I'm not going to be mad when I see your username; I'm just going to think you're an idiot.
I'm also going to think that people who want class-based AA to ENTIRELY replace race-based AA are correct. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
I don't get why Petitschoque's impolitic approach to this thread or her refusal to indulge your (sarcastic) question about her family's financial history should have any bearing on your feelings about race-based affirmative action.
Actually, it's not sarcastic. I was trying to get to a somewhat legitimate point about how AA's problems with appropriating others' problems to gain an edge in admissions can start at the individual psychological level.
Also, I'm sick of all of you calling Petitschoque an idiot and questioning her ability to succeed in law school based upon her arrogance and possible bigotry. Plenty of incredibly arrogant bigots do just fine in law school. And I honestly wonder whether you would say these things the way you have been if she were white.
It's not a question of arrogance and possible bigotry: it's a question of having to rely on taking quotes out of context in order to create strawmen.
I think the post at Barely Legal
on the difference between arguing and arguments lays it out really nicely. (I've heard the same thing about law school from other sources, just not nearly as elqouently.)