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

[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.

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

Unless you mean the subjective part of white admissions is insignificant, you do mean that whites are not admitted primarily based on numbers. I assert that whites are primarily, and often solely, admitted based on numbers. I for one, was admitted solely on the my numbers.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

[Freak]

This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.

[Kirk Lazarus]

This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.

Yeah but I know a white girl with your numbers at Harvard, two white guys with numbers that approximate yours at Columbia. How exactly did race admits affect you personally?

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.

I hate to say it man, but it appears you have been led astray.  When you applied to Harvard, along with the 1000's of other Harvard hopefuls, they took your numbers (which I trust were good) and saw a good couple hundred other people with the exact same score.  Now....I wasn't in the ad com room when they made the decision but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there was at least ONE white person admitted in your stead with the exact same figures as yourself.  At least one legacy.  At least one kid of a wealthy Harvard donor.  At least one ______ [fill in the blank].  But out of all those who were admitted with your scores or less for 100's of different reasons, race is the dispositive culprit that kept you out of Harvard?? 

C'mon man, you seem like an intelligent and knowledgeable individual.  Surely, you don't really believe that do you?

[Freak]

This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.

Yeah but I know a white girl with your numbers at Harvard, two white guys with numbers that approximate yours at Columbia. How exactly did race admits affect you personally?

Well I guess it could be legacy, (though I'm male), approximate? We're talking a 160, 3.2 at Harvard...

Anyway, I know DePaul used URM status (why else did they have the exact same number of each URM every year), but the only two legacies I know off, in my class, had way better numbers than me and ended with higher class ranks too. i.e. they are smarter than me. Of course DePaul's URM policy didn't effect me, they accepted me. But it sure effected others.

[Kirk Lazarus]

This current convo still overlooks Galt's main point at issue that legacy based AA, by its very nature, revolves around a system of privilege that has benefited whites (while simultaneously excluding minorities) to the extent that "legacy" is almost synonymous with being white.   If we can accept this proposition without having to go through the history lesson of how this came to be, then as a result we should be equally as concerned about legacy admits as we are about race based admits, because they're effectively the same thing.  Are there minority legacies?  Sure, of course.  But minority legacies are only a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

I agree legacy admits are wrong. However, they didn't effect me directly like race admits did. I happen to know a black lady with my numbers accepted by Harvard. I'm not bitter, I really really like the firm I work for and enjoy my work, but legacy admits seem like a bit of a red herring.

Yeah but I know a white girl with your numbers at Harvard, two white guys with numbers that approximate yours at Columbia. How exactly did race admits affect you personally?

Well I guess it could be legacy, (though I'm male), approximate? We're talking a 160, 3.2 at Harvard...

Anyway, I know DePaul used URM status (why else did they have the exact same number of each URM every year), but the only two legacies I know off, in my class, had way better numbers than me and ended with higher class ranks too. i.e. they are smarter than me. Of course DePaul's URM policy didn't effect me, they accepted me. But it sure effected others.

The girl at Harvard had a particularly compelling story. It should be noted that Harvard admits students in the high 150s each year. Their class is so large they can afford to allow a few special cases with low numbers in without compromising their overall numbers.

Just saying that the Affirmative Action policy negatively affects other students is not a compelling reason for why it is bad. After all, it is a competition. Higher scoring applicants negatively affect lower scoring applicants. Applicants from Ivy league schools negatively affect those from less prestigious schools. Applicants with parents of alumni negatively affect those without.

It has been shown that Affirmative action benefits all students at an institution because of increased diversity. Additionally, Affirmative Action helps to diversify the legal profession that has been lily white for so many generations and serves as a benefit to the institution itself for political and other reasons. The only people who are harmed specifically by affirmative action are those who are specifically denied admission to make room for diversity AND who would have been admitted otherwise. First, it isn't clear that you can specifically identify who those people are (Allan Bakke for example would've been denied Affirmative Action or no Affirmative Action) and second, it is clear that whatever negative effect befalls them personally, they presumably benefit from affirmative action by the diversity of the student population at whatever school they decide to ultimately attend.

Affirmative action isn't a program where whites are being systematically denied admission to most colleges and universities. Trust me, white folks still command a significant portion of the slots at American Law Schools. Affirmative Action is simply a measure that limits the amount of the pie you can have. And no, you can't have it all. That's selfish.

There are plenty of ways to justify the burden affirmative action places on this generation of young white folks who had nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Those reasons notwithstanding, I understand that all this doesn't necessarily establish that affirmative action is just. I recognize that. Nonetheless, it is hard for me to take protestations of a system designed to enhance minority involvement in positions of power seriously when 1) the advocated replacement would enhance the majority stranglehold on those positions of power and 2) if economic class was really the problem that one wanted to try remedying then the natural and most logical culprit for all the frustration should be legacy admits- not scapegoating middle class Blacks.

[AkhilAmar]

Given that discrimination is becoming less and less prevalent with each successive generation, the justification for AA to correct past wrongs is starting to run dry. Instead, AA is increasingly justified underneath the guise of the bureaucratic catchword "diversification." To assume that the ethnicity of a person necessarily means they bring diversity is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I know a few people who, this ad. cycle, are claiming to be American Indian. We grew up together, hung out with the same people, they weren't involved whatsoever in any AI cultural events, and they aren't even enough native blood to be an actual member of the tribe. Yet these people will have a substantial advantage in the process because of crazy liberals at U.S. News who think they are in some way helping the legal profession by making this a criterion for ranking schools (and because law schools care so much about their U.S. News rankings).

Another thing I don’t understand is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade such discrimination (for any and all people), so do the implementers of AA just say “oh well, that doesn’t apply to this situation?”

[dashrashi]

Read the thread. Hell, read any thread in this damn subforum. Here's what not to do: waltz in and make a pronouncement that countless others before you have also made, and do so in a way that implies that you think you are saying something new and insightful.

Thanks.

[t...]

Read the thread. Hell, read any thread in this damn subforum. Here's what not to do: waltz in and make a pronouncement that countless others before you have also made, and do so in a way that implies that you think you are saying something new and insightful.

Thanks.

I'd have been at Harvard had it not been for you, evil female.

Have fun at the bottom of the class. Or something.