you have never experienced racism (I'm assuming you're white), so you don't know what it's like.
I can't agree for the sake of diversity (again, because skin color does not determine personality), or to compensate for assumed racism in the system.
I would like someone already in this thread to explain to me why you aren't irked by the in-stater advantage in law school admissions. In-staters are given a large bump, they take very many more spots than race-based AA, they're given a huge tuition subsidy.If it weren't for in-staters, approximately 3x as many out-of-state with better numbers [i.e. "more qualified" in the usual parlance] would attend schools like Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, and Minnesota.And yet I never hear a word of complaint about that unearned advantage. What I do hear is a great deal of complaining about race-based AA, which takes up perhaps 5% of the spots at one of these schools rather than the 50, 60, 80% that the in-stater AA programs take up. I never hear a peep of complaint about the tuition subsidy that automatically accrues to admitted in-staters, even though the difference in tuition between out-of-staters and in-staters is enormous.I never hear any suggestion that Texans at UT, for example, are dumber, less educated, etc, or that students at UT should be skeptical of the in-state student population's right to be there.I don't hear these complaints from libertarians, I don't hear it from the LSAT whores, I don't here it from anyone.Why not?Think about it a little before posting a response.