you have never experienced racism (I'm assuming you're white), so you don't know what it's like.
J, if you didn't bring enough penis for everyone, you shouldn't have brought any penis at all.
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.
Page created in 0.501 seconds with 19 queries.