Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Just really frustrated about the lack of unrepresented minority at law schools..  (Read 22811 times)

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
eh, he might honestly be unsure about it.  i mean gratz-grutter is kind of splitting hairs.

Eh, the kid is referring to his reading of the statistics in the dissents.  I think he knows the difference: two programs; two holdings.  As for whether O'Connor was able to come up with a principled distinction between the two programs, I think you're right.  It's her typical muddle.  (And, FWIW, the undergraduate program looks much less like a quota system than the law school program does, if that's what strikes fear in so many hearts.)
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Qui Ju

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
eh, he might honestly be unsure about it.  i mean gratz-grutter is kind of splitting hairs.

Eh, the kid is referring to his reading of the statistics in the dissents.  I think he knows the difference: two programs; two holdings.  As for whether O'Connor was able to come up with a principled distinction between the two programs, I think you're right.  It's her typical muddle.  (And, FWIW, the undergraduate program looks much less like a quota system than the law school program does, if that's what strikes fear in so many hearts.)

i'm generally disposed to giving people the benefit of the doubt.  but eh, we'll see.

Qui Ju

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Why can't people who don't know or aren't sure simply ask questions, read, or stfu?

people should know when they're conquered?

you expect this level of self-awareness why?

Qui Ju

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
There's no doubt that the equal protection clause applies to the states (and their schools.)

However, in order to violate the equal protection clause, you have to show that AA policies are in violation of the laws of the United States.  (The equal protection clause makes the US constitution applicable to the states.)  Other than that, states can do whatever they want.

Er, not exactly.  It's the DPC through which the Bill of Rights has (mostly) been incorporated.  Furthermore, state statutes and administrative decisions (such as admissions and hiring decisions at the public universities) are reviewable under the EPC.

Nonetheless, the state of the law now, as bosco surely knows, is that law school affirmative action programs that give individualized, holistic review to applications with the aim of creating diverse class are constitutional.  Thus, a throwaway line about "violating the 14th Amendment through AA" is just inflammatory and dishonest rhetoric.

Well, yes I know the state of the law now, I was just stating my disagreement with it.  I didn't think anyone would see my post and say "Wow, the current state of the law says that AA violates the 14th amendment, and schools are still doing it illegally."  Perhaps I was being inflammatory, but I wasn't trying to be dishonest.  I figured people would know that I meant - which is in my opinion, AA should be held unconstitutional.  I wasn't trying to imply that AA is currently held unconstitutional by the Court - I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

To clarify, I've read a bunch of the big AA cases (adarand, bakke, and the michigan cases) and in reading the Michigan law case, I seem to agree more with the Scalia/Rehnquist/Thomas dissents than O'Connor and the majority.  My knowledge and opinions are based on an undergrad Constitutional Law class, so I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert and that there are some questions that mugatu was asking that I don't really know the answer to - so I appreciate you helping me out.  But I think have the general idea of what's going on in those cases, namely all the justices are analyzing Michigan Law's AA program under strict scrutiny - O'Connor and the majority are upholding it under strict scrutiny, while the dissenters are not.  A couple months ago when I read the opinions and we discussed them in class, I agreed with the dissenters' analysis.

if there's a dissent that i somewhat agreed with, it was rehnquist's: "if it looks like a quota...  and we've already ruled out quotas."

but assuming on a theoretical level that it wasn't an actual quota, i don't see it failing strict scrutiny. 

of course, it's all make believe anyway.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Well, yes I know the state of the law now, I was just stating my disagreement with it.  I didn't think anyone would see my post and say "Wow, the current state of the law says that AA violates the 14th amendment, and schools are still doing it illegally."  Perhaps I was being inflammatory, but I wasn't trying to be dishonest.  I figured people would know that I meant - which is in my opinion, AA should be held unconstitutional.  I wasn't trying to imply that AA is currently held unconstitutional by the Court - I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

To clarify, I've read a bunch of the big AA cases (adarand, bakke, and the michigan cases) and in reading the Michigan law case, I seem to agree more with the Scalia/Rehnquist/Thomas dissents than O'Connor and the majority.  My knowledge and opinions are based on an undergrad Constitutional Law class, so I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert and that there are some questions that mugatu was asking that I don't really know the answer to - so I appreciate you helping me out.  But I think have the general idea of what's going on in those cases, namely all the justices are analyzing Michigan Law's AA program under strict scrutiny - O'Connor and the majority are upholding it under strict scrutiny, while the dissenters are not.  A couple months ago when I read the opinions and we discussed them in class, I agreed with the dissenters' analysis.

Neat.  Like I said, you knew better.  In my book, that counts as both inflammatory and dishonest.  Your reference to the "dissents" in an earlier posts so indicated; they clearly wouldn't have been dissenting opinions had your esteemed interpretation of the constitution won out.

I'm sure you do have a general idea of what's going on in those cases.  What you're obviously missing is an understanding of the origins of the 14th Amendment, the history of race relations in our country, and the lack of access to higher education for some minority communities.  
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Qui Ju

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
That's not an answer to your questions, but there it is: I'm tired of it.

sounds like someone hasn't lowered their expectations of humanity enough.

Qui Ju

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
I'm sure you do have a general idea of what's going on in those cases.  What you're obviously missing is an understanding of the origins of the 14th Amendment, the history of race relations in our country, and the lack of access to higher education for some minority communities.  

hey your opinion: bakke right or wrong?

Ender Wiggin

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1620
    • View Profile
    • LSN Profile

As for Quibbles, I don't see the problem in people stating opinions, even when they have not mastered the subject matter 100%.  If people only said things they were 100% sure of, no one would ever say anything.  The people responding to me know more about this than I do, but I'm sure they are not even 100% sure of all the legal questions, technicalities, history etc. involved.  By responding to me, they're helping me understand the topic better, and maybe even further clarifying their own views a little more.  I don't see the harm in that.

You may have noticed, bosco, that people feel most free to be uninformed and rude on subjects that relate to race and that are most likely to be offensive to minorities.  That is not a coincidence.  There are many other topics on which one can have an uninformed opintion -- for example, should consideration be done away with?; is the reasonable person standard equivalent to the rational person standard?; is string theory science?; is it possible to make sense of The Real?; where are we on the Laffer curve?

But no.  The very first subject that these people turn to is race. Anything goes, you see, because who gives a sh*t if minority applicants are called "unqualified", "uneducated", "lazy", "undeserving of admission to X school" and so on? 

I just wanted to point out your spelling error to further elucidate the point that it is ok to criticize mistakes that others make even if you make the same mistakes yourself.

Also, your comments about people "feel[ing] most free to be uninformed and rude on subjects that relate to race and that are most likely to be offensive to minorities" is a clear example of dicto simpliciter.  From the limited examples I have seen of the quality of your comments, I would have to say that this is not your finest.  I, for one, feel free to be uninformed and rude on many subjects, and race never enters into the equation.  

LSN


Michigan Law Class of 2011

Qui Ju

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
I don't disagree with Quibbles at all.

You owe an apology to struggles and a responsibility to yourself to become more thoughtful and informed.   I simply can't engage in a discussion where the standards for conduct are so low.  Peace.

i still don't understand why you insist on addressing people whom you should be ignoring.

Ender Wiggin

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1620
    • View Profile
    • LSN Profile
I don't disagree with Quibbles at all.

You owe an apology to struggles and a responsibility to yourself to become more thoughtful and informed.   I simply can't engage in a discussion where the standards for conduct are so low.  Peace.

Why do I owe an apology to struggles?  For saying that his grammar and spelling need work?  They do!  There is nothing wrong with that, unless you think he should be held to a lower standard, or that he should not strive to be the best that he can be.  

I recognize the responsibility I have to myself to become more thoughtful and informed.  I also see the value of discussion and debate in achieving those goals.  Like I said, if I'm full of crap, call me on it.  It won't hurt my feelings.  

LSN


Michigan Law Class of 2011