[Some] minorities [agree]....Class based AA.

[Kirk Lazarus]

Well, again, the concern is that this particular preferences is per se a form of racial discrimination, which at least technically violates Equal Protection, unless you buy into the new version of "separate but equal" in terms of admissions standards.  (And urms, of course, are also eligible for legacy preferences.) 

However, I have no problem eliminating legacy admissions if that's what it takes to create more racial justice in admissions generally. 

The rest of your argument makes some good points, however I couldn't let this statement slide because it is legally incorrect. 

AA programs administered by the states are one of the few exceptions where state action involving race actually does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  This is true largely because (putting aside our personal feelings for a second) race based AA, when used correctly, is a benign form of state action that is supposed to be used in a very narrowly tailored manner and designed to remedy past discrimination, which is a compelling government interest.  AA programs which pass this strict Constitutional scrutiny do not violate Equal Protection.

Really? I didn't think remedying past discrimination was still a compelling state interest. I thought only diversity was the surviving compelling state interest for Affirmative Action?

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

I agree with Obama, we need AA based on circumstance, not race.

I think you meant to say "not solely based on race," since AA based on circumstance would, of course, have to be inclusive of race because race can be a part of one's overall circumstances.

You know for a Kappa you are not so bad.
06

Thank you my Black and Gold brother from another mother. Not to shabby yourself....for an Alpha. 

I didn't misspeak.  AA based on circumstance wouldn't factor in race.  If it did, then Mr.Obama's kids would get some points for being black.  Racism exists, but how did that affect Obama's kids' education?  It didn't, correct?  No, being black or hispanic would be irrelevant, the only relevant thing would be your circumstances...Class based AA for want of a better term.

I submit that AA based on circumstances must consider ALL circumstances, including race, and apply those circumstances accordingly on a case by case basis.  In the case of Obama's kids for example, his children do not cease to be black merely because their father is Obama.  Nevertheless, in terms of admissions and considering ALL relevant circumstances, the circumstance of their race would be offset by the circumstance of their parent's affluence and/or legacy status, thus canceling each other out and forcing the ad com to look to other factors.  The children of other black parents applying to school may not be in such a great position as the Obama's.  That's why it's important to review ALL of the relevant circumstances on a case by case basis. 

I don't think we can adopt a system that always ignores or relies solely on race any more than we can adopt a system that always ignores or relies solely on economic class.  The two criteria are not necessarily mutually exclusive in my humble opinion.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Well, again, the concern is that this particular preferences is per se a form of racial discrimination, which at least technically violates Equal Protection, unless you buy into the new version of "separate but equal" in terms of admissions standards.  (And urms, of course, are also eligible for legacy preferences.) 

However, I have no problem eliminating legacy admissions if that's what it takes to create more racial justice in admissions generally. 

The rest of your argument makes some good points, however I couldn't let this statement slide because it is legally incorrect. 

AA programs administered by the states are one of the few exceptions where state action involving race actually does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  This is true largely because (putting aside our personal feelings for a second) race based AA, when used correctly, is a benign form of state action that is supposed to be used in a very narrowly tailored manner and designed to remedy past discrimination, which is a compelling government interest.  AA programs which pass this strict Constitutional scrutiny do not violate Equal Protection.

Really? I didn't think remedying past discrimination was still a compelling state interest. I thought only diversity was the surviving compelling state interest for Affirmative Action?

In Grutter, the Court held that remedying past discrimination is still a valid compelling state interest in line with previous decisions like City of Richmond v. Croson and Bakke, and then they specifically added achieving racial diversity in schools to the list of compelling state interests.

[Kirk Lazarus]

Well, again, the concern is that this particular preferences is per se a form of racial discrimination, which at least technically violates Equal Protection, unless you buy into the new version of "separate but equal" in terms of admissions standards.  (And urms, of course, are also eligible for legacy preferences.) 

However, I have no problem eliminating legacy admissions if that's what it takes to create more racial justice in admissions generally. 

The rest of your argument makes some good points, however I couldn't let this statement slide because it is legally incorrect. 

AA programs administered by the states are one of the few exceptions where state action involving race actually does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  This is true largely because (putting aside our personal feelings for a second) race based AA, when used correctly, is a benign form of state action that is supposed to be used in a very narrowly tailored manner and designed to remedy past discrimination, which is a compelling government interest.  AA programs which pass this strict Constitutional scrutiny do not violate Equal Protection.

Really? I didn't think remedying past discrimination was still a compelling state interest. I thought only diversity was the surviving compelling state interest for Affirmative Action?

In Grutter, the Court held that remedying past discrimination is still a valid compelling state interest in line with previous decisions like City of Richmond v. Croson and Bakke, and then they specifically added achieving racial diversity in schools to the list of compelling state interests.

ahh, good to know.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Well, again, the concern is that this particular preferences is per se a form of racial discrimination, which at least technically violates Equal Protection, unless you buy into the new version of "separate but equal" in terms of admissions standards.  (And urms, of course, are also eligible for legacy preferences.) 

However, I have no problem eliminating legacy admissions if that's what it takes to create more racial justice in admissions generally. 

The rest of your argument makes some good points, however I couldn't let this statement slide because it is legally incorrect. 

AA programs administered by the states are one of the few exceptions where state action involving race actually does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  This is true largely because (putting aside our personal feelings for a second) race based AA, when used correctly, is a benign form of state action that is supposed to be used in a very narrowly tailored manner and designed to remedy past discrimination, which is a compelling government interest.  AA programs which pass this strict Constitutional scrutiny do not violate Equal Protection.

Really? I didn't think remedying past discrimination was still a compelling state interest. I thought only diversity was the surviving compelling state interest for Affirmative Action?

In Grutter, the Court held that remedying past discrimination is still a valid compelling state interest in line with previous decisions like City of Richmond v. Croson and Bakke, and then they specifically added achieving racial diversity in schools to the list of compelling state interests.

ahh, good to know.

Yeah, here's a quote for ya:


"In other words, the Law School asks us to recognize, in the context of higher education, a compelling state interest in student body diversity.  We first wish to dispel the notion that the Law School's argument has been foreclosed, either expressly or implicitly, by our affirmative-action cases decided since Bakke. It is true that some language in those opinions might be read to suggest that remedying past discrimination is the only permissible justification for race-based governmental action . . . But we have never held that the only governmental use of race that can survive strict scrutiny is remedying past discrimination. Nor, since Bakke, have we directly addressed the use of race in the context of public higher education. Today, we hold that the Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body."  Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 328 (2003) (emphasis added).

[Freak]

Well, again, the concern is that this particular preferences is per se a form of racial discrimination, which at least technically violates Equal Protection, unless you buy into the new version of "separate but equal" in terms of admissions standards.  (And urms, of course, are also eligible for legacy preferences.) 

However, I have no problem eliminating legacy admissions if that's what it takes to create more racial justice in admissions generally. 

The rest of your argument makes some good points, however I couldn't let this statement slide because it is legally incorrect. 

AA programs administered by the states are one of the few exceptions where state action involving race actually does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  This is true largely because (putting aside our personal feelings for a second) race based AA, when used correctly, is a benign form of state action that is supposed to be used in a very narrowly tailored manner and designed to remedy past discrimination, which is a compelling government interest.  AA programs which pass this strict Constitutional scrutiny do not violate Equal Protection.

Really? I didn't think remedying past discrimination was still a compelling state interest. I thought only diversity was the surviving compelling state interest for Affirmative Action?

Nope, Sands is correct.

[Freak]

Lindbergh:

where is your link for this "relatively few legacy preferences?"

Your position seems to be dangerously resource related in the wrong way. Legacies are OK (not as bad as AA) because 1)fewer of the slots are given to legacy students, and 2)because it isn't explicit race discrimination. Is that a fair interpretation of your thoughts?

Unfortunately that analysis ignores the fact that for a large portion of the nation's history, Blacks were denied admission to most of the law schools. Thus, the pool of prospective legacies far and away benefits whites. Of course you note that now Blacks can benefit from legacy admission as well, but you must concede that in practice this is highly unlikely. Surely you would think that giving a huge preference to students from HBCUs in law school admissions would be indirect racial discrimination even though whites are perfectly free to attend (and do) those institutions.

You continually rely on a rigid formulation of the definition of "racial discrimination," but seem painfully indifferent to admissions boosts that primarily benefit whites - boosts for economic status, geography and legacy. If the problem with affirmative action is a problem of merit, then why support socio-economic AA? Or is it that you don't want there to be "racial discrimination" in definition, but in effect have a system that reserves even more slots for whites?

The problem with the merit argument is that the vast majority of whites are admitted to schools based in part on subjective evaluations of their "merits" - Undergraduate institution, geography, essays, letters of recommendations, character, familial history and any number of other factors. Few white applicants are admitted on the basis of their objective and quantifiable data alone.Furthermore, race, like socio-economic status on poor whites, has a pretty big impact upon members of minority groups. Notwithstanding that fact, elimination of racial preferences presents another dilemma. Elimination of racial preferences would require practically the elimination of "checking the box." Just by the sheer number of white applicants who outnumber black applicants, elimination of self identification would require African Americans to be near the 75% in order to have a reasonable shot to gain admission. While the elimination of AA might remove an unfair advantage from your point of view, wouldn't it also make it much more difficult for QUALIFIED African Americans to gain admittance to a particular school?

If the problem is merit, then why not advocate for a simple numerical application. Why not advocate for a minimum GPA/LSAT index before one could apply to each school? That way we could be sure that each applicant would be presumptively qualified. Then schools could use race/legacy/geography/and any number of other factors to put together a reasonably diverse class.

If the problem is "racial discrimination" in a classical sense, then why not just change the standard. Instead of applying a boost for "checking the box," why not give preferences to those who have overcome "Racial adversity?"

What I do know is that eliminating AA and then replacing it with socio-economic AA is simplifying the issue and doesn't do anything to resolve the philosophical problem that most of you claim is the issue - namely, ensuring that scarce resources go to the most deserving individuals. I'm worried that elimination of AA will create a virtual racial monopoly    on the slots to our nation's best colleges and universities.

Do you have raw data to show that law schools don't admit whites primarily based on LSAT & GPA. In my case, it was quite clear those factors played an almost exclusive role. (DePaul, 160, 3.2)

[Kirk Lazarus]

Lindbergh:

where is your link for this "relatively few legacy preferences?"

Your position seems to be dangerously resource related in the wrong way. Legacies are OK (not as bad as AA) because 1)fewer of the slots are given to legacy students, and 2)because it isn't explicit race discrimination. Is that a fair interpretation of your thoughts?

Unfortunately that analysis ignores the fact that for a large portion of the nation's history, Blacks were denied admission to most of the law schools. Thus, the pool of prospective legacies far and away benefits whites. Of course you note that now Blacks can benefit from legacy admission as well, but you must concede that in practice this is highly unlikely. Surely you would think that giving a huge preference to students from HBCUs in law school admissions would be indirect racial discrimination even though whites are perfectly free to attend (and do) those institutions.

You continually rely on a rigid formulation of the definition of "racial discrimination," but seem painfully indifferent to admissions boosts that primarily benefit whites - boosts for economic status, geography and legacy. If the problem with affirmative action is a problem of merit, then why support socio-economic AA? Or is it that you don't want there to be "racial discrimination" in definition, but in effect have a system that reserves even more slots for whites?

The problem with the merit argument is that the vast majority of whites are admitted to schools based in part on subjective evaluations of their "merits" - Undergraduate institution, geography, essays, letters of recommendations, character, familial history and any number of other factors. Few white applicants are admitted on the basis of their objective and quantifiable data alone.Furthermore, race, like socio-economic status on poor whites, has a pretty big impact upon members of minority groups. Notwithstanding that fact, elimination of racial preferences presents another dilemma. Elimination of racial preferences would require practically the elimination of "checking the box." Just by the sheer number of white applicants who outnumber black applicants, elimination of self identification would require African Americans to be near the 75% in order to have a reasonable shot to gain admission. While the elimination of AA might remove an unfair advantage from your point of view, wouldn't it also make it much more difficult for QUALIFIED African Americans to gain admittance to a particular school?

If the problem is merit, then why not advocate for a simple numerical application. Why not advocate for a minimum GPA/LSAT index before one could apply to each school? That way we could be sure that each applicant would be presumptively qualified. Then schools could use race/legacy/geography/and any number of other factors to put together a reasonably diverse class.

If the problem is "racial discrimination" in a classical sense, then why not just change the standard. Instead of applying a boost for "checking the box," why not give preferences to those who have overcome "Racial adversity?"

What I do know is that eliminating AA and then replacing it with socio-economic AA is simplifying the issue and doesn't do anything to resolve the philosophical problem that most of you claim is the issue - namely, ensuring that scarce resources go to the most deserving individuals. I'm worried that elimination of AA will create a virtual racial monopoly    on the slots to our nation's best colleges and universities.

Do you have raw data to show that law schools don't admit whites primarily based on LSAT & GPA. In my case, it was quite clear those factors played an almost exclusive role. (DePaul, 160, 3.2)

I'm not sure I said law schools don't admit whites primarily based on LSAT and GPA.

[Freak]

You implied it - "in part..." and then you state "few...based on numbers alone." If you didn't intend to imply "primarily" then you wasted those sentences entirely.

[Kirk Lazarus]

You implied it - "in part..." and then you state "few...based on numbers alone." If you didn't intend to imply "primarily" then you wasted those sentences entirely.

No. Re-read it again. You're either not reading it correctly or you're misinterpreting