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?