Black LSAT statistics

[leostrauss]

yeah, I read thomas' dissent there. Have you read seattle school district v parents? Roberts makes a remark about it in the oral argument, but then sorta leaves it. I'm wondering if this argument is taken seriously. Good point about the jews. So, the standard is: 1)must be discriminated against, and 2) must be effective discrimination. So, does this apply only broadly (meaning to the whole race)? If so, then how many jews would have to be effectively discriminated against to count? What does effective discrimination look like? If not, then does it apply to individuals? If it does, then shouldnt each person have to prove their own disadvantage? If not, then how does this work in practice? thanks

[leostrauss]

also, I thought it was grutter v bollinger. I could be wrong. I don't remember clearly

[leostrauss]

I don't have a position, because I think we need affirmative action, but I also fear that many times as we put these good ideas into practice we lose respect for what got us what little progress we have in the first place. I'm truly truly perplexed. I know people like Ginsburg, Stevens, Kennedy Breyer Thomas Roberts Souter Rehnquist Alito Scalia  etc realize what Thomas/Roberts are pointing out, but I dont think they take it seriously. Surely its not just because it's inconvenient to their arg. I think these things just get really sticky when put into practice, and I wish I had a way to understand in a clear/legal way where we are headed. I think it would cut down on the debate. I fear, though, both sides are too concerned about some sort of agenda to pause and think things through objectively/rationally/responsibly. That's no good. That gets us nowhere, or so I suspect. I could easily have it all wrong though, and that's why I'm slow to take a side.

[leostrauss]

Can i get that by googling it? If not, where can I get it? I will read it, and I appreciate the nudge in an informative direction.

[leostrauss]

I work at a law firm that has all of this stuff, but I'm not sure if they will let me check stuff out for leisure reading. Thanks a bunch though. I'll have access to a good law library in a matter of months

[Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!!]

enh.  I disagree mole.

I think the main reason Mexicans are granted that boost over say an Argentinian is because of the Mexican population.  If white hispanics were given the same boost as Mexicans would the Mexican perspective get heard?  Higher education has reasoned, no.  That Argentinians do not represent the Mexican perspective, thus Mexicans are given a boost above and beyond Argentinians to ensure Mexicans have a voice.  Indeed, the Mexican population in the US is growing exponentially.  Conversely, it seems schools have reasoned that a Jamaican (no matter how long hes lived in the US) can be a voice for American born blacks.  I'm not too sure that is an assumption that can be made.  To be frank, I think it has less to do with Diallo and the discrimination immigrant blacks face than with it merely being a way to tweak the numbers.

That said, I would never look at an immigrant derisively for receiving the boost.  As one person has already stated, I'm for more black faces.  period.  I mean Asians get hit over the head by AA, and American born blacks are beneffiting less from it, but white numbers always stay the same.  hmmm... 

[pikey]

enh.  I disagree mole.

I think the main reason Mexicans are granted that boost over say an Argentinian is because of the Mexican population.  If white hispanics were given the same boost as Mexicans would the Mexican perspective get heard?  Higher education has reasoned, no.  That Argentinians do not represent the Mexican perspective, thus Mexicans are given a boost above and beyond Argentinians to ensure Mexicans have a voice.  Indeed, the Mexican population in the US is growing exponentially.  Conversely, it seems schools have reasoned that a Jamaican (no matter how long hes lived in the US) can be a voice for American born blacks.  I'm not too sure that is an assumption that can be made.  To be frank, I think it has less to do with Diallo and the discrimination immigrant blacks face than with it merely being a way to tweak the numbers.

That said, I would never look at an immigrant derisively for receiving the boost.  As one person has already stated, I'm for more black faces.  period.  I mean Asians get hit over the head by AA, and American born blacks are beneffiting less from it, but white numbers always stay the same.  hmmm... 

You're confusing race and nationality.  A Mexican gets the same consideration regardless of whether he/she is White, Mestizo, etc.  There are plenty of White Mexicans who don't look like the 'stereotypical' Hispanic who get the same consideration as any other Mexican.

Schools have not reasoned that Jamaican blacks are a voice for American Blacks, they have reasoned that they are a Black voice.  Period.  Blackness is defined by 'racial' factors, not nationality.  Asian are defined by 'race', white people are defined by 'race'.  Obviously these are broad generalizations, but you get my point.

Hispanic is the only 'category' that is defined by nationality, because it has no racial identifier.  You can be Black, White or other and still be Hispanic.

[Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!!]

white hispanic is just a category that they have on aps.  Maybe I should have been more clear.  I understand that there are white mexicans (which actually pokes holes in your discrimination argument).  I also know what a mestizo is. 

"they have reasoned that they are a Black voice.  Period.  Blackness is defined by 'racial' factors, not nationality. "

and thats the problem.  if they were to be consistent across the board, and say a hispanic voice is a hispanic voice.  I would understand.  However schools clearly make the distinction between a Mexican and a Hispanic born in Spain.  I posit that this has to do with the prevalence of Mexicans in the US.  Why have people from Spain receiving the boost, when Mexicans are the vast majority of Hispanics in the US?  And thus need the representation.  However, American born blacks are just as prevalent as Mexicans.  And worthy of the same consideration, in regards to nationality, in my eyes.  If not, keep it consistant across the board.  Hispanic is hispanic.  Black is black.

[Miss P]

AA has a social policy component to it that is both retrospective & prospective. It isn't entirely and always about the 'merit', 'qualifications', 'obstacles overcome', etc that individual applicants bring to the table.

African-American is a problematic category, yes, but not nearly as problematic as 'hispanic' or any other designation. Schools should set aside a minimum # of spots for african-americans [a quota, yes]. Not because of whatever retrospective merit the particular applicant brings to the table, but because there is an strong prospective value to turning out african-american lawyers. 

Whereas schools make an attempt to distinguish betweenthe korean and the filipina, between the argentine and the puerto rican, they apparently make no such attempt to distinguish between African-American and Black. That's on them and not on the black applicant who marks the box.


ETA: butterz's posts are silly and annoying precisely because they traffic in the same kinds of half-truths that anti-AA people use. 

I think that I agree with you, but I'm not sure this is the crucial distinction.  Non-American black lawyers who want to practice in the U.S. bring at least some of the same special (if not unproblematically assessed )value as African American lawyers, right?  I could be missing something here.

I agree with you about the rest.  I'm just less sure, perhaps, that affirmative action programs really do lead to the kinds of comprehensive assessments of merit (however defined) we want.  Law schools look to cut corners, and I think they do so by admitting a minimum number of black applicants, and they assess those candidates principally based on numbers.  To this extent, African American applicants and international black applicants may really be pitted against each other.  

I still think the programs, as they stand, are better than any of the available (legal) alternatives (e.g., not actual, if flexible, quota systems -- which I would endorse), and I am still entirely behind (a) any school's attempts to admit and matriculate more black students, whether they be African American or otherwise black, and (b) any black applicant's "checking the box," whether they be African American or otherwise black.  I would just love to see schools take a more critical look at the value of the LSAT, for example.

EDIT to correct an embarrassing typo, forever captured in Moni's and Gao's posts.

[Special Agent Dana Scully]

Gao, I really wish you'd stop changing you name all the time...I get too confused