Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Proposal 2 and UofMich  (Read 28695 times)

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2006, 04:17:16 PM »
I'd rather it not be a factor, and I certainly think it should be weighted less.  But I do believe in value-based admissions -- just disagree on the values and the relative weight. 

BrerAnansi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1276
  • Thread Killer
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2006, 04:22:13 PM »
Well you either do or you don't...you can't conditionally agree with it...if one factor is to weighed less, it means another has to weighed more...and *someone* will benefit from that reorganization...you either trust that adcoms know what they're doing or you call for a complete overhaul..anything less is approaching hypocrisy...
Grrr...

Quote from: 1LCorvo
If there aren't any arguments against my claims, then I'll depart gracefully. Feel free to continue the concordant attack on my character, it's funny.

Quote from: Saxibbles
Hugs,
Look to the f-ing left.

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2006, 04:43:09 PM »
Quote
Well you either do or you don't...you can't conditionally agree with it...if one factor is to weighed less, it means another has to weighed more...and *someone* will benefit from that reorganization...you either trust that adcoms know what they're doing or you call for a complete overhaul..anything less is approaching hypocrisy...

I don't think this is entirely true...
I think that admissions should include what you describe as "value judgements" (WE vs. PS vs. resume vs. life challenges overcome) but I do not think that race should be one of those values.

redemption

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2006, 05:02:19 PM »
but I do not think that race should be one of those values.

Why not?

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2006, 05:39:33 PM »
I am starting wonder why Red always gets to play Socrates here.

Why don't I think race should be one of those values?

Because I don't think that a skin color is a special skill or talent.  I don't think that a skin color is an accomplishment. I don't think a skin color is a measure of ability.  I also don't think that a skin color is an obstacle to be overcome or that should be "overcome".  I don't think a skin color makes you a more interesting person, and I don't think a skin color makes you more or less deserving than anyone else of receiving a particular education.  And a skin color doesn't make you more qualified to study the law at a particular institution.

I would have voted for Proposal 2 and I think UofMich should follow the law. 

But I don't know why I'm having to defend the concept of opposition to AA when EVERYONE on here knows the arguments for or against. I don't understand why my rehashing of these arguments is interesting to anybody and would like to haul this old dead horse off to the glue factory.

All I have been trying to say is that I believe there can be diversity without race as a determining factor. 

redemption

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #55 on: November 09, 2006, 05:58:07 PM »
I think the idea, parsely, is that lots of people, including adcomms, believe that being black or hispanic is significant thing in and of itself because we still live in a racist society.

Starting from that assumption, they propose that race-based AA would have at least 3 benefits:
- it would counteract unconscious racism in the admissions process, and
- it would lead to more black lawyers, thereby reducing the prevalence of racism in the society over the long haul, and
- contributing diversity of experience to the classroom

It seems to me that in order to be aganist race-based AA, you would have to deny either the assumption or some other step in this reasoning, while preserving the integrity of your stance on socio-economic AA.

In other words, you would have to have a strong argument to deny a particular law school from excercising its judgment on this matter by saying

-- we absolutely do not live in a racist society
-- there is no danger of unconsciuos racism in the admissions process
-- there is no policy purpose that could be served by either turning out more black or hispanic lawyers or by turning them out from elite schools
-- there is nothing to be gained from having a black classmate's perspective in constitutional law classes, etc

Therefore, race-based AA is bunk and I'm against it.

Can you say any of these things?




LAcreole

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
  • The Struggle Continues
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #56 on: November 09, 2006, 06:10:40 PM »


All I have been trying to say is that I believe there can be diversity without race as a determining factor. 


Wishful thinking, but very naive/unrealistic in this world. I would like to think that adcoms will not pick an applicant just because daddy is a CEO over a major F500 company, but they will. It isn't fair but it's been given to a certain group of people and it certainly isn't from my group.
Sellouts for sale: 19.99 for reg. and 29.99 for the limit edition ones. Disclaimer: Not for a limited time only,they keep coming by the mintues.

mae8

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #57 on: November 09, 2006, 06:18:31 PM »
It seems to me that in order to be aganist race-based AA, you would have to deny either the assumption or some other step in this reasoning, while preserving the integrity of your stance on socio-economic AA.

or you can disagree with the inherently questionable proposition that the solution to racism is more racism.


 "The Constitution abhors classifications based on race... every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all. 'Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering, the equal protection principle reflects our Nation’s understanding that such classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and our society.' Adarand Construction, Inc. v. Peña,, 515 U.S. 200, 240 (1995)"
Emory '09

parsley

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #58 on: November 09, 2006, 06:23:23 PM »
Red - dead horse.

I'm not stupid, and I do understand their arguments.  Some of them I do not accept as valid and the others I do not feel outweigh the damage done by the practice of affirmative action.

Also, Red, I come here because I find a lot of the people on here enjoyable. Even the ones I disagree with. I like a good debate now and then, and am more than willing to admit when I'm wrong or have made a mistaken assumption about someone.  And I like coming on to LSD because I'm waiting for my law school decisions and it's nice to commisserate with others in the same position.

That said, I don't find talking to you enjoyable.  You're rude and condescending and have apparently been given the gift of infallibility because I haven't seen you admit you're wrong on very many threads (if at all).  Because this is my leisure time, I'm going to to spend it talking to other people I enjoy about things I find interesting; and I'm more or less going to pretend you don't exist because that is what I would probably do if you wanted to spend my leisure time with me in real life.  And I'm sure you think I'm stupid and don't like me either, but hey, whatever, that happens sometimes.
 

redemption

  • Guest
Re: Proposal 2 and UofMich
« Reply #59 on: November 09, 2006, 06:23:40 PM »
or you can disagree with the inherently questionable proposition that the solution to racism is more racism.

Oh, gee. You want to trade slogans.