or you can disagree with the inherently questionable proposition that the solution to racism is more racism
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.
-- 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
Taking on your premise piece by piece...
Well, this is a reasonable line of questioning.Some issues in your post I have answered here:
The other bits, I don't remember ever having suggested that there wasn't a trade-off between the number of URMs admitted and the number of non-URMs admitted. [If I have, point it out to me. If I haven't, change your tone].
There is a trade-off, and these schools judge that it is worth it to them. This is no different from any other trade-off that they make, by the way.
You say that you don't think that diversity of experience hews to specifically racial lines. Who does? What these schools are saying is that race is an important consideration in considering a diverse class, not the only consideration,
AND that it is the only aspect of diversity that cannot be currently satisfied without a lowering in the LSAT guidelines for admission. See? http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.msg1426394.html#msg1426394
When you have read through that thread, you can, if you like, post a response there.
A caveat -- be intellectually honest. If it just turns out that you don't like AA because you don't benefit from it, say so or keep mum.
If you have concerns about it other than that kind of motivation, I'd like to hear about them.
I myself am undecided about AA -- the arguments that you have attempted to deconstruct are not mine, but the schools' -- so I could maybe learn something from you.
Quote from: red. on November 09, 2006, 03:58:07 PMIt 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.
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.
God, you are so insufferably arrogant. Where on earth do you get the gall to take me to task for "my tone" simply because I pointed out that you mentioned the positive effects of having more URM lawyers without mentioning the negatives? And if you really wanted to nitpick about whose "tone" was more irritating, I would humbly submit any of your other posts in this thread as prime examples.