It is mostly political. The point about minorities being part of the profession legitimizing the law as a profession is a good one, but this does not explain why AA overwhelmingly increases the ranking (quality) of the school a minority applicant can go to. Unless you need comparable representation in areas of law that are exclusive to top schools, just having black lawyers cannot be explained by current AA policy (it would be much easier to just offer scholarships/have higher enrollment at lesser schools). Also, I think that the majority of anti-AA students are those who are trying to go to top schools, those trying to go to local second tier schools are probably largely unaware or indifferent—hence AA policies at these schools are not challenged nearly as much.I won’t even comment on the altruistic motives of the school or anyone else. My guess is they are minimal if they exist at all.I think it is mainly political. Special interest politics is the major force behind social policy. Revoking AA policies or eliminating race from them would enrage blacks, especially young blacks in universities—who when aggravated, like any large group of young people, can cause quite a bit of trouble. Ensuring that a certain percentage of the entering class is black appeases this group and has only a marginal effect on the rest of the population (white people). The gain is more focused than the loss; that is what drives it.
Page created in 0.827 seconds with 18 queries.