That begs the question, though, is affirmative action required for diversity? Perhaps not. LSAC takes measures to ensure that their tests are racially neutral, and the student has the option to find a college that will fit their skills. Therefore, everyone has an equal opportunity to receive these numbers. Why do we need to give preference just based on race, when it will arguably solve itself through the standard admissions process?
Let me rephrase the first question: Is affirmitive action necessary for racial integration? I'd argue that it's not. Further, I never said that the LSAT tests all problem-solving skills - I merely said that the LSAT is carefully measured to ensure that no particular minority does statistically worse than another race. Therefore, my argument is that if the GPA and LSAT are the same, due to the fact that the LSAT is so carefully monitored and the student has the ability to choose a school which fits his or her background, then the admissions process will integrate itself, without a specified statement giving preference to members of a particular race.
I guess that what I am trying to say is this...if we have integration, we have diversity. We are going to have integration with or without Affirmative Action. Logically, we can have diversity without Affirmative Action. I fail to see the difference between integration and diversity - and by integration, I mean a racially mixed group of students, not assimilation.
My argument was simply that because the LSAT is racially neutral, and the student has the ability to choose a school that fits them, therefore everyone has an equal shot at admission to law school without affirmative action. Therefore, the admissions process will work itself out to ensure that there is a diverse student body without requiring quotas, index boosts, etc.
Page created in 0.457 seconds with 18 queries.