Morality of AA

[HK]

" 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.

very easy answer.  can you suggest any possible solution that will be both fair to all and remedy past history?  if you can't suggest anything better than aa then...


i'll give you an example of immorality in this country.  crack v. meth.  it's ok for the trash to tear up families in the inner cities, sure.  as soon as meth hit suburban house-wives the whole country was in an up-roar.  if i've got to see one more article on oklahoma's epedimic...  i got an epedimic going on down the street!  and somebody wants to talk to me about the morality of getting out of this sh1t and into a good school?  i wish i could just go around knockin sense into people! 

1) I think we need to be doing A LOT more to improve out educational system in the US rather than rely on programs like AA to improve diversity. Quite frankly, when I see URM students  getting into great schools with sub-par numbers I am not upset, I am personally sadenned by the fact that it is so hard to find qualified URM students.

2) There are some good points made here. I think morality in our society is extremely dubious. We have a government that rushes to pass a law to try and save a brain dead woman on a  respirator, but yet allows the death penalty, does little to improve the safety of our cities, kills thousands fighting wars abroad, etc...

[shaz]

are you poor?  do you live in a poor neighborhood made up of majority minorities?  do you live in a poor neighborhood made up of majority non-minorities? 

i ask these three questions because you referred to "a system which puts more weight on soft factors would be better suited to finding good students who have overcome adversity."  by this statement, are you referring only to poor people who have overcome their economic hardships and made good?

you do realize that there are social hardships that exist as well that have nothing to do with 'qualifications?'  i live in philly.  if you apply for a gov't chemist position it states that one must have a degree, unless they have experience.  do you know what this is? it's an end around to allow for cronism.  how do you become a chemist without a college degree?  i'm not even talking about a few credits shy of a degree, i'm talking about high school diploma + experience. 

i once had a friend look me dead in the face and say, "i'm so glad i'm white.  minorities have it too hard."  this guy was poor but he realized that he would always be white and that gave him peace.  why?  because he wouldn't have to put up with the stupidity.  he was my friend and would tell me what the supervisors were saying about the minorities when they thought their conversations were being held in confidence.  i have another friend who looks white but is actually half black-half asian.  he would also tell me stories of people saying racist comments to him in the work place.

i hope you are a twenty something with time to learn.  it would really sadden me to come to know that you are in your thirties and have these antiquated views of 'qualified minorities.'  the fact that you are going to law school and could possibly one day have some small part in shaping future policy is frightening. 

i find an individual who has dodged bullets and watched those around him/her struck down by the streets and yet somehow fought their way to a degree quite worthy.  i find that an individual who has been through that and has the audacity to try for a jd so that he/she can come back to the community and make a difference remarkable. 

i find that an individual, like yourself, who cannot see the 'quality of merit' in this to be repugnant.  i wish i could go around knocking sense into people just like you.  the fact you can make a statement that you are "personally saddened by the fact that it is so hard to find qualified URM students" is condescending and down right biggoted.  this is one of the most ingenuine remarks that i have ever heard.  are you from klan country?  remarks like this were made during the sixties by racists trying to protect their schools from intergration.

did you know that states like alabama would send 'qualified' negros to harvard and pay the tuition because they were so afraid to integrate?  you are a truly sad individual.  are you trailer park made good-but just not good enough for top 14?  there is such a strong odor of bitterness to your words that this is the only thing i can figure.  grow up and grow out of this foolishness. 

[redemption]

Powerful response.

[HK]

are you poor?  do you live in a poor neighborhood made up of majority minorities?  do you live in a poor neighborhood made up of majority non-minorities? 

i ask these three questions because you referred to "a system which puts more weight on soft factors would be better suited to finding good students who have overcome adversity."  by this statement, are you referring only to poor people who have overcome their economic hardships and made good?

you do realize that there are social hardships that exist as well that have nothing to do with 'qualifications?'  i live in philly.  if you apply for a gov't chemist position it states that one must have a degree, unless they have experience.  do you know what this is? it's an end around to allow for cronism.  how do you become a chemist without a college degree?  i'm not even talking about a few credits shy of a degree, i'm talking about high school diploma + experience. 

i once had a friend look me dead in the face and say, "i'm so glad i'm white.  minorities have it too hard."  this guy was poor but he realized that he would always be white and that gave him peace.  why?  because he wouldn't have to put up with the stupidity.  he was my friend and would tell me what the supervisors were saying about the minorities when they thought their conversations were being held in confidence.  i have another friend who looks white but is actually half black-half asian.  he would also tell me stories of people saying racist comments to him in the work place.

i hope you are a twenty something with time to learn.  it would really sadden me to come to know that you are in your thirties and have these antiquated views of 'qualified minorities.'  the fact that you are going to law school and could possibly one day have some small part in shaping future policy is frightening. 

i find an individual who has dodged bullets and watched those around him/her struck down by the streets and yet somehow fought their way to a degree quite worthy.  i find that an individual who has been through that and has the audacity to try for a jd so that he/she can come back to the community and make a difference remarkable. 

i find that an individual, like yourself, who cannot see the 'quality of merit' in this to be repugnant.  i wish i could go around knocking sense into people just like you.  the fact you can make a statement that you are "personally saddened by the fact that it is so hard to find qualified URM students" is condescending and down right biggoted.  this is one of the most ingenuine remarks that i have ever heard.  are you from klan country?  remarks like this were made during the sixties by racists trying to protect their schools from intergration.

did you know that states like alabama would send 'qualified' negros to harvard and pay the tuition because they were so afraid to integrate?  you are a truly sad individual.  are you trailer park made good-but just not good enough for top 14?  there is such a strong odor of bitterness to your words that this is the only thing i can figure.  grow up and grow out of this foolishness. 

"i find an individual who has dodged bullets and watched those around him/her struck down by the streets and yet somehow fought their way to a degree quite worthy."

Yes, I agree with you too. And if the person it black or white, or asian they should be given the same credit for overcoming such adversity.

You totally missed my point. What makes an applicant "qualified" to go to a good law school is a high LSAT and a high GPA. If you score below a 150 on the LSAT, you may still be "qualified" to go to law school and make a great lawyer, but most ABA approved schools won't believe you qualified enough to be accepted. By changing the emphasis of the admissions process from a quantitative system across the board, people who are traditionally hurt by the quantitative system will benefit.

You said: "the fact that you are going to law school and could possibly one day have some small part in shaping future policy is frightening. "

It still escapes me why people just can't make a point without a personal attack. If you disagree with my points, and want to discuss the morality of AA in this thread that's fine. However, I won't debate a topic with someone who can't stick to the topic and its merits. If you REALLY believe in the validity of your point and you want to change my views, attacking me personally won't help accomplish that.

[redemption]

You totally missed my point. What makes an applicant "qualified" to go to a good law school is a high LSAT and a high GPA. If you score below a 150 on the LSAT, you may still be "qualified" to go to law school and make a great lawyer, but most ABA approved schools won't believe you qualified enough to be accepted. By changing the emphasis of the admissions process from a quantitative system across the board, people who are traditionally hurt by the quantitative system will benefit.

I think it is because this point of yours is so obviously false, that people may get the idea that you haven't thought about this topic at all. And if you haven't thought about it in the slightest, that begs the question - why post about it with an opinion, and where did that opinion come from anyway?

To be fair, that's kind of a silly thing to say, isn't it. Re-read it and maybe you'll see it too 

[shaz]

my problem is that you do not address the issues of my posts.  you constantly bring up some tangential argument and i am tired of it.  plus, you make no sense.  you do not define what is/is not the threshold for law school admissions.  can you not understand that?  you, by your comments, attack every thing that i am and stand for.  i take great umbrage with you because of this.  can you not understand that?  you have made it a personal attack by the arrogance and condescension of your posts.  you cloud your true feelings with fained concern for the welfare of minorities and the integrity of the application process.  your true feelings and motives are obvious.

in the words of malcom x, "lay it plain."  if you feel slighted and somehow cheated in this process just say it.  we can go from there.  your whole approach to this thread is juvenile.  the fact that you either don't recognize or somehow think that you are fooling anyone speaks volumes of both your ignorance and immaturity.  again, grow up and out.  

[HK]

You totally missed my point. What makes an applicant "qualified" to go to a good law school is a high LSAT and a high GPA. If you score below a 150 on the LSAT, you may still be "qualified" to go to law school and make a great lawyer, but most ABA approved schools won't believe you qualified enough to be accepted. By changing the emphasis of the admissions process from a quantitative system across the board, people who are traditionally hurt by the quantitative system will benefit.

I think it is because this point of yours is so obviously false, that people may get the idea that you haven't thought about this topic at all. And if you haven't thought about it in the slightest, that begs the question - why post about it with an opinion, and where did that opinion come from anyway?

To be fair, that's kind of a silly thing to say, isn't it. Re-read it and maybe you'll see it too 

What I or you deem as "qualified" and "unqualified" to attend law school is meaningless. If a person had all the other qualifications in the world and scores a 140 on the LSAT he will not be going to law school. If a person scores a 180 on the LSAT and has no other "qualifications" that person will go to law school. Law school websites mention how look at a variety of factors, however they usually only matter once a certain GPA/LSAT threshold is crossed.

[HK]

my problem is that you do not address the issues of my posts.  you constantly bring up some tangential argument and i am tired of it.  plus, you make no sense.  you do not define what is/is not the threshold for law school admissions.  can you not understand that?  you, by your comments, attack every thing that i am and stand for.  i take great umbrage with you because of this.  can you not understand that?  you have made it a personal attack by the arrogance and condescension of your posts.  you cloud your true feelings with fained concern for the welfare of minorities and the integrity of the application process.  your true feelings and motives are obvious.

in the words of malcom x, "lay it plain."  if you feel slighted and somehow cheated in this process just say it.  we can go from there.  your whole approach to this thread is juvenile.  the fact that you either don't recognize or somehow think that you are fooling anyone speaks volumes of both your ignorance and immaturity.  again, grow up and out.  

You seem to not wish to discuss the topic at hand, but rather make assumptions about me and by background and accuse me of "ignorance and immaturity".

[redemption]

There is some irony in your charge that "some" people have responded to the topic in a personal way, and that their responses have been filled with rhetoric and generalities. Of course yours turned out to be quite personal too, in the end, and also rhetorical and general.


Stripping it of the unecessary rhetoric, equivocation, and ambiguity, your point boils down to the following:

1. "we" don't know how admissions offices use the race/ethnicity identification marker on the application form

2. a background of poverty is a disadvantage

3. children of wealthy black parents don't have a poverty disadvantage

therefore

4. poverty should be the criterion for AA and not race.


I'm sure that you yourself can see that this is not a properly constructed argument without anyone having to point it out to you. Right?

[the town drunk]

Sounds like an interesting topic.  B4FF