How do my fellow asians feel about AA?

[FalconJimmy]

Again-work on your research skills-Your article states select universities,I'm talking about affirmative action -period.

Ah, sorry.  I made the grave error of thinking we were talking about admission to universities on a discussion forum devoted to Law School.

I'll work on my research skills, but I sincerely doubt that you are in any position to assess them.

While we're telling each other areas where we should improve, how about not being such a whiney, self-entitled, confrontational ass?

All the research skills in the world won't ever overcome the fact that a person may be a crass jerk with an entitlement mentality. 

Sometimes being of a certain race is a real obstacle in life.  However, that pales in comparison to having a personality that other people detest.  Fair minded people will always give a person a shot, regardless of their skin color.  That's only skin deep.  Obnoxiousness?  That's to the bone.

Or, heck, just stay the smart and unique person you are.

[smartandunique]

I don't know why I even entertained your ignorant ass.You're clearly ignorance that can and should be avoided.Why don't you re-read my original post because you clearly missed the point.The point was affirmative action isn't a black and white issue, other people can and do benefit from the program.

You're pathetic.Your getting frustrated and pissed because your wrong and you don't have the skill set to either find a thorough objective study that doesn't agree with your position or the balls to admit I'm right or at the very least the facts aren't clear.

Fairminded people aren't the only people who are in a position to decide someone else's future, jackass.

Personality-please. You sound like your nuttier than a snickers.

I don't plan on posting again because I have very litte tolerance for people like you. I'm sure you will post ,because your a loser who has nothing better to do.

[smartandunique]

FalconJimmy

I owe you an apology for calling you out your name. I don't agree with you or your opinions, but I was wrong to resort to name calling.Sorry.

[FalconJimmy]

FalconJimmy

I owe you an apology for calling you out your name. I don't agree with you or your opinions, but I was wrong to resort to name calling.Sorry.

Seriously, no problem.  You were pushing my buttons, so I pushed a few of yours.  No harm, no foul.  I didn't really mean any offense and I doubt you did, either.  I apologize if I offended you.  It took a big person to apologize and I tip my hat to you.  I shouldn't have let this thing get to the point that it was this out of hand.  Peace.  Best of luck with all you are trying to do.

[like_lasagna]

At least as far as law school URM status is concerned, there is some evidence that AA (in that particular context) DECREASES the number of black lawyers: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/systemic/final/sanderfinal.pdf


That said, schools themselves might have their own reasons for affirmative action. Most importantly, they may want to have a more diverse student body. I'm not sure using race as a proxy for all diversity is a great idea, but it might be an explanation.

The problem is that, when this inevitably gets challenged (as it already did in Baake) in 25 years, it will lose and go away. You're discriminating on the basis of race. The court in Baake explicitly said that this won't be okay in 25 years. It won't be around too much longer.

[FalconJimmy]

The problem is that, when this inevitably gets challenged (as it already did in Baake) in 25 years, it will lose and go away. You're discriminating on the basis of race. The court in Baake explicitly said that this won't be okay in 25 years. It won't be around too much longer.

Grutter v. Bollinger made it very clear that the constitutional basis for AA is absolutely not there.  The strict scrutiny standard is, at least in my opinion, a travesty of justice.  When used, it seems like as often as not, it's used to do something very, very bad.  (For instance, the internment of Japanese Americans.)

I thought the Supreme Court really punted in the Bollinger decision.  They were defending the indefensible:  granting favors based on race is simply unconstitutional regardless of motive.  Also, rather insidiously, the ruling essentially extended the practice for another 25 years due to the language of the majority decision.

I was waiting to hear the constitutional arguments regarding affirmative action back in 2003, and basically, the majority opinion said that affirmative action is clearly and blatantly unconstitutional, but they like it, so it's going to be the law of the land for at least another quarter century.  Absolutely infuriating.  A true picture of how sometimes the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court have zero basis in the law and it's just a personal opinion that they are going to impose, even though they know the opinion is contrary to all the rules of a free and fair society.