I'm not going to be mad when I see your username; I'm just going to think you're an idiot.
I'm also going to think that people who want class-based AA to ENTIRELY replace race-based AA are correct. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
I don't get why Petitschoque's impolitic approach to this thread or her refusal to indulge your (sarcastic) question about her family's financial history should have any bearing on your feelings about race-based affirmative action.
Actually, it's not sarcastic. I was trying to get to a somewhat legitimate point about how AA's problems with appropriating others' problems to gain an edge in admissions can start at the individual psychological level.
Okay, I don't really know what this means, but I do know that the question you asked was about whether she worked 40 hours a week as a 12-year-old, right? What on earth does that have to do with "appropriating others' problems" or with affirmative action in general?
First, black people of all class backgrounds face racism. (But you know that, right? Because I'm just not interested in having that argument.) Second, she said her family was not always rich. Do all people who aren't rich make their children work 40 hours a week, in contravention of our labor laws and human rights obligations? She doesn't need to have worked 40 hours a week to have experienced poverty or working poverty or lower-middle-classdom or middle-classdom or whatever, right? Your question seems bizarre to me.
Also, we all know that the accepted rationale for affirmative action in law school admissions is the diversity of the profession and not remedying disadvantage. So really, why does this matter at all?
***
Also, I'm sick of all of you calling Petitschoque an idiot and questioning her ability to succeed in law school based upon her arrogance and possible bigotry. Plenty of incredibly arrogant bigots do just fine in law school. And I honestly wonder whether you would say these things the way you have been if she were white.
It's not a question of arrogance and possible bigotry: it's a question of having to rely on taking quotes out of context in order to create strawmen.
I think the post at Barely Legal on the difference between arguing and arguments lays it out really nicely. (I've heard the same thing about law school from other sources, just not nearly as elqouently.)
[sanctimony]
Hm. Okay. I don't think this makes her an "idiot," as you and others have been calling her.
Also, Lily, this is going to sound mean, but I don't know how to avoid saying it since we are on the topic of methods of argumentation. I think you are very smart and interesting, but you will probably find in the next few years that your tendency toward ad hominems and your generally captious manner will not serve you well, whether in meeting nice vegan boys or in getting through your 1L classes. Sometimes getting through life just takes a deep breath and a bit of humility. [/sanctimony]
273 Replies
46827 Views