here we go again...
1. AA was not designed to allow unqualified applicants into schools and jobs over qualified ones. It was designed to keep qualified minorities from being excluded for being a non-white male.
2. IF AA has been distorted it has been distored by the people enforcing it.
3. It is not reverse discrimination. Non-minorities are not being systematically excluded from admssions and jobs. If there was discrimination we would see a decrease in non-minority representation in schools and the workforce while seeing a significant increase in minorities.
4. People on this board and in general assume, incorrectly, that if i minority applicant gets in over a non-minority applicant he/she is benefinting from AA and is less qualified than the non-minority. People speaking out against AA focus will not ackowledge the fact that it was not their intellectual abilitities that kept minorities on the outskirts of the american dream, it was ystem wide discrimination for years.
5. No matter what u think law schools do look at other things besides numbers (NU comes to mind).
6. Minorities aren't taking "YOUR" seats b/c a seat at ur first choice or any law school is not gauranteed.
7. Minorities are pulling in numbers equal to or higher than urs.
8. Basing AA on socio-economic status alone will not work. In a system prone to discrimination what would happen is a situation that would lead once again to a situation where minorities will be excluded because of race. If u could satisfy AA by excepting only poor non-minorities, based on history, we will see a decrease in the representation of minorities on college campuses and in the workforce. there needs to be a way to use socio-economic status and URM status together without sacrificing one or the other.
9. LET THE ATTACKS BEGIN!!!
1. This is true, AA was intended to eliminate discrimination
2. By the left-wingers in American LSs, no way
3. Not true, only a blind person cannot see that minorities, for better or worse are given preferensial treatment. I is imposible to give one group pref. treatment and not discriminate against those who do not get it.
4. It was not, but other people on this board will not admit that minorities are given a boost in the admission process know. And by other people I might be refering to you.
5. That is true, NU prefers students who are not straight out of UG. Law schools look at other things. The main other thing is URM status. Although being published, having WE and other things can help, but that is off the subject.
6. The point here is that a student who has not proven himself to the extent that "YOUR" has should not get in 'over' said "YOUR." That is if you beleive in a meritocracy. Or in other words if you beleive that no one should be denied something bc of skin color/ethnicity
7. Good, then there is no reason to even concider race, we will have a proportional 1L class w/o it.
8. Are you kidding me, yes Yale is a racist school with racist adcomms, so is Colombia and Berkely. Damn racists are only admitting blacks and hispanics because of AA. And if AA is based on socio-economic status, they will get the white-bread class they have always wanted. The "u" you are refering to are the people who decide how many minorities they want to admit. They have no legal responsibility to admit underqualified students and they do it anyway.
9. I hope you do not see this as an attack and I appoligize for any sarcasm or if I misinterpreted what you said or if what I said is unclear. Obviously it is a complex issue and a few points cannot accurately portray one side or the other.