Aww, sorry dbgirl...no offense intended If it makes u feel any better, I'm a curly haired brown person myself, tho most of the "race mixing" responsible for that can be traced 3 or 4 generations back See, I don't have a problem with interracial reproduction, I just don't like to hear it presented as a "solution" to problematic race relations - I agree that people should have the option and the freedom to marry whoever they want, and to reproduce with whomever they wish, but I don't feel comfortable saying that kind of action, on a mass scale, should be encouraged as a goal. It seems to give too little credit to people, as if to say that the only way we can get past racism is to eliminate race - as if we don't have the ability (or the responsibility) to appreciate difference without calling it inferiority. It blames the problem of racism on the existence or race, rather than on the faulty assumptions that PEOPLE make, based on race.Cause there is a lot to appreciate in racial and cultural difference. It reminds me of a class I took last year. In one of the assigned articles, the researchers identified "rate of interracial marriage" as a measure of group prejudice. It struck me as odd cause in-group marriage seemed "natural" to me. But I guess it all comes down to how you identify yourself, and how much race plays into that. Someone who says they are "just human" and pretends/believes that race has no bearing in who they are and how they're perceived would find it easier to marry outside of their race and have interracial children than, say, I would. And if that makes me prejudice - because I believe and acknowledge the role that race plays in my identity and those of others - then I guess I'm in good company.
Yea I did go off on a tangent there. And your characterization of the seemingly contradictory nature of my post is real interesting - but let me see if i can explain what I meant, and then u can tell me if I'm still talking in circles. I'm mot really saying that interracial marriage is unnatural, I was just relating an experience where I had my views about race and marriage challenged - an experience that forced me to look at the issue a little differently. Cause up until then, I did see in-group marriage as a natural thing, and interracial marriage as an abberation from that. But after reading that article and discussing it in class I realized that that view was socially-constructed, and no more "natural" than race itself, since the marriage preference uses race as a proxy for experiences and interests and compatibility. So...now I can see how, in a world where views of racial distinctions were similar to the way we conceptualize variations in hair color or height - as noticeable sources of difference not thought to be linked to substantive differences in ability or worth - interracial marriage would be a non-isssue. But I still wonder if we can be expected to operate as if that were the case, when it clearly is not. I shy away from the claim that anyone who refuses to date/marry outside their race is prejudice, while anyone who does so has transcended these "racial hangups" and is somehow enlightened. I think I'd have trouble finding any American over the age of five or ten who's not racially prejudiced to some degree, and I feel that interracial marriage can too sometimes be the product of prejudice, rather than equivocal proof of its absence. For instance, I know black guys who only date white women because they believe black women have too much attitude and are too demanding, while white women are more conciliatory and attentive. Now that sounds like prejudice to me - but on the scale of the researchers who wrote that article, those black guys would be less prejudice than someone who says they prefer to date within their race.So yeah. I think my overall opinion is the first one u picked up on: that difference exists and should be appreciated. I guess the other part was to say that you don't eradicate hostility to difference by pretending that difference doesn't exist - interracial marriage is fine, but I don't think it can indicate (or generate) the absence of prejudice, in and of itself. That takes a more consistent and active effort.
I have not read all of these above posts, but I am responding the initial question. This is all tongue and cheek, not proofread, and lacks any empirical data to support my opinion, but here it goes: If one believes there are not innate biological differences in intelligence or innate biological differences in the skills necessary to be admitted to and succeed in law school, he/she must admit that AA is morally right. Clearly, as the term URM indicates, certain groups are underrepresented in law school and the legal profession. If the causes of this under representation aren't innate differences in drive or intelligence, then they must be the result of socially constructed inequities. Consequently these inequalities in opportunity must be rectified. Certainly, it would be more advantageous for all parties involved if inequalities were eliminated earlier in life rather than later. Removing under representation of minorities at elite preps schools like Exeter and Philips Andover, for example, could be more effective than AA in law school admissions, but that is not yet reality. The reality is that for many minorities attending a top law school doesnít appear to be a reality for them. A personal story my help elucidate this point. My father wasnít going to attend college because his parents never finished elementary school and believed he should quit high school and work. Fortuitously, my fatherís high school girlfriend urged him to finish high school and go to college. He certainly was under prepared for college struggled while learning the basics of writing and math that his public school and his parentsí lack of education had created. This coupled with financing the entire cost of his college education left his GPA at a less than ideal level for law school admissions. Luckily, law school admissions officers were able to detect potential and sought to uphold the AA ideal of equal representation for minorities. Despite coming in with possibly one of the lowest undergraduate GPAís in the school, Once in Dickinson law, a mid-ranked law school in Pennsylvania, my dad finished in the 20% of his class and wrote onto law review. Iím sure many anti-AA advocates will argue that this is the exception and not the rule. But if there are cases where societal inequities limit the opportunities of minorities and result in their under representation in a field, are we not morally obliged to help those who are the victim of a lack of opportunity?
jeez red! do you have to do that? he said it wasn't proofread. the way you attack people's arguements through their technical flaws is kind of annoying. we all know what he was getting at. i don't think he asked for your opinion on his technical flaws either. i guess we know who is going to be a future legal writing instructor.
Quote from: HK on March 10, 2006, 11:44:47 PM" Can we talk instead about the morality of living in a world with such extreme racial disparities (and biases) in wealth, income, educational opportunity and achievement, LSAT scores, community resources, etc., etc., and NOT coming up with any sort of remedy?"Two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. Just because a situation is bad, it does not mean it is OK to use immoral means to remedy it. 1. I don't think you have two wrongs here. The OP referred to AA as "someone getting a preference because of her race" or something like that. I guess I would agree that this is wrong, stated this way. But AA is something else entirely. AA means reading applications contextually, taking account of various advantages and disadvantages the applicant has had throughout life, and considering the role that applicant might play in the student body and in the profession. And whether you're comfortable admitting it or not, race is one of the most reliable indicia of academic and other advantages. It may be an imperfect proxy, but it's what we've got. There are communities that are underserved because their members don't have the same opportunities other people do. Do you really want to deny them adequate and effective representation?The more privileged among us should work to create opportunities for the less privileged among us. This is a principle that would stand the OP's test of time and circumstance, and it's a much better description of what affirmative action is about.2. But even if you hold onto the belief that both affirmative action and the vast racial divides in our country are wrong, it's still a matter of degrees. I'm sick of people talking about how AA is "immoral" or whatever, without giving any thought to the alternatives or acknowledging that we have to do something. It's like corporate whistleblowing. Is it "immoral" to breach your employer's trust, break confidentiality agreements, etc.? Well, sure, probably. But come on, if the company is, say, knowingly dumping carcinogenic materials into the local reservoir, isn't that "immorality" on a much grander scale, more worthy of public attention? If a bunch of corporate shills came out whining about fiduciary duties and proprietary information and all the rest, wouldn't you just want to yell at them, "The kids are getting f-ing cancer! Get over it"?I'd like to give a shout out to John Galt, who is much more patient than I, for starting a thread that poses the challenge to construct your own admissions system. At least I think it was JG. Anyway, it was a good idea.
" Can we talk instead about the morality of living in a world with such extreme racial disparities (and biases) in wealth, income, educational opportunity and achievement, LSAT scores, community resources, etc., etc., and NOT coming up with any sort of remedy?"Two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. Just because a situation is bad, it does not mean it is OK to use immoral means to remedy it.