school educaton at a public institution (and some private ones).  Just throwing it out there since it's a hard number I know for a fact.  No clue on if it's the same just for identification purposes.

[Rainmaker614]

I have done hours of research on this topic (I am 1/8th myself and do not have hard "proof" like a tribal card) and called about 15 schools I plan to apply to in order to know if I am constituted as a Native American (I do self identify). EVERY SINGLE ONE including some T14 schools said it is solely up to me whether I identify or not. The ones that ask for a tribal identification number, tribal card, etc. told me that this information is ONLY if you are applying for a tuition waiver or aid for being this minority specifically. YOU DO NOT need to "prove" your ancestry to anyone (they almost laughed at me about this, seriously a few thought I was crazy for proposing it). When I told them that I was only 1/8th genetically, they said (literally) "1/8th? Are you kidding me? You would most likely be going to school for free if you do end up being able to prove it" - So don't believe people on here who say you are not Native American if you are not at least half or a quarter or whatever.... it is all about whether or not you identify and THATS IT! Hope this helps many people that do belong to this heritage.

[Lindbergh]

In the above post, it seemed as though your were suggesting that I somehow 'wrongly' claimed URM status.  In addition to being native american, I'm also black, puerto rican, and german.  Whenever race was an issue, I was treated as 'black'....  except when I was living in San Diego right after 9/11... then everyone was worried that I was a muslim of unknown ethnicity.  Also, I grew up poor.  So, the terms 'underrepresented minority" or "disadvantaged" would apply.   

I've also been very blunt about the role that race played in some of my acceptances.  You think you're making any comment that hasn't already been made?  Or that you're informing me of a fact that I have yet to consider?  No.  Of course not.  You just felt compelled to point that out.... for what reason?  Like I didn't already know... and like dozens of people on this website can't confirm that I've been entirely blunt about the situation?     

So there you go.  Thanks for playing.   

I think we just had a misunderstanding.  From your earlier posts, I gathered that while technically you might qualify as urm, you have not had an urm upbringing.  No reason to ger all hot about it.  My gf was the first one in her family to finish college (her dad went one year on a football scholarship) and most of her family is poor.  While she might not appear urm while out in public, I think her circumstances qualify her as urm just as much as the obviously black, hispanic, asian, et al ppl do who have wealthy parents.

Actually, this is incorrect.  Her circumstances clearly establish her as disadvantaged, but not as URM.  That's the whole problem with AA as currently practiced, of course -- being URM is assumed to be an adequate proxy for being disadvantaged when it's clearly not. 

[naturallybeyoutiful]

In the above post, it seemed as though your were suggesting that I somehow 'wrongly' claimed URM status.  In addition to being native american, I'm also black, puerto rican, and german.  Whenever race was an issue, I was treated as 'black'....  except when I was living in San Diego right after 9/11... then everyone was worried that I was a muslim of unknown ethnicity.  Also, I grew up poor.  So, the terms 'underrepresented minority" or "disadvantaged" would apply.   

I've also been very blunt about the role that race played in some of my acceptances.  You think you're making any comment that hasn't already been made?  Or that you're informing me of a fact that I have yet to consider?  No.  Of course not.  You just felt compelled to point that out.... for what reason?  Like I didn't already know... and like dozens of people on this website can't confirm that I've been entirely blunt about the situation?     

So there you go.  Thanks for playing.   

I think we just had a misunderstanding.  From your earlier posts, I gathered that while technically you might qualify as urm, you have not had an urm upbringing.  No reason to ger all hot about it.  My gf was the first one in her family to finish college (her dad went one year on a football scholarship) and most of her family is poor.  While she might not appear urm while out in public, I think her circumstances qualify her as urm just as much as the obviously black, hispanic, asian, et al ppl do who have wealthy parents.

Actually, this is incorrect.  Her circumstances clearly establish her as disadvantaged, but not as URM.  That's the whole problem with AA as currently practiced, of course -- being URM is assumed to be an adequate proxy for being disadvantaged when it's clearly not. 

And being black and in the same income bracket as another white is assumed to be an adequate proxy for having all the same advantages that accrue to the white family (and none of the disadvantages that plague blacks and other urms)....when it's clearly not.    

::bailing out of this thread before another useless affirmative action debate begins again::

[Lindbergh]

In the above post, it seemed as though your were suggesting that I somehow 'wrongly' claimed URM status.  In addition to being native american, I'm also black, puerto rican, and german.  Whenever race was an issue, I was treated as 'black'....  except when I was living in San Diego right after 9/11... then everyone was worried that I was a muslim of unknown ethnicity.  Also, I grew up poor.  So, the terms 'underrepresented minority" or "disadvantaged" would apply.   

I've also been very blunt about the role that race played in some of my acceptances.  You think you're making any comment that hasn't already been made?  Or that you're informing me of a fact that I have yet to consider?  No.  Of course not.  You just felt compelled to point that out.... for what reason?  Like I didn't already know... and like dozens of people on this website can't confirm that I've been entirely blunt about the situation?     

So there you go.  Thanks for playing.   

I think we just had a misunderstanding.  From your earlier posts, I gathered that while technically you might qualify as urm, you have not had an urm upbringing.  No reason to ger all hot about it.  My gf was the first one in her family to finish college (her dad went one year on a football scholarship) and most of her family is poor.  While she might not appear urm while out in public, I think her circumstances qualify her as urm just as much as the obviously black, hispanic, asian, et al ppl do who have wealthy parents.

Actually, this is incorrect.  Her circumstances clearly establish her as disadvantaged, but not as URM.  That's the whole problem with AA as currently practiced, of course -- being URM is assumed to be an adequate proxy for being disadvantaged when it's clearly not. 

And being black and in the same income bracket as another white is assumed to be an adequate proxy for having all the same advantages that accrue to the white family (and none of the disadvantages that plague blacks and other urms)....when it's clearly not.    

This is true.  Rich blacks don't have enough to eat.  They don't have adequate clothing and shelter.  They can't afford private schools and tutors.  All these things are denied them because of the color of their skin. 

Not.

Apparently, the only people more self-serving and out of touch than rich whites are (some) rich minorities.

[mbw]

In the above post, it seemed as though your were suggesting that I somehow 'wrongly' claimed URM status.  In addition to being native american, I'm also black, puerto rican, and german.  Whenever race was an issue, I was treated as 'black'....  except when I was living in San Diego right after 9/11... then everyone was worried that I was a muslim of unknown ethnicity.  Also, I grew up poor.  So, the terms 'underrepresented minority" or "disadvantaged" would apply.   

I've also been very blunt about the role that race played in some of my acceptances.  You think you're making any comment that hasn't already been made?  Or that you're informing me of a fact that I have yet to consider?  No.  Of course not.  You just felt compelled to point that out.... for what reason?  Like I didn't already know... and like dozens of people on this website can't confirm that I've been entirely blunt about the situation?     

So there you go.  Thanks for playing.   

I think we just had a misunderstanding.  From your earlier posts, I gathered that while technically you might qualify as urm, you have not had an urm upbringing.  No reason to ger all hot about it.  My gf was the first one in her family to finish college (her dad went one year on a football scholarship) and most of her family is poor.  While she might not appear urm while out in public, I think her circumstances qualify her as urm just as much as the obviously black, hispanic, asian, et al ppl do who have wealthy parents.

Actually, this is incorrect.  Her circumstances clearly establish her as disadvantaged, but not as URM.  That's the whole problem with AA as currently practiced, of course -- being URM is assumed to be an adequate proxy for being disadvantaged when it's clearly not. 

And being black and in the same income bracket as another white is assumed to be an adequate proxy for having all the same advantages that accrue to the white family (and none of the disadvantages that plague blacks and other urms)....when it's clearly not.    

This is true.  Rich blacks don't have enough to eat.  They don't have adequate clothing and shelter.  They can't afford private schools and tutors.  All these things are denied them because of the color of their skin. 

Not.

Apparently, the only people more self-serving and out of touch than rich whites are (some) rich minorities.

Yes, but Lindbergh, Grutter determined that the point of URMness was that, well, you guys just f-ing don't get it, so it's to the benefit of all that we actually sit in class and rub it in your face.  Should we once again go over Oliphant?  Ex Parte Crow Dog?  Cobell?  Did you learn anything, and do you think, in any way, shape or form, that you could argue for tribes to have jurisdiction over major crimes in Indian Country?   Well, until you can, the paltry number of acculturated Indians (maybe 50% of the 400 +/- who apply every year) make up the overwhelming number of potential lawyers who actually give a hoot,

So when do we ever talk about the realities of URMness, and not the sham you tend to perpetuate, Lindy?   

[Lindbergh]

In the above post, it seemed as though your were suggesting that I somehow 'wrongly' claimed URM status.  In addition to being native american, I'm also black, puerto rican, and german.  Whenever race was an issue, I was treated as 'black'....  except when I was living in San Diego right after 9/11... then everyone was worried that I was a muslim of unknown ethnicity.  Also, I grew up poor.  So, the terms 'underrepresented minority" or "disadvantaged" would apply.   

I've also been very blunt about the role that race played in some of my acceptances.  You think you're making any comment that hasn't already been made?  Or that you're informing me of a fact that I have yet to consider?  No.  Of course not.  You just felt compelled to point that out.... for what reason?  Like I didn't already know... and like dozens of people on this website can't confirm that I've been entirely blunt about the situation?     

So there you go.  Thanks for playing.   

I think we just had a misunderstanding.  From your earlier posts, I gathered that while technically you might qualify as urm, you have not had an urm upbringing.  No reason to ger all hot about it.  My gf was the first one in her family to finish college (her dad went one year on a football scholarship) and most of her family is poor.  While she might not appear urm while out in public, I think her circumstances qualify her as urm just as much as the obviously black, hispanic, asian, et al ppl do who have wealthy parents.

Actually, this is incorrect.  Her circumstances clearly establish her as disadvantaged, but not as URM.  That's the whole problem with AA as currently practiced, of course -- being URM is assumed to be an adequate proxy for being disadvantaged when it's clearly not. 

And being black and in the same income bracket as another white is assumed to be an adequate proxy for having all the same advantages that accrue to the white family (and none of the disadvantages that plague blacks and other urms)....when it's clearly not.    

This is true.  Rich blacks don't have enough to eat.  They don't have adequate clothing and shelter.  They can't afford private schools and tutors.  All these things are denied them because of the color of their skin. 

Well, you do two little tricks here:

1) You responded to naturallybeyoutiful's statement that white and black individuals of similar economically class ar not necessarily similarly advantaged by adding the word "rich" as if the discourse were about the the opportunities of the wealthy.  This was a subtle attempt to derail what the discussion was truly about - does a lower-middle to middle class person of color truly have as much opportunity as economic countermate.

You appear ignorant of the actual discussion topic here, so let me clarify it for you:  "While she might not appear urm while out in public, I think her circumstances qualify her as urm just as much as the obviously black, hispanic, asian, et al ppl do who have wealthy parents."
In other words, the earlier poster felt his white (looking) friend was "truly" urm because she was disadvantaged by circumstances in comparison to wealthy urms.  I pointed out that this did not make her a minority (urm), it just made her disadvantaged -- which should, of course, be the true metric of any preferential admissions.

So in other words, what the discussion "was truly about" was whether wealthy urms deserved admissions more than, or as much as, poor whites. "naturally" seemed to think they do, in that she appeared to feel there is something beyond economic and educational opportunity that somehow unfairly disadvantages certain minorities, but not others. (Though she doesn't say what.)

2) You queried whether a person of color has certain material positions as if this was a proxy for institutionalized racism.     

Actually, I didn't.  I simply pointed out that wealthy minorities do not have the problems that are typically pointed to as unfairly handicapping urms when it comes to educational admissions.  In fact, they would not seem to have any major problems that would prevent them from competing fairly in admissions, any more than a wealthy white, jew, asian, or east indian.  (With the last three groups all having experienced serious discrimiation, and the last two groups "people of color".  And yet, AA actually punishes the last two groups even MORE than whites in its quest for proportional representation, regardless of income.)

P.S.:  There no such thing as "institutionalized racism," (aside from AA, which is admittedly a disturbing remainder from the dark days of official segregation).  It is rather a fiction created and perpetuated by rich, white libs who felt (and feel) guilty about their own privilege and advantages, and who somehow ignore the fact that there are many disadvantaged whites in our society, just as there are many privileged minorities, and that looking at only the color of someone's skin, and not their individual circumstances, makes just about as much sense today as mindless bigotry ever has.

I hope this helps.

[Lindbergh]

In the above post, it seemed as though your were suggesting that I somehow 'wrongly' claimed URM status.  In addition to being native american, I'm also black, puerto rican, and german.  Whenever race was an issue, I was treated as 'black'....  except when I was living in San Diego right after 9/11... then everyone was worried that I was a muslim of unknown ethnicity.  Also, I grew up poor.  So, the terms 'underrepresented minority" or "disadvantaged" would apply.   

I've also been very blunt about the role that race played in some of my acceptances.  You think you're making any comment that hasn't already been made?  Or that you're informing me of a fact that I have yet to consider?  No.  Of course not.  You just felt compelled to point that out.... for what reason?  Like I didn't already know... and like dozens of people on this website can't confirm that I've been entirely blunt about the situation?     

So there you go.  Thanks for playing.   

I think we just had a misunderstanding.  From your earlier posts, I gathered that while technically you might qualify as urm, you have not had an urm upbringing.  No reason to ger all hot about it.  My gf was the first one in her family to finish college (her dad went one year on a football scholarship) and most of her family is poor.  While she might not appear urm while out in public, I think her circumstances qualify her as urm just as much as the obviously black, hispanic, asian, et al ppl do who have wealthy parents.

Actually, this is incorrect.  Her circumstances clearly establish her as disadvantaged, but not as URM.  That's the whole problem with AA as currently practiced, of course -- being URM is assumed to be an adequate proxy for being disadvantaged when it's clearly not. 

And being black and in the same income bracket as another white is assumed to be an adequate proxy for having all the same advantages that accrue to the white family (and none of the disadvantages that plague blacks and other urms)....when it's clearly not.    

This is true.  Rich blacks don't have enough to eat.  They don't have adequate clothing and shelter.  They can't afford private schools and tutors.  All these things are denied them because of the color of their skin. 

Not.

Apparently, the only people more self-serving and out of touch than rich whites are (some) rich minorities.

Yes, but Lindbergh, Grutter determined that the point of URMness was that, well, you guys just f-ing don't get it, so it's to the benefit of all that we actually sit in class and rub it in your face. 

If that's your (obviously incorrect) reading of Grutter, than that's yet another reason why it was clearly a mistaken decision.  Fortunately, later courts will overrule it, just as Dred Scott (and other racist decisions) were eventually overruled by wiser heads.

The only people who don't get it are the mindless white, rich libs, and the minorities who buy into this BS victimology.  Fortunately, more and more minorities are realizing this is a crock of BS, and are turning away from it.

I'm sure your classmates will truly benefit from your mindless prattlings once you start school, though.  Thank god the clueless poor and working-class whites who got in on their own merits will have you to help them understand how hard it is to have a great-grandmother who was part oglala.

P.S.:  I'm far more URM than you'll ever be, and yet I don't whine about it, or hold myself up as someone who can somehow enlighten others in LS simply by virtue of my ethnicity.  Maybe you could work on that.

Should we once again go over Oliphant?  Ex Parte Crow Dog?  Cobell? 

Are these the animals in your local petting zoo?

Did you learn anything, and do you think, in any way, shape or form, that you could argue for tribes to have jurisdiction over major crimes in Indian Country?   

Why would I want do?  Don't they deserve the same advanced system of justice present everywhere else?

Well, until you can, the paltry number of acculturated Indians (maybe 50% of the 400 +/- who apply every year) make up the overwhelming number of potential lawyers who actually give a hoot,

So when do we ever talk about the realities of URMness, and not the sham you tend to perpetuate, Lindy?   

One could argue that you're the only one perpetuating a sham here -- perhaps pretending to be a "native american", and to care about native americans, when all you really want to do is get into the best law school possible.  (All I'm doing is pointing out the realities of AA, and why it doesn't make sense, even though I supposedly "benefit" from a system that holds certain groups to lower standards.)

The sad thing is, you're bright enough to get in on your own merits, and yet you buy into (and support) a system that perpetuates negative stereotypes, perpetuates ethnic divisions, perpetuates racism, and in the end will only stigmatize your own achievements, and limit your ability to succeed. 

The whole thing, honestly, makes me sick, as does your apparent short-sighted willingess to accomodate it.  It should have the same effect on anyone else who truly believes in equality of opportunity, and a race-blind, merit-based system of achievement and education.

I again hope this helps.

P.S.:  You really think native americans are best off self-segregating on reservations?  Examine the data.  This doesn't appear to be the case.