Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: [Some] minorities [agree]....Class based AA.  (Read 27102 times)

OperaAttorney

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Freude, Königin der Weise!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #120 on: September 11, 2007, 11:02:04 PM »

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?”


Do your so-called childhood friends know that you're hatin' on them on LSD?  I will not condemn/defend them, because I only have your version of the story.  Besides, a few isolated incidents pointing to the contrary do not invalidate a proven societal phenomenon.  Plainly speaking, your argument is moot.

Please peruse this thread in its entirety--it's rich in discourse--and review the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before dismissing race-conscious AA as amoral and unlawful. Additionally, read the SCOTUS opinion on Grutter v. Bollinger delivered by former Justice O'Connor. She and 4 of her peers do not agree with you.
"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

dashrashi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3601
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #121 on: September 11, 2007, 11:48:14 PM »
Peers no more.

Where have you gone, Sandy Day? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you; woo woo woo.
This sig kills fascists.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=dashrashi

Saw dashrashi's LSN site. Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.

OperaAttorney

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Freude, Königin der Weise!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #122 on: September 12, 2007, 12:10:17 AM »
Peers no more.

Where have you gone, Sandy Day? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you; woo woo woo.

I miss her, too. :(
"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #123 on: September 12, 2007, 10:48:33 AM »

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.

Discrimination is becoming less and less prevalent?  In the United States of America?  That statement is very revealing of your limited knowledge on the subject matter at hand.  The Jena 6 alone destroys your argument.  We could also add the Genarlow Wilson case, the entire manner in which the federal government failed to handle hurricane Katrina in N.O., the Sean Bell shooting by the police in NYC, the dragging of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, TX....

And those are just the ones that make the headlines. 

What you meant to say is that discrimination is becoming less and less prevalent TO YOU.

Successful opponents of race based AA know better than to attempt to say discrimination doesn't exist anymore.  That's a losing argument flying in the face of thousands of cases of discrimination that pervade our society still to this day.  Rather, successful opponents of race based AA acknowledge that discrimination still exists and take the "two wrongs don't make a right" approach by integrating race based AA into that long list of discriminatory acts that still plague our society.  If you're going to be against race based AA, at least be realistic about it.


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?”


Actually, to briefly answer your question, no it doesn't.

Since you say that you don't understand it, perhaps we can shed some light on the Civil Rights Act and it's purpose.

First, it is notable to observe that you're confusing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (congressional legislation based on the Commerce Clause of Art. I in the Constitution) with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  Title I of the Civil Rights Act was created to prohibit discrimination in voting as a direct response to the discriminatory practices of whites in the south that prevented blacks and other minorities from voting based on their race (which several states are still being reprimanded by the federal government for even in 2007); Title II was created to prevent the white hotel, motel and restaurant owners at the time from discriminating against providing service to blacks and other minorities; Titles III and IV dealt with prohibiting segregated schools; and Titles V, VI, and VII dealt with discrimination in government agencies, any agency that receives federal funding, and most notably, for discriminating against people in the employment setting.  Today the Act is most commonly known for Title VII - employment discrimination cases.

None of these Titles deal with your question that you posed up above.  In other words, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit Affirmative Action in college/law school admissions.  It allows the federal government to prohibit de jure segregation in schools, discrimination in voting, discrimination in employment, and a few other enumerated items.  The rest is left up to the states.

That's where the 14th Amendment comes into play - it regulates the states and requires them to give "Equal Protection" of the laws to the people.

And to further answer your question, no the 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit Affirmative Action either for the reasons mentioned here:  http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,92702.msg2404945.html#msg2404945


"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #124 on: September 12, 2007, 10:51:12 AM »


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.


TITCR
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

t...

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #125 on: September 12, 2007, 12:21:21 PM »
As is to be expected, the ones promulgating the unfair race-based affirmative action, rather than a socio-economic system, are the ones who just can't quite wrap their heads around how legacy is quite different from any other advantage.

The gall of affirmative action proponents attacking what feeds their beloved current system is striking. 

It has to do with this cute thing called capitalism, not sure if you've ever been exposed...

This is one of the more substance-less things I've read on the board. Thanks for that.

:)
Quote
Cady on October 16, 2007, 10:41:52 PM

i rhink tyi'm inejying my fudgcicle too much

Quote
Huey on February 07, 2007, 11:15:32 PM

I went to a party in an apartment in a silo once.

OperaAttorney

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Freude, Königin der Weise!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #126 on: September 12, 2007, 01:39:35 PM »
As is to be expected, the ones promulgating the unfair race-based affirmative action, rather than a socio-economic system, are the ones who just can't quite wrap their heads around how legacy is quite different from any other advantage.

The gall of affirmative action proponents attacking what feeds their beloved current system is striking. 

It has to do with this cute thing called capitalism, not sure if you've ever been exposed...

Thanks for the precious gift, oh benevolent master.

Yeah right. :)

"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

bluepeter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #127 on: September 12, 2007, 02:45:40 PM »


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.


TITCR

I didn't know we were debating legacy admits.  What has that to do with AA?  Who's scapegoating middle class blacks?  We're just pointing out that the current system doesn't take into consideration that minorities are not a homogeneous group.  Obama's kids aren't deprived.  They have access to a great education.  Will they suffer from 'stereotype threat' when both mommy and daddy are Harvard educated lawyers?  If middle class minorities decide to go to law school, shouldn't they be evaluated the same way I am?  If for instance, they get a 167 on their LSAT, they'll get into law school.  You don't need to get into Harvard to be a lawyer.  I believe in diversity of thought, not skin tone. 

As is to be expected, the ones promulgating the unfair race-based affirmative action, rather than a socio-economic system, are the ones who just can't quite wrap their heads around how legacy is quite different from any other advantage.

The gall of affirmative action proponents attacking what feeds their beloved current system is striking. 

It has to do with this cute thing called capitalism, not sure if you've ever been exposed...

Thanks for the precious gift, oh benevolent master.

Yeah right. :)



You always come off as really bitchy.  Insert bitchy retort here.  You should try and work on that.

OperaAttorney

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Freude, Königin der Weise!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #128 on: September 12, 2007, 03:25:22 PM »


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.


TITCR

I didn't know we were debating legacy admits.  What has that to do with AA?  Who's scapegoating middle class blacks?  We're just pointing out that the current system doesn't take into consideration that minorities are not a homogeneous group.  Obama's kids aren't deprived.  They have access to a great education.  Will they suffer from 'stereotype threat' when both mommy and daddy are Harvard educated lawyers?  If middle class minorities decide to go to law school, shouldn't they be evaluated the same way I am?  If for instance, they get a 167 on their LSAT, they'll get into law school.  You don't need to get into Harvard to be a lawyer.  I believe in diversity of thought, not skin tone. 

As is to be expected, the ones promulgating the unfair race-based affirmative action, rather than a socio-economic system, are the ones who just can't quite wrap their heads around how legacy is quite different from any other advantage.

The gall of affirmative action proponents attacking what feeds their beloved current system is striking. 

It has to do with this cute thing called capitalism, not sure if you've ever been exposed...

Thanks for the precious gift, oh benevolent master.

Yeah right. :)



You always come off as really bitchy.  Insert bitchy retort here.  You should try and work on that.


It's cool if you think I'm bitchy.  You come off as immature, witlessly insolent, disingenuous, and covertly racist.  I pity you.
"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #129 on: September 12, 2007, 03:53:14 PM »
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.

I agree with you, until diversity. I agree that people from different backgrounds bring different perspectives to school, but I have no idea how that improves my legal abilities. Sure I learned about different people. I lived with a Korean American and became good friends with him, I even attended his wedding. I also became good friends with a Mexican American, a Jewish American, and two African Americans. I laid tile in the Mexican's condo, hung out with the Jew and went to Puerto Rico with the three Africans, teaching one to snorkel, and was nearly swept out to sea with another, and helped the third learn to play chess. I enjoyed their company, but I still don't see how the "diversity" improved my legal education. My best law school friend was an ex-cop and he did improve my legal education, he related crim pro, crim law, & evidence to real life, making it stick.

edit: One side point, you noted it is a competition and that's why people get upset if somebody receives an advantage based on skin color alone. It's also why we fought a civil war. We essentially control our undergrade grades and LSAT scores. Shoot, after about age 16 most of us control our economic status - unless daddy hands out money. It didn't happen to me, I paid for my first car and all its expenses. I paid for clothes and even some of my own food. But I hardly considered myself economically disadvantaged. I saved enough money and worked hard enough to pay for my undergrad without loans and little help aside from a $500 scholarship and a maybe $2k from family members. I just don't see how somebody who essentially made it through life paying their own way brings less than a URM with a rich daddy. Of course, a rich daddy probably gave his kids experiences that would prove unique, don't you think? Because there are more poor people than rich. Turn in on its head and you have rich people providing more diversity than poor.

So essentially, I don't buy the diversity argument nor the economic argument. To me it seems that those who earn the right to attend a better school, and prove it, should get the slots. In other words, prove you work hard, prove you have brains, prove you will improve the school better than the next candidate and you should get the slot. Proving that you had to work harder for what you have should be the only boost that a URM receives.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.