Law School Discussion

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

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #60 on: September 10, 2007, 06:24:32 PM »

If you don't think the legacy system doesn't have a discriminatory effect, then I don't know what to tell you? Or maybe you only think it is discrimination if one can prove discriminatory intent. In that case, you belong on the 4th Circuit and hey, you probably got your appointment through the good ole boy system...but that's not discrimination either is it?

Last time I checked "disparate impact" doesn't constitute racial discrimination.  Unless you believe that the athletic standards of professional sports constitute a form of racial discrimination.  After all, there's plenty of disparate impact there as well.

Discrimination is in fact about intent, not affects.  The fact asians and jews do better on the SAT doesn't mean it's a form of racial discrimination. 


ACTUALLY...this is not exactly correct, legally speaking.

Disparate impact is very much part of the prima facie elements needed to legally prove discrimination, and you don't necessarily have to show any direct evidence of intent in order to successfully prove discrimination in a court of law. 

If you are saying disparate impact alone, without more,cannot constitute racial discrimination then yes that is correct.  However, as you have it stated here (coupled with the other bolded statement below), this is not legally accurate because discrimination CAN (and often is) inferred from affects, and not from direct evidence of intent.  See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976).



Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #61 on: September 10, 2007, 06:26:02 PM »


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.  ;D



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.

Kirk Lazarus

  • ****
  • 1967
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #62 on: September 10, 2007, 06:30:42 PM »


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.  ;D



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 think there is a huge assumption worth discussing that higher economic status makes racial discrimination disappear.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #63 on: September 10, 2007, 06:48:03 PM »

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.


Kirk Lazarus

  • ****
  • 1967
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #64 on: September 10, 2007, 06:52:50 PM »

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.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #65 on: September 10, 2007, 06:59:39 PM »


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.  ;D



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.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #66 on: September 10, 2007, 07:16:14 PM »

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

  • ****
  • 1967
  • I'm a lead farmer, mofo
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #67 on: September 10, 2007, 07:17:14 PM »

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.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #68 on: September 10, 2007, 07:32:20 PM »

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

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The smart minorities get it....Class based AA.
« Reply #69 on: September 11, 2007, 07:33:18 AM »

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.