Just really frustrated about the lack of unrepresented minority at law schools..

[Astro]

I forgot to mention perhaps the most dangerous thing about Bakke: the focus on diversity as the sole constitutional rationale for affirmative action programs in education.  I can imagine more significant and demonstrable government interests (remediation, etc.).

Again, bingo.  Bakke's rationale allows for crazies to do "diversity consultations".  Bakke's rationale is (almost legitimate) cannon fodder for opponents of affirmative action.  It needs work.

[Qui Ju]

I forgot to mention perhaps the most dangerous thing about Bakke: the focus on diversity as the sole constitutional rationale for affirmative action programs in education.  I can imagine more significant and demonstrable government interests (remediation, etc.).

Again, bingo.  Bakke's rationale allows for crazies to do "diversity consultations".  Bakke's rationale is (almost legitimate) cannon fodder for opponents of affirmative action.  It needs work.

gunner.

and grutter's rationale?

[Miss P]

I forgot to mention perhaps the most dangerous thing about Bakke: the focus on diversity as the sole constitutional rationale for affirmative action programs in education.  I can imagine more significant and demonstrable government interests (remediation, etc.).

right, obviously even a quota would require individual attention, but i meant to draw an either or distinction (i.e. my choices WOULD have been mutually exclusive, somewhat).  

Do you mean, then, do I prefer a Gratz-type program or a Grutter-type program?  I think Gratz is better, but it might not work as well for a law school.  In general, I favor more open (in the sense of publicized) standards.

[Astro]

i don't know, i like the diversity thing, if only because it's basically saying: "hey white people, this is good for YOU."

though personally i think the best way of thinking about it is in terms of adversity, etc. etc.

If I may speak for Miss P (which, of course, I may not, but I'm going to do it anyway), the other rationales behind AA are also saying, "Hey white people, this is good for YOU," except there's a fog of ignorance that prevents this from being seen. 

"Hey white people*, righting a centuries-long injustice by subtle measures in a few areas to level the playing field will eventually help improve those 'issues' you worry about -- you know, them poors, them illegals, them black communities with them gangsters..."




Note:  definitely does not apply to all white people across the board.

[Qui Ju]

i don't know, i like the diversity thing, if only because it's basically saying: "hey white people, this is good for YOU."

though personally i think the best way of thinking about it is in terms of adversity, etc. etc.

If I may speak for Miss P (which, of course, I may not, but I'm going to do it anyway), the other rationales behind AA are also saying, "Hey white people, this is good for YOU," except there's a fog of ignorance that prevents this from being seen. 

"Hey white people*, righting a centuries-long injustice by subtle measures in a few areas to level the playing field will eventually help improve those 'issues' you worry about -- you know, them poors, them illegals, them black communities with them gangsters..."




Note:  definitely does not apply to all white people across the board.

this requires acknowledgement of fault.  people won't do this because people suck.

you think gratz system is preferable?  huh.  okay.

[Miss P]

Oh ok sorry...I didn't catch your reference to my earlier posts.  I'm not going to go back and read my earlier posts.  But my general position on AA is that I question whether it does more harm than good, and I'm sure the earlier posts reflect that.

I also agree that with what you're saying about quotas - if you're going to take race into consideration, I don't see why quotas are such a bad idea.  I think my problem is that fundamental problem of whether or not to take race into consideration - I see the benefits you're alluding to, so I don't think I'm necessarily ignorant on race relations, history, etc., but I also think there are some negative effects, or potential negative effects.  By the way, I'm not necessarily opposed to AA - I'm just unsure about it - just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you for your thoughtful and honest responses.  We disagree sharply on whether the potential negative effects of affirmative action programs could ever outweigh the (real) benefits, but I appreciate the care you've taken to clarify your position.  I'm sorry I've been a bit hostile.

[Qui Ju]

More, even, than the "they're taking my spot" exhibition of entitlement, the idea that one feels that one can make a strong affirmative statement on a subject that one doesn't understand at all is both baffling and annoying.  Yet another signpost in the decline of our civilization.

The right to privacy doesn't exist!

Too obscure?

they screwed up that entire line in my opinion.

[Miss P]

S2DNT, man, just cut your losses, eh?

[Qui Ju]

S2DNT, man, just cut your losses, eh?

ALL THREE OF YOU!

seriously people.  seriously.

::falls asleep::

[Miss P]

you think gratz system is preferable?  huh.  okay.

Why not?  It announced clear standards, gave bumps to some groups of students based on their perceived disadvantages (and statistical evidence), and then permitted individualized review of all borderline candidates.  As long as schools are going to rely on standardized tests and grades, they should contextualize those numbers as much as possible.