What irks me about AA

[eastend]

This thread is getting as old and tired as AA itself.  Look through my posts to get a clear picture of why AA is unconstitutional, and why this new SC will strike it down.  Yes, the defenders of AA will call you racist, but who cares what they think?  They see something that benefits them, and they don't want that benefit taken away.  The word 'entitlement' is used so often because AA feeds into a sense of entitlement.   My skin is a certain color, so even though I may not be as smart as that white person, I'm entitled to their space at that prestigious law school.  AA is ALL about a sense of entitlement.   It's either about reparations, or it's about how even though I'm middle class and received the same education as you, institutional racism entitles me to your spot. 

[philibusters]

How ironic is it that liberals are defending a state institution that makes distinctions based solely on race and how ironic is that conservatives are arguing the states don't have the power to make distinctions based on race when to do so makes legitimate policy sense.  Are liberal state righters now and conservatives going to fight the civil rights battles for minorities, probably not given Ashcroft's justice department objectives from 2002 to use the civil rights division to attack voter fraud over racial discriminatory practices, but still I find it odd that conservatives here are so sure its unconstitutional, when their is a valid reason to think that each state should be able to craft their own policy as the the 50 states are not all situated the same, states should be able to reflect the policy goals of a majority of its people and if they want AA so be it, and this "discrimination" certainly doesn't seem to be the type aimed at creating a two tiered society through repression that I think we can all agree that state should not be allowed to indulge in.  On other hand, why are liberals so sure it is constitutional, they are the most quick to use the equal protection clause in other contexts, if distinguishing on race is wrong in other situations, why isn't wrong here, does that mean racial distinguishing by a state institution is not inherently bad?...Obviously the answer to why the discrepancies is policy preferences, but its still worth considering.

Having a sense of entitlement is not inherently bad in response to the poster above, its only bad if it gives people incentives not to work their hardest as it then encourages inefficient behavior.  If entitlement is not giving people bad incentives its no difference than rich kids feeling entitled to a BMW when they are 16, in fact, while you may not feel you are entitled to anything like that, I am sure everybody makes assumptions about what they are entitled to.  Like I said, while it may be annoying it only becomes a bad thing if it gives me bad incentives on how to act, but I certainly don't think AA gives URM's incentives not to work hard, in fact it probably gives them incentives to work harder as their is potentially a bigger payoff for ones work.

[adlai]

Well, okay, one thing to consider is what would a world without race-based AA might look like. It might... very well look like last year's France, where French-born North African Muslims are discriminated against unofficially, but the overall effect is that they are isolated, causing greater tension that is detrimental to society. AA does work to bring employment discrimination to the forefront of everyone's mind, which is a good thing, because it is possible that without an AA policy, you'd see much more unofficial racism.

And there are instances where diversity very much does matter. For example: the police. Given the history of racial tension surrounding police departments, having diversity in police ranks is very much a practical good.

And... I can sign onto the reparations argument. And, most people hurt by race-based AA can still succeed in life, simply go to a slightly lower ranked school, and so on and so on. Still, still, on an individual level of one guy trying to hack it in this world, it sucks. Yes, there are society-wide benefits, but it doesn't benefit me, and it does make it slightly harder for me to succeed.

[jillibean]

I just want to point out that you seem to only use blacks as examples instead of all URM's. And I really hate to say it but I think you just need to get over it. All school's need diversity and to some schools it is the only way to maintain that. And..... it's not like half of the school is there because of AA. Its like 16/100- thats nothing. 16/100 is not enough to make a URM feel like a majority.Out of that 16- maybe 5 will be black, 1 will be american-indian, 7 will be hispanic, and the 3 will be something else. A lot of people dwell on AA and the 16 people in a class eho benefit from it but they still have to do the work and graduate just like the rest of the 84 people in the class

[BoRNnTHeUSA]

Chickens' coming home to roost!!! I love it

Thank your ancestors for the current standards.  Had they not conspired to keep out certain 'undesirables', the admissions process would not include check boxes for race, biased standardized tests, LORs, or other subtle practices designed to exclude.

So if you must be 'irked', be 'irked' that your ancestors initiated practices that arbitrarily deny fair opportunities for both their decedents as well as the decedents of the 'undesirables' they sought to exclude.

Who are you or anyone else to say that a person who has a lower LSAT score or UGPA is less deserving of the opportunity to attend Law School or any other institution.  The LSAT is not an aptitude test (as conceded by the LSAC), it is an achievement test.  It only measures your ability on the topics you are tested on; NO MORE!!!!!  As for Hardwork and grades, don't get it confused.  Just because an individual receives a lower grade in any particular subject, doesn't mean they didn't work hard.  I have known people to really struggle, really work hard, and yet the grades fail to reflect the actual effort exhorted.

Why not be 'irked' that you are an American Citizen and the one institution that controls every aspect of your life is limited to a 'select few'.  I thought it said 'For the people, by the people'.  People is plural right.  Why are you okay with being denied your right to participate in due process. 

There is a cancer that plagues the American culture. Until we rid out the root and remove all vestiges of its existence, it will continue to distract us from the REAL issues.

Edit: added we and comma

       

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

what irks me about AA?  hmmm...how about the whole debate about AA

I think what irks me about AA is that so many people that rail against it like to pretend our society is completely fair otherwise. That so many people who rail against AA are so for a equal society, and thus  draw their battle lines on AA, yet remain markedly silent on other issues that plague our society and effect equality.  That when people make arguments for AA, namely inequality, the people who are against AA blithely push those arguments to the side: " yeah yeah, its messed up but two rights dont make a wrong".  But do not argue with half as much vigor to eradicate those other inequalities.

I guess what pisses me off, is that on both sides of the debate their is so much self serving behavior disguised as rightousness.  its sickening.

I think everyone can agree AA is unfair.  I also think everyone can agree there are many aspects of our society that are unfair.  I dont think people should even talk about doing away with AA without putting it in context of the larger society, and proposing solutions for the other inequities in society. 

Basically, anyone who is gung hoe for eternal AA needs to quit looking for handouts.  And anyone that just wants it ending without looking at the institutional shortcomings that make AA necessary, needs to question their real reasons for being against AA.  And here's a hint: it has nothing to do with equality and fairness.  just my two cents.     

[BoRNnTHeUSA]

Again, Chickens' coming home to roost!!!!

The current admission's practices did not come into existence until 1922.  Starting in the fall of 1922,

"applicants were required to answer questions on "Race and Color', "Religious Preference,' "Maiden Name of Mother,' "birthplace of Father,' and "what change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? Explain fully).'"

WHY???

According to sociologist Jerome Karabel in "The Chosen" (Houghton Mifflin: $28), "The rise of Jews began to rise dramatically... The administration and alumni were up in arms.  Jews were thought to be sickly and grasping, grade--grubbing and insular.  They displaced the sons of wealthy Wasp alumni..."

Again, not a rant, just Chickens' coming home to roost!

 

[BoRNnTHeUSA]

Did you really just cite a book by publisher and price? And you're going to law school? Really?

No, I cited text from a article that included the publisher and the price (I thought if someone was interested in the book, the information pertaining to publisher and price would be useful).

Then again, if I have made any error in the manner in which I cited information, Legal writing and research would further help to correct that right?

[BoRNnTHeUSA]

"The rise of Jews began to rise dramatically"?   

If I understand it correctly, your argument here is "White people a century ago discriminated against Jews, so you shouldn't complain about AA, because you white people started it anyway."  Those weren't my chickens, so I don't see how they're coming home to roost.

When the process was working to the benefit of those who created it, there wasn't any 'irking' going on, they set by passively and watched.  Now that the same process is working against you, there is some sort of righteous indignation. Stop the whining, change the process.  But be certain that whatever change is instituted, it is not one that again works to your advantage.  Don't cry for change to benefit just you, but CRY for what will benefit all affected.

No, Bosco, it might not be your chickens, but it is the chickens of the predicament that we find ourselves in today.  Policies and practices were instituted to exclude.  Regardless of the intended 'undesirable', the affected outcome is still the same. 

[MachuPicchu]

Do I know everything about his app? no. Do you know everything about mine? no, also. I do know that just a few years ago, UMich gave URM's an automatic 20 points higher, which was the equivalent of something like 5-10 points on the LSAT.

I think AA has both positives and negatives, but, that aside, I'd be interested in why some people who find themselves mentally comparing their application factors with the presumed ones of URMs attending the same school (adlai, may I assume you are one of them?) assume URMs' applications were weaker and/or their scores lower. I have never automatically thought of individual URMs in that way (this is not to say that I reject statistics that show URMs as a whole perform lower on standardized tests).

Earlier in my life, I was part of an ongoing program that identified and brought together top-scoring ( a battery of standardized tests inlcuding some of the big-name ones) students. There was no personal statement, no "soft factors" opportunity--everybody involved had to have scored in a certain elite percentile on the experimental and then, later, big-name tests. Almost half of the program was non-European in origin, and a significant chunk of these was, further, of predominantly African or Native descent and/or Hispanic culture. So-called "Blacks" far outnumbered the West Asians (Arabs, Persians), South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis) and East Asians (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese). Only a few of these Black participants were of recent African origin; the majority were people whose ancestors had been in this country for five or six generations at minimum. People of European origin formed about a slim majority at around 60-65 percent.

The reason I tell you this is to let you know that there ARE many high-scoring and academically advanced minorities (particularly, African, Hispanic and Native ones, since they seem most relevant to most law schools) and I think it might be a bit precipitate of individuals to assume that the El Salvadoran or Black or Chickasaw law student sitting next to you in your T50 or T30 or T14 school was "put" there because of a boost to his or her credentials via some layperson's (non-AdCommm) amorphous idea of what constitutes AA. All of the people I interacted with in this ongoing program were high-scorers and precise thinkers, some with private school pedigrees and AP classes under their belts, others with less glittering facilities waiting for them when they left the program. We came from wildly divergent socio-economic backgrounds (to give you an idea, we had a wealthy Miami Cuban and a low-income Bolivian-American from urban Chicago). And when some of these Black and African and South American and Mexican/Chicano students made up lists of where they were applying to UG, (Harvard, Yale, the usual suspects), nobody--not the Euro-American students and not other minorities--batted an eyelash or breathed the letters "AA."

Those kids did end up going to top UG schools, and, for that matter, top law, medical, social work, education, business and engineering grad programs. Sadly, some of them were likely subjected to the uninformed and resentful opinions of fellow classmates who saw brown skin and thought "less-qualified." Yes, as adlai points out, we cannot know what another person's application included. That alone should give some comfort to those non-minorities who experience jealoousy or resentment when contemplating schools from which they were rejected.