No more AA at Michigan Law?

[OperaAttorney]

It is also hopefully true that people, such as yourself, who are divisive and insulting, may learn to live with others without focusing on the differences between you. 

The next time you pray to your "ONE," ask Him/Her how He/She would like you to treat people.  I'm sure calling people "Miss KKK" wouldn't be included in your "To Do' list.

Eh, a little context is in order, I'd think.

While I do agree that being insulting doesn't help, he's responding to flame with flame. I'm confident he doesn't harbor such feelings towards people that show him the same sort of respect, even in disagreement.

But I could be wrong.

You're absolutely correct, TJ.  I'm very congenial. I love all people.  You know what else? At this point, I'll even have dinner with a polite racist who may want to reexamine his views.  What I will not do is tolerate ignorance from someone who has chosen to remain narrow minded for selfish (or other inexcusable) reasons.

[blondngreen]

Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

I guess it would take a refinement of thought, obviously lacking, to distinguish between those that distrust AA and a white supremacist piece of crap.  I hope your views don't stand in the way of you being the mediocre lawyer you were destined to be.

[Ender Wiggin]

Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

Miss KKK?  I feel so sorry you you.  It must be tough thinking that everyone who isn't completely for you, is against you.  I'm going to church now, I'll be sure to say a prayer for you.   How many more points did they attribute to my law school application for being a WASP?  This is law school, not life.

Don't forget to add your name to the prayer list as well.

"If we ever needed the Lord before, we sure do need Him now...." 

Whatever AA policy Michigan practiced or practices is for the sake of diversity in the classroom, not for reparation or remediation.  Its purpose is to bring together people of all races and backgrounds in order to foster greater understanding.  It is indeed true that "whites" benefit from that environment in many ways, both directly and indirectly.  It is also hopefully true that people, such as yourself, who are divisive and insulting, may learn to live with others without focusing on the differences between you. 

The next time you pray to your "ONE," ask Him/Her how He/She would like you to treat people.  I'm sure calling people "Miss KKK" wouldn't be included in your "To Do' list.

Commentary is only relevant when made within the proper context.  Read the entire thread, and then go off!    LOL

BlondnGreen's remarks are indicative of prejudiced apathy, something I find quite offensive.  BlondnGreen did not post her comments because she wanted to reach a "greater understanding."  She wrote insidious diatribes opposing AA b/c the alarmingly low numbers of minority students in US law schools is NOT a problem in her eyes.  In other words, it isn't a concern to her b/c it does not affect her.  I see this all the time at my predominantly white university, so I've got some empirical knowledge.

BlondnGreen may not be a KKK member, but her views on AA are not terribly different from those assumed by unabashed bigots, which include, amongst many others, the KKK folk.

And, one more thing: changing BlondnGreen's moniker to Miss KKK was not an attempt at insolence.  I simply wanted her to see where she may be headed. I wouldn't feel insulted if someone called me Mr. Nation-of-Islam or Mr. Black Panther.

I wasn't talking about her behavior at all.  I was talking about yours.  You may be completely correct in your assumptions, and you may be completely wrong.  I know many people who make many arguments for and against AA, and many of those who make the arguments against do so for completely race-neutral reasons. 

Though I support (at least limited) AA, I think it is a stupid policy.  I support it for selfish reasons as much as for anything else, but I support it only for the diversity I spoke of before.  I would NEVER support reparations.  In the case of AA for remedial purposes, it could possibly serve a purpose, but only for a limited time, and only with limited application. 

My wife and I argue all the time about AA, because she can't see how such a stupid policy could possibly be supported.  It is reverse discrimination, which often has the effect of creating greater animosity between the races; it often gives the impression that very well qualified minorities only got their positions because they were given special consideration or treatment; it is at best inexact and imperfect in its application, and at worst it is completely misguided. 

Given all of those reasons (and more), I still support AA, because there aren't any better alternatives that could be implemented (at least in my opinion).  Nearly four-hundred years of inequalities have certainly tilted the playing field against minorities in this country.  Though Irish immigrants could have just as easily been enslaved as African immigrants, they were not.  The racial component of slavery in America pretty much defeats any argument against AA made on the basis of the fact that pretty much every race or ethnic group in the world has been enslaved at one point or another.  Slavery was very often a temporary situation in other cultures, and ex-slaves could very often become wealthy, powerful men in the same society in which they had previously been enslaved.  Such was not the case in America.  Institutional racism, the "self-fulfilling prophecy," and many other factors have hampered any efforts to level the playing field.  Something has to be done, and most Americans are too lazy to fix the problem in any other way than with AA. 

I wasn't trying to insult you when I criticized your methods.  I was simply pointing out that you defeat your own purpose when you resort to insults instead of reasoned arguments.  Calling someone "Miss KKK" is not going to help her "...see where she may be headed."  Making arguments that she can understand, and more importantly that she can relate with, would be much more effective in convincing her the weakness of her position.  It would also have the added benefit of not turning observers against your position because they disagree with your tactics. 

I think it is possible that you do hold the moral high ground in this argument.  Thomas Jefferson said this about the matter: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!  The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.”  But if you want to hold the moral high ground, you must demonstrate yourself worthy of such a position.  Whether blondngreen is a good person who disagreed with you, or something more sinister, you can still hold yourself to a higher standard. 

[OperaAttorney]

Of course Michigan found away around it, look at the LSAT scores of some of the minorities they admitted.  If they were judged by the same standards as the rest of us, they'd hardly be attending a top 10 school.  I've known a lot of people who've gone to law school and would seem that those who scored in the 170s on the LSAT do tend to do better - there is a reason that law schools favor the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  There are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Whites get into top law schools with less-than-stellar LSAT scores, too.  Get off your idiotic soapbox before it collapses!

Your naivety is touching.  We all understand that as a beneficiary you have to defend AA at every available opportunity, but please, let's not pretend that there's any kind of AA for white people.

LOL.  Hey Miss KKK, if you don't know about the perks YOUR people get, then you're the one missing out.  Good luck!  You'll need it.

I guess it would take a refinement of thought, obviously lacking, to distinguish between those that distrust AA and a white supremacist piece of crap.  I hope your views don't stand in the way of you being the mediocre lawyer you were destined to be.

"I see your true colors shining through..." 

[OperaAttorney]

I wasn't trying to insult you when I criticized your methods.  I was simply pointing out that you defeat your own purpose when you resort to insults instead of reasoned arguments.  Calling someone "Miss KKK" is not going to help her "...see where she may be headed."  Making arguments that she can understand, and more importantly that she can relate with, would be much more effective in convincing her the weakness of her position.  It would also have the added benefit of not turning observers against your position because they disagree with your tactics.

Here's the sad truth: most people like BlondnGreen are NOT trying to understand anything about AA. She vehemently opposes it b/c she does not benefit directly from it.  She thinks it's wrong, your wife thinks it's stupid, you think it's stupid yet you support it, I think it's necessary (and definitely better than nothing) so I support it, etc.  Life goes on... 

I hope BlondnGreen gets admitted somewhere next year.  (If she gets rejected from all of her top choices, I guess she can sue the schools like poor Ms. Grutter and see how far she'll get.)  I'll definitely get some acceptance letters--with or without AA! I'm so not worried.

At this point, I'm not particularly interested in reasoning with BlondnGreen--her name ain't Sandra O'Connor!  Besides, I've got better things to do.

[t...]

The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.

[OperaAttorney]

The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.

Word! How long did it take for them to create such a wicked lie???

[t...]

Well, AA may be right or wrong - that can be debated. But to say that such a policy legitimizes divisive or racist sentiment is a red herring.

[PNym]

I think it is possible that you do hold the moral high ground in this argument.  Thomas Jefferson said this about the matter: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!  The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.” 

On a side note, one possible argument against affirmative action is precisely because it simply isn't possible for humans justice and knowledge of how to apportion blame and restitution to approach the standard required to remedy historical injustices. That standard would be the realm of what God could do, not man.

And furthermore, attempting to reach this impossibility may cause definite injustices in the present, such as by discriminating against more qualified candidates in favor of less-qualified, but superficially more "morally justifiable" candidates. Under your value system, would it be morally justifiable to discriminate against a Cambodian boat-person law school applicant with a 180 LSAT in favor of a 162-scoring 9th generation mulatto applicant from New Orleans whose ancestors has been free, and had even owned slaves, since the pre-bellum era?

[PNym]

I try to show my Chinese friends who still hate the Japanese this article, for the principle this article presents applies not just to the Czech/German conflict, but the injustices committed by the Imperial Japanese during the 2nd World War, and even to the historic injustice of slavery in America:

Back in the days of the Hapsburg Empire, there was a town in Bohemia called Budweis. The people in that town were called Budweisers and the town had a brewery which produced beer with the same name — but different from the American Budweiser.

Like many communities in Bohemia during that era, Budweis had people of both Czech and German ancestries, speaking different languages, though many were also bilingual. They got along pretty well and most people there thought of themselves as Budweisers, rather than as Czechs or Germans. But that would later change — for the worse — not only in Budweis, but throughout Bohemia.

The mayor of Budweis spoke both Czech and German but refused to be classified as a member of either group. His point was that we are all Budweisers.

As with virtually all groups in virtually all countries and in virtually all eras, there were differences between the Germans and the Czechs. Germans were more educated, more prosperous, and more prominent in business and the professions.

The German language at that point had a much wider and richer literature, the Slavic languages having acquired written versions centuries later than the languages of Western Europe. Educated people of whatever ethnicity were educated in German.

Those Czechs who wished to rise into the upper echelons, whether in business, the military, or the professions, had to master the German language and culture, in order to fit in with those already at the higher levels.

People on both sides learned to live with this situation and Czechs were welcomed into the German cultural enclaves when they mastered that culture. In Budweis, they could all be Budweisers.

As in so many other countries and in so many other times, the rise of a newly educated intellectual class in the 19th century polarized the society with ethnic identity politics. All over Bohemia, the new Czech intelligentsia urged Czechs to think of themselves as Czechs, not Bohemians or Budweisers or anything else that would transcend their ethnic identity.

Demands were made that street signs in Prague, which had been in both Czech and German before, now be exclusively in Czech. Quotas were demanded for a certain percentage of Czech music to be played by the Budweiser orchestra.

If such demands seem petty, their consequences were not small. People of German ancestry resisted ethnic classifications but the Czech intelligentsia insisted and Czech politicians went along with the trend on many issues, large and small.

Eventually, Germans as well began in self-defense to think of themselves as Germans, rather than as Bohemians or Budweisers, and to defend their interests as Germans. This ethnic polarization in the 19th century was a fateful step whose full consequences have not yet ended completely, even in the 21st century.

A crucial turning point was the creation of the new nation of Czechoslovakia when the Hapsburg Empire was broken up after the First World War. Czech leaders declared the new nation's mission to include a correction of "social injustice" so as to "put right the historic wrongs of the seventeenth century."

What were those wrongs? Czech nobles who revolted against the Hapsburg Empire back in the 17th century were defeated and had their lands confiscated and turned over to Germans. Presumably no one from the 17th century was still alive when Czechoslovakia was created in the 20th century, but Czech nationalists kept the grievance alive — as ethnic identity ideologues have done in countries around the world.

Government policies designed to undo history with preferential treatment for Czechs polarized the existing generation of Germans and Czechs. Bitter German reactions led eventually to demands that the part of the country where they lived be united with neighboring Germany. From this came the Munich crisis of 1938 that dismembered Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II.

When the Nazis conquered the whole country, the Germans now lorded it over the Czechs. After the war, the Czech reaction led to mass expulsions of Germans under brutal conditions that cost many lives. Today refugees in Germany are still demanding restitution.

If only the grievances of past centuries had been left in the past! If only they had all remained Budweisers or Bohemians.