Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?  (Read 2050 times)

difinity

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« on: June 29, 2007, 11:59:06 AM »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062800896.html?hpid=sec-education

Welcome to the Roberts court!  I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that if consideration of race can't be used in the assignment of students in grade/high school, then post-secondary education admission and race-based scholarships are the next under the gun. 


160 / ~3

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2007, 10:52:27 PM »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062800896.html?hpid=sec-education

Welcome to the Roberts court!  I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that if consideration of race can't be used in the assignment of students in grade/high school, then post-secondary education admission and race-based scholarships are the next under the gun. 




Hmm, that would seem logical, but this case dealt with a pretty big issue unto itself.  This has been a contentious issue for decades, almost since Brown v. Board of Education II.  I agree I think this does indicate the court's logic and rationale, which would not support AA, on the other hand, this was not the court dealing with a bigger issue (AA) in smaller steps to eventually get rid of it, this was the court trying to decide a contentious issue for its own sake.  So yes, I do agree this is probably pretty indicative of the court's view of the relationship between race and education, on the other hand I would not go so far as to say this is a first step in finding AA impermissible. 
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

NotSmails

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
Re: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2007, 07:23:16 PM »
Grutter would have been decided differently w Alito in place of O'Conner.  It's only a matter of time.


I was just surprised the Michigan lawyers could keep a straight face while saying race only constituted a small fraction of the "total applicant" after the other side brought the stats out and showed that 90% of blacks with a 155-160 were accepted (less than 1% of whites were accepted with this score) and you had to go to 173 to find a score where 90% of whites were accepted.

Small, marginal boost indeed.

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2007, 10:36:44 PM »
Grutter would have been decided differently w Alito in place of O'Conner.  It's only a matter of time.


I was just surprised the Michigan lawyers could keep a straight face while saying race only constituted a small fraction of the "total applicant" after the other side brought the stats out and showed that 90% of blacks with a 155-160 were accepted (less than 1% of whites were accepted with this score) and you had to go to 173 to find a score where 90% of whites were accepted.

Small, marginal boost indeed.

You'd be surprised, I am just a summer intern before my third year of law school, but sometimes at the firm where I am working I will think umm, our client as a huge whole in our class, yet I will deny that wholeheartedly and with a 100% conviction if somebody else said that, you can really get into your role as advocate.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

naturallybeyoutiful

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Everything is everything
    • View Profile
Re: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2007, 12:14:34 PM »
You'd be surprised, I am just a summer intern before my third year of law school, but sometimes at the firm where I am working I will think umm, our client as a huge whole in our class, yet I will deny that wholeheartedly and with a 100% conviction if somebody else said that, you can really get into your role as advocate.

 ??? ??? ??? ???  I am having trouble following your post. 
Harvard Law: What, like it's hard?

naturallybeyoutiful

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Everything is everything
    • View Profile
Re: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2007, 02:26:44 PM »
You'd be surprised, I am just a summer intern before my third year of law school, but sometimes at the firm where I am working I will think umm, our client as a huge whole in our class, yet I will deny that wholeheartedly and with a 100% conviction if somebody else said that, you can really get into your role as advocate.

 ??? ??? ??? ???  I am having trouble following your post. 

 :D

Translation:

"You'd be surprised. I am just a summer intern before my third year of law school, but sometimes at the firm where I am working, I will think umm, there is a huge hole in the case that we are making on behalf of our client. Yet, if challenged, I would deny it. One can quite easily drink one's own Kool-Aid, which is the essence of being a good advocate."


 :)  You are a genius!  What a difference a few words and punctuation marks make!  Thanks.  I get it now!
Harvard Law: What, like it's hard?

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2007, 12:02:38 AM »
You'd be surprised, I am just a summer intern before my third year of law school, but sometimes at the firm where I am working I will think umm, our client as a huge whole in our class, yet I will deny that wholeheartedly and with a 100% conviction if somebody else said that, you can really get into your role as advocate.

 ??? ??? ??? ???  I am having trouble following your post. 

Yeah, I am a choppy writer.  For what its worth, the attorneys who argued that case almost definitely believed wholeheartedly in their arguments, not only as attorney's, but in their non-legal life too.  I was making a side comment unrelated to Grutter on how when you are arguing before a court you take on the role of advocate and you are more than willing to blind yourself to the facts-to do otherwise would mean to acknowledge you are compromising your morals by arguing for a result that probably is not just, which even if true, would not be good for the self-esteem.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School

Letsgo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2007, 12:06:20 AM »
Grutter would have been decided differently w Alito in place of O'Conner.  It's only a matter of time.


I was just surprised the Michigan lawyers could keep a straight face while saying race only constituted a small fraction of the "total applicant" after the other side brought the stats out and showed that 90% of blacks with a 155-160 were accepted (less than 1% of whites were accepted with this score) and you had to go to 173 to find a score where 90% of whites were accepted.

Small, marginal boost indeed.

O'Connor
Cardozo '09

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Will SCOTUS Decision errode law schools positions on URMs?
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2007, 08:41:35 AM »
Grutter would have been decided differently w Alito in place of O'Conner.  It's only a matter of time.


I was just surprised the Michigan lawyers could keep a straight face while saying race only constituted a small fraction of the "total applicant" after the other side brought the stats out and showed that 90% of blacks with a 155-160 were accepted (less than 1% of whites were accepted with this score) and you had to go to 173 to find a score where 90% of whites were accepted.

Small, marginal boost indeed.

O'Connor

Justice O'Connor is the chancellor of William and Mary but the dean of students sent out an email saying see Justice O'Conner speak on X matter, he later sent out a corrective email noting the mis-spelling.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School