yawn

why does anyone care who posts first i dont understand. Maybe someone could enlighten me

I took nothing away from that read.

I support Chris Rock's AA stance...

If everything else is equal - consider race.

The Carter oped doesn't appear to say very much. What exactly is his point?

Nationwide Federal Public School System! Now that is fair!

Lat,

Kash is pretty much worthless in her new timezone. You make some quality posts, but you are obviously just a whore for the sponsors.

You need someone to shake things up a bit. You also need to stop throwing some of the juicy stuff in the two "roundup" posts.

I would have been first, but the man keeps me down.

Once everyone gets their collective heads out of their asses and realizes that affirmative action should be based SOLELY on CLASS, not "race", we will all be better off. The notion that some po' white kid in Appalachia has got it better than some mulatto kid on the upper west side is, was and always will be, in the immortal words of Scalia, "laughable". Base it on class and kids of all races will be helped out, not just poor black kids.

Oh, and Lat, you might be old enough to remember when so-called "asians" were given the benefit of affirmative action. it might have helped you get into Regis. In my high school, nearly 2/3 of the kids were asian. Once they figured out that asian kids didn't need affirmative action, asians were no longer given its benefit.

AA? I'll drink to that!

Amen, 11:00.

Am I first?

I heartily agree with his point that AA does ZERO to help out those who need it most -- all it does is help a minority kid who would have gotten into someplace like Wayne State get into U. Michigan. It does nothing for the many more who aren't even completing high school, or who are with 4th-grade-level skills.

Guys in my high school were 2/3 Asian as well, it was no big deal.

FRAT STUD

11:00(1) - What you're suggesting (like Cornell West) is that we continue to match up individuals with colleges (and grad schools) they are woefully underprepared for. Great. Look what happened in California after Prop. 209 - black enrollment at UCSD decreased, but increased dramatically at other UC schools, as did the black four-year graduation rate. Somebody with a shitty high school education is going to get much more out of four years at a school that matches their abilities even if it is lower ranked than at an Ivy. That's true for class-based promotion as well as race-based promotion.

i cant believe he got through this entire op ed without mentioning parents involved in community schools v seatle.......

I used to ignore potentially important precedents in my writing when I was in law school. It was no big deal.

As a white rising 2L at a tier 2 school, I have to say that affirmative action, while offensive to me personally, undoubtedly helps white students. Because minority students end up going to schools they otherwise couldn't get in to, they compete with students who are, on average, brighter than they are. When you add in an anonymous grading process, the minority students invariably fill out the bottom of the class.

It's sad -- if schools would rely on objective criteria, then the minority students would be on the same level as the rest of the class. You'd end up with much "whiter" T14's, but is that really worse than condemning minorities to the bottom of the class?

Did SEN really write this? Seems more her style of fishing for comments than actually writing about the topic...

SEN, if you return Lat in the next 2 hours, we will not go to the cops.

"I have to say that affirmative action, while offensive to me personally, undoubtedly helps white students."

That's only one side of the coin. Sure enough, the white kids who are already there benefit from the "automatic" bump in the curve provided by the presence of their less deserving fellows. The white kids who couldn't get in don't receive much of a benefit.

Moreover, you are, as you say, at a Tier 2 school. If not for AA, would you have been at a Tier 1?

Okay, so let's fix the system for those who need it most.

But considering the fact that a larger number of white legacy admits in undergrad. are below top school's published standards, I really see no problem with AA UG admits. Particularly in light of the fact that minorities used to be excluded from higher education altogether.

So the kid who got into Wayne state might have gotten into U of M if his parents had been allowed the better education that, based on their merits, they were entitled to.

11:07: "Because minority students end up going to schools they otherwise couldn't get in to, they compete with students who are, on average, brighter than they are."

I attended law school with a puerto rican who received a 143 on the LSAT (as told to me by that person). This person was (and is) whiter than I am. This person now works at a TTT firm in NYC. We also had 3 black students in our class fail out end of first year. All 3 plus the puerto rican were AA students.

11:13,

Was he a University of Rochester undergraduate? I might know him....

For those who are angry about losing your slots to an affirmative action candidate, get angrier about this:

"Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards."
. . .
"Who are these mediocre white students getting into institutions such as Harvard, Wellesley, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Virginia? A sizable number are recruited athletes who, research has shown, will perform worse on average than other students with similar academic profiles, mainly as a result of the demands their coaches will place on them.

A larger share, however, are students who gained admission through their ties to people the institution wanted to keep happy, with alumni, donors, faculty members, administrators, and politicians topping the list."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/28/at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/

These are students from well-off, connected families, and despite their advantages they still don't meet the school's minimum published requirements.

THAT is the affirmative action we should end.

11:13 White kids flunk out, too. And yet when they do, we don't use it as a reason to not admit other white kids with poor credentials. See my 11:26.

I think the point of the Op-Ed is very clear: that AA does nothing to remedy the major, devasting, longstanding problems of the black underclass. AA is an easier issue to grapple with than the real problems facing poor black people in this country: high school completion, incarceration, literacy, etc. That's where the outrage lies, not with the diversity of the entering class at Columbia Law School.

"THAT is the affirmative action we should end."

Err, can't we end all of it?

Because first is first, and without a first there would be no second!

11:26: Are you naive enough to think that tuition money alone makes the world go 'round? Legacies are the reason for your fancy dorm and your world-class library. I write this as somebody who is far from a connected family. Moreover, falling below the minimum established criteria does not make a student "mediocre", particularly not these days.

As far as this discussion relates to African American students, consider this little exercise:

Just sit back in your class, look around and realize that - if you are white - the African Americans that occupy that room are the 1st generation to be born with the same rights as you.

I'm not sure where I stand on AA, but I always remind myself of the above.

Think about it.

AA is not a perfect system and there are plenty of flaws (i.e., minorities from affluent families benefit and the system doesn't help minorities who don't even apply to college), but to argue that doing away with the system or that basing it solely on socioeconomic status would make it somehow make the system more "objective" is incredibly naive. If you think that a poor white kid and a poor black kid are on the same footing in this country, you are nuts. Racism is alive and kicking in the USA and although we need to do more than AA to fix this situation, having AA is better than not having AA.

11:38 - If I were you I would get a little closer to that "connected family" of yours.

Or wait... do you just have trouble writing?

11:12:
"But considering the fact that a larger number of white legacy admits in undergrad."
---I love this new lie by the lefties. The same percentage of undeserving whites get in as undeserving minorities. yeah, right, moron. Three little thoughts for your little brain:

#1. You have no proof. This is just a made up idea of parity to make it seem like everyone's in the same boat. I'd like a citation please, not just "whitey keeping people down." But of course, you have none. The percentage of undeserving minorities who can't hack it
is far larger than the legacy kids who can't hack it.

#2 Even if it were proven true, you have heard of a little phrase called "two wrongs don't make a right," right? As in, if you want to solve the problem, remove the undeserving whites, not add more undeserving minorities. But of course, that's not what you want--this is about graft for non-white people, plain and simple.

#3 As someone who's had to deal with two very AA_using schools, I'll say this: hanging out with stupid people does not make you smarter. I had my education held back while the teacher had to explain to the AA-kids the same concept, only in simpler terms. And even then, the idea escaped most of them. Quite frankly, it's ludicrous to think that shoehorning stupid people into classes they can't hack it in will somehow improve the situation or create parity.

But brains ain't what lefties are about.

the llm's are the best for your grades. by the time they figure out what the exam question wants, times up! uh the llm's baby

11:38,

As an immigrant from a country where discrimination against my ethnic group and religion was both officially practiced and publicly embraced, I will now play for you a solo on the world's tiniest violin.

If you have the ability and the desire, you get your shit together and perform - you don't sue for handouts. AA does not exist to redress existing discrimination. It bestows a collective benefit to assuage a collective guilt. It is therefore utter bullshit.

11:38 - so you recognize that there is a virtue to admitting legacies and children of wealthy donors who wouldn't get in otherwise. Do you not see a virtue in admitting minorities who wouldn't get in otherwise?

Sure, we can end all of it, but do you wonder why there is so much more coverage of AA that helps people who were discriminated against historically (and parental education is a strong predictor of how well children will do) and so much LESS coverage of AA that benefits people who have no excuse for their underachieving?

Doesn't it BOTHER you that 15% of slots at schools like Harvard go to dim rich people?

Also, how do the white males on the board feel about the fact that many UGs are now accepting males with lower credentials than the females they accept? Meritocracy for all? Or just for minorities.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/02/towson

11:41: I don't really have trouble writing. I do, however, have trouble with pedantic assholes.

"Just sit back in your class, look around and realize that - if you are white - the African Americans that occupy that room are the 1st generation to be born with the same rights as you."

Yes, it's amazing to think that the parents of my classmates just barely missed the birth cutoff to be born during a time when they had to use different water fountains and busses. Assuming they were born in the South.

"As someone who's had to deal with two very AA_using schools, I'll say this: hanging out with stupid people does not make you smarter." - 11:44

Conservatives: keeping racism alive in America since 1964!

11:44 see my 11:26.

And note that I said a larger NUMBER of unqualified whites are admitted, not a larger PERCENTAGE.

"Unqualified" people with money should be admitted, but "unqualified" people whose parents, grandparents and on back were not permitted to go to these (or practically) any colleges should not be admitted?

For reals?

11:48 - Um.... oh never mind.

That does bother me 11:46. I would like it a lot if more females would accept males with low credentials.

@11:12(2)

Yes, we can all agree that many african amercians today would be much better off (better able to get into a top college by themselves) if it was not for the institution of slavery and the racism that followed. However, how can a college admissions process identify those individuals who have parents, grandparents, etc who did not, but should have received a better education and then determine how this would have affected the abilities of their children, grandchildren, etc? It is not possible. So the result is more racism. AA assumes that all african amercians should be compensated for the wrongs of the past and whats more, punishes many people who, like me who have nothing to do with slavery, jim crow laws, racism.

Also, it is complete BS that the SCOTUS decided that diversity in education is sufficient to justify racism and pass strict scrutiny?

11:40 - One can take for granted that racism exists and is holding back minorities (although I don't); however, that doesn't mean "having AA is better than not having AA."

How does it combat racism to set up a generation of minorities to fail? Or to create a situation where white students observe that the dullest students around them are always minorities? In a color-blind system, even if there are less minorities at Ivy-league schools, at least students would not be left with the impression that minorities are just not as smart as white people. I have to assume as well that failing because you can't compete with your white classmates has a negative effect on the psyches of the minority students "benefiting" from AA.

11:52 - couldn't have said it better myself!

11:45: I see the relaxed standards as apples and oranges and see virtue in both. Legacies get a pass because they pretty much insure the school's financial future (though I have many, many friends who were legacies who got rejected at their parents'/grandparents' alma maters); URMs get a pass because it's in the school's interest to have a diverse student body and, more cynically, it permits a bunch of rich white people to pat themselves on the back. Sure, it rubs me the wrong way that some prep school kid who has been coasting and doesn't really need the benefit of an Ivy League education may get into Harvard over some scrappy overachiever, but I do think such preferences have a sound basis.

11:53: So wait, your proof is from one article by a lefty editor intent on proving that whtiey is keeping the black man down????

THAT's YOUR PROOOF>?????

Hahahahaha

"Meritocracy for all? Or just for minorities."

Exactly. Whether or not you have AA, you would be naive to think that college admissions is a true meritocracy. People are given all kinds of special treatment - legacies, athletes, children of well connected parents. You don't hear people preaching about those groups. So all of this outcry against AA can't simply be: we want college admissions to be a meritocracy.

Seems to me that most people who preach against AA are racists. They see no value in admitting minority students, and they would be perfectly happy to go to school (and live in a country) where they only interact with people who look and think like them. And it's because of THOSE people that we need AA.

Huh.... Clarence Thomas isn't on the top 50 list.

"Conservatives: keeping racism alive in America since 1964!"

Everyone take note: if you are against affirmative action, you are a raaaaaacist. That's it - end of argument.

I favor class-based AA. I say this as a black man. The so-called "diversity" achieved by admitting rich black kids with low numbers is a cruel joke.

I grew up poor and was the first person in my family to attend college. I scored 1400 on my SAT and 700 or above on 2 SAT II subject tests. I went to a well-regarded school, graduaed summa cum laude, worked for five years after college, took the LSAT and bombed it (160) but got into a T14 school largely based on my college gpa, work experience, and affirmative action. I graduated cum laude from law school, and now work at a big firm. Without affirmative action, I would have probably ended up at a good - albeit non T14 - law school... and I would have certainly ended up somewhere other than my current firm.

So my relationship with affirmative action is a complicated one. Yes, the majority of black students at my law school were at the bottom of the class. Yes, lots of them were from wealthy families. Diversity? Hardly.

11:52:

Liberals: ignoring the obvious since Das Capital!

Here is another article showing that based on admissions data, white males have been receiving preferential admissions over women for the PAST 10 YEARS.

How do the men on this board feel about that?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0724/p08s01-comv.html

"Everyone take note: if you are against affirmative action, you are a raaaaaacist. That's it - end of argument."

No, but if you characterize minorities as "stupid people" then you are probably a racist. End of argument. And you are probably a racist.

I love when commies claim minorities can't get into schools because they can't get high enough scores but in the same breadth argue that those who get in on AA aren't any dumber than those who don't use it.

DoubleThink: it's not just for fiction anymore.

No, 12:01, the argument was that AA-students are stupid. Which is true, they couldn't get in on their own brains, they fell below the standard.

11:59--The writer of that piece was an editor of inside higher education.

Are you claiming THAT is a liberal publication?

He has the data, he wrote a whole book on it.

It really just burns you that 15% of unqualified whites are getting in.

BTW, his article points out that the unqualified whites are LESS qualified than the minority AA candidates.

So to all of you out there who are claiming that minorities in your classes are always dummies, how could you NOT notice that 15% of your white classmates, by your standards, are "stupider."

BTW, I don't think low scores mean that someone is less intelligent. I think that scores are an imperfect proxy, and I would be in favor of expanding affirmative action to include the poor of all races, although based on racial exclusion from institutions of higher education, I think there is a continuing justification for race-based preferences as well.

Now, if you want to talk about how significant the preferences should be, fine.

11:59:

"Whether or not you have AA, you would be naive to think that college admissions is a true meritocracy."
----No argument there. The abuses should be fixed.

"People are given all kinds of special treatment - legacies, athletes, children of well connected parents."
--Colleges should not have sponsored athletics. Legacies/rich kdis shouldn't get in. FIX THE PROBLEM< MORON<, DON"T CREATE ANOTHER!

"You don't hear people preaching about those groups. So all of this outcry against AA can't simply be: we want college admissions to be a meritocracy."
---Wrong on 2 fronts. People do preach against them. And, just because no one makes an outcry on a problem doesn't mean the argument isn't simply a meritocracy.

"Seems to me that most people who preach against AA are racists."
---Got any proof, or do you just feel this truth? Yes, anyone against is RAAACIST.

"They see no value in admitting minority students, and they would be perfectly happy to go to school (and live in a country) where they only interact with people who look and think like them. "
-----Think like them? Like, think intelligently and at their level? You mean, like what education is for? Then yes.
The value in academics is academic rigor, not social engineering, moron. They would be perfectly willing to be a minority if it meant they could engage in healthy, intelligent debate and discussion rather than dealing with the sped kids who got in to fill a quota.

"And it's because of THOSE people that we need AA."
---And now we find the true reason for AA. it';s nto about making stupid kids smarter, no. it's about graft and social engineering---we're going to make those whiteys deal with the minorities and become lefties like us. Because obviously if they only want to be with smart people, their racist.

EPIC FAIL.

Umm, 12:01, the point was that the minorities who got in through affirmative action are less academically qualified (stupid). If they were equally qualified, there would be no need for affirmative action, and nobody would have any issues with them getting admitted.
Athletes and legacies who get in through affirmative action are stupid as well.

Liberals: crying wolf that any criticism of some minorities is racism since 1776.
Obviously all the minorities who needed affirmative action are actually just geniuses faking their low entrance scores, right?

Many first generation middle easterners have parents who didn't graduate high school. They get no preference when it comes to law school admission. However, the AA child of two MDs will get a huge bump. Ridiculous.

Diversity: A buzzword with no meaning that liberals worship and demand we do the same.

Welcome to the Soviet Union, comrades!

"No, but if you characterize minorities as "stupid people" then you are probably a racist. End of argument. And you are probably a racist."

Yeah, if you characterize minorities as "stupid people," you are without a doubt a racist. However, if your school admits people who, on average, have substantially poorer standardized test scores than the rest of the admitted body, calling members of THAT group "stupid" might be crass, it might somewhat inaccurate, but it is definitely not "racist."

Class based preference in admission; regardless of race. That's fair by me.

11:59, people do complain about legacy admits. Have you been living under a rock for the past eight years, or do you know that Bush was an unfair legacy admit to Ivy League schools?
Besides, what are you doing right now, but complaining about legacy admits.

Liberals: two wrongs making a right since 1900. And if you're against the second wrong, you are a racist.

12:10:

He also is promoting a book he's selling that pushes this idea.

And, as was said earlier, the answer is to KICK OUT THE ONES WHO ARE TOO STUPID TO BE THERE, not LET IN MORE STUPID PEOPLE. No one has a problem kicking out athletes/legacies, except perhaps dumbasses who think college athletes get an "education."

And who do you think reads his publication? Why ivory-towered academics! Who all believe in Marx! So, in other words, he preaches to a left-leaning crowd to begin with.

11:55(2)--I don't think it is racism to recognize that a certain group was harmed by discrimination, which harmed their ability to achieve, and to give all members of that group a bump up.

But that may be a pretty fundamental value difference between the two of us.

I do not have a problem with schools wanting to attain racial diversity, because they admit lower-qualified students all of the times who are diverse in other ways. My law school went out of the way to admit stage actors, professional athletes, musicians with advanced degrees, veterans like myself, people from small towns, people from big cities, people who had lived abroad, people who had professional careers. Some of us probably got preferences, some of us probably had such high scores that we would've been admitted anyways.

I liked being at a school with people from all different backgrounds. I liked having other vets around, and aid workers, and people with all different kinds of life experience. I know that some people see this as reducing minorities to their racial identity, but I sure didn't feel reduced by my identity as a vet. (Although it may have helped, it is really hard to say.)

For the haters out there, I graduated top 5% at a T10, so whether I got an admissions bump or not, I clearly was good enough.

Whatever happened to valuing candidates INDIVIDUALLY? If you, i.e., "you personally" were discriminated against, that might be relevant to an admission decision. (Then again, it might not). If you personally grew up dirt-poor, THAT might be relevant to an admission decision (or not).

In a better world, collectivism would be an untouchable concept, its advocates pariahs - not the other way around.

Besides the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, the MAJOR difference between legacy admits and affirmative action admits is that there is a huge difference between wealth-based discrimination and race-based discrimination.

Try creating a government spending program that only helps poor people. Perfectly constitutional.
Try creating a government spending program that only helps white people. No way in hell.

Why don't we just kick all the whites out? That'll level the playing field real quick.

12:17: "I liked being at a school with people from all different backgrounds. "

No one cares what you "liked." It matters how those "diverse" backgrounds helped you to learn, and they didn't While it may have been fun to grab a drink with the actors and musicians, it didn't make them qualified to learn the law with you. Learning the law is not music or acting. The best law students are the ones who learn the law the best. period.

And diversity is a meaningless buzzword, just like someone stated above.

So now, 12:17, you've gone from saying I'm a liar, to calling me a hypocrite.

I am fine with ending legacy admits. Completely and totally fine. I just get a little suspicious when the convo. is always about minorities "stealing people's spots" when a larger number of such spots go to connected whites who are less qualified than these minorities everyone is complaining about.

Wow, 12:16--we all know that GWB was an undeserving legacy admit, and he has served two terms as President. Good example. I feel foolish.

And of course, there is that nationwide campaign to outlaw legacy admits . . . OH WAIT.

Let's do the math. How many states have banned race-based preferences?

Boy, I'm a dummy. Clearly, this country is enraged about and mobilizing against legacy admits who are less qualified than minority AA admits.

PS--My UG alma mater has a strong preference for first generation college grads. of any race. I think it is a fantastic program.

Why do the libs try to say, "Nah, Nah, rich whites are legacies, therefore, AA is ok?"

Fix the problem, don't cause another.

12:11- you are racist

I am wondering where people get all their anecdotal evidence from. I looked at the CLS graduation this year. The class speaker was an African American, member of the Law Review, published, and a moot court champion. So the implicit reasoning that minority=AA= unqualified is mistaken.

Granted there is no telling whether he was an AA admit but that goes to an even greater point. If a school admits 300 students into its class and 10% are minorities then that represents only 30 students. And if 50% of those students are "qualified" then only 15 students benefit from AA. This number to me is small and outweighed by legacies and people with connections (the Bush et al.)

So who are all these people you doomed to fail?

Moving to a class-based AA is not the answer. If race is not considered by itself, the top 10 schools would be lily white. There are only 20 qualified African-American students for all top schools each year, which would leave on 2 African-Americans per class.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODMxMDYyODE0N2E2NTUwNGIyMTZjN2QwY2QwZGZjNzQ=

I don't know how many people want an all white (and Asian) legal system...

12:23, and Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action admit (at least to the Court), and he served over a decade as a Supreme Court justice. What's your point?

Feeling foolish is the least of your problems.

12:23: "And of course, there is that nationwide campaign to outlaw legacy admits . . . OH WAIT."

Perhaps if you libs hadn't been so intent on pushing dumb people into schools they don't belong and instead fought against dumb people taking up slots undeservedly, there would be a movement. Instead, libs decided that anytime a black man failed at anything, it was racism. And now that's somehow a justification for continuing down that path. Good logic.

But of course, this isn't about fighting unfairness. this about ensuring graft and forced social engineering.

Hate it when facts work against you, don't you, lib?

No, we libs are calling you hypocrites for saying "oh noes, minorities are stealing 'our' spots!"

We reply, actually, people who have every advantage (which should translate to higher test scores) are "stealing" more of "your" spots with lower test scores than the minorities you are complaing about.

And LOL at 12:20 who thinks that legacy admits are comparable to programs that help the poor.

I'll say it again--my position--give preference to people whose disadvantage means that there test scores are lower than they would be if they had the advantages of those they are competing agains. I prefer class-based AA, with race to be considered as a factor. Just like all those other factors schools consider involving athleticism, what part of the country you came from, your former career, etc., etc.

Legacies shouldn't get prefs. because they are, in every way, advantaged. If they still can't meet the minimum requirements, there is no reason we should assume it is because they haven't been given the chance to achieve.

"The class speaker was an African American, member of the Law Review, published, and a moot court champion. So the implicit reasoning that minority=AA= unqualified is mistaken."

This statement evidences another common fallacy in pro-AA arguments, which can be restated as follows:

Argument : 95% of frogs are green.
Response: That can't be true, because I've seen several frogs that are yellow.

The response, as the above quote, is obviously a non sequitur - seeking to negate a conclusion about *trends* with evidence disproving only an *absolutism* - an absolutism that no one put forth.

12:25: "If race is not considered by itself, the top 10 schools would be lily white."

First, ya racist, you call it lily white, you're opening up every other racial slur to be used here. You can't just attack white people and get away with it.

Secondly, so, in other words, somehow forcing stupid people into those "lily white" environments makes everyone smarter?

Nice logic.

"Class based preference in admission; regardless of race. That's fair by me."

>>>Sounds like "class warfare" to me. Can't have that.

12:25
"So who are all these people you doomed to fail?"

The New York bar passage rate for whites is 80-90%. The New York bar passage rate for blacks is 50-60%. The same results hold for most states that have released the data (like California).
http://www.nybarexam.org/summary.pdf

The extra 30% of blacks who fail the bar are "these people you doomed to fail." Sure, your school got one high-achieving black guy, but he would probably have gotten in anyway, or went to a slightly lower-ranked school like GULC. Moot point.

12:25:
Perhaps if blacks stopped bitching about deserving undrserving places in class and started earning their slots, they wouldn't be left out.

But earning a slot! That's racist!

As a white male (rising 2L) at a top-ten school, I also hate AA. Not because I think AA kids are undeserving, (the minority students at my school are some of the brightest and most hardworking people I've ever met) but because they are sometimes treated as if they got in because of their race.

I think AA (or even better- socioeconomic status) should be considered only as a mitigating factor for grades and LSAT scores- if you've had to work through UG and couldn't afford a prep class, you're numbers will invariably be lower than a more affluent person with greater wealth.

There sure are a lot of cheesy slogans in these comments.

if you've had to work through UG and couldn't afford a prep class, you're numbers will invariably be lower than a more affluent person with EQUAL INTELLIGENCE.

(fixed post from 12:33)

For all those making exceedingly generalized attacks on "liberals" in these comments - it takes a real warrior to set up that straw man and then attack it.

12:28---Regardless of how hard it is for you to wrap your head around it, it is HYPOCRITICAL for opponents of AA/supporters of a meritocracy to only challenge preference that don't benefit their group.

So, wait, if we just let you end AA for minorities, which is so very unfair, then you would let us end legacy admits?

What kind of bizarro world do you live in? At the point where y'all are supposedly campaigning for meritocracy, and you avoid dealing with or addressing a PROFOUNDLY anti-meritocratic policy, such as legacy/sports/connected admits, which OVERWHELMINGLY benefits other whites, you are hypocrites.

This is your side's cause celebre. If you really cared about meritocracy, you'd be dealing with the problem.

I am dealing with the problem. I inform you, and everyone I cross paths with, that these preferences exist, and are WRONG. I happen to believe that preferences for the poor, and diversity preferences of all types (regional, career, etc.) are OKAY. But I am willing to listen to other who say that they are not.

Right here, right now, I am arguing AGAINST legacy admits. I am opening your eyes to something you did not know existed.

So I am doing something.

Does anyone have anything to say about pro-male preferences in UG admission over the past decade? Does that make any of you newbie lawyers feel bad? Maybe you took some more-deserving woman's spot in UG. The silence on this subject is deafening.

So if Carter's point is that you have to fix the problem much earlier than college, what exactly does he propose that will solve the problem of inner-city schools that are, in many cases, full of minorities, run by minorities, and failing spectacularly on an annual basis (i.e. Detroit, D.C., LA, etc.)?

Since you have to at least graduate from high school to get into college (AA or not), the basic educational dysfunction in these areas has prevented millions of these people from even being eligible for AA. Thus, the AA candidates tend to be middle class and non-representative of the types of minorities AA was created for.

And yet the basic educational system is so entrenched in these areas that change is effectively impossible. What do you do--take away their right to run their own schools? And if a white government official tries to tell these administrators they're incompetent, corrupt, ect., then it's racism. It's why these areas have been left to rot, and why AA is counterproductive.

Umm, 12:30, the whole point is that there is a huge difference between helping people based on their wealth (or lack thereof) and helping people based on their color (or lack thereof).

LOL at you for not knowing the difference between rational basis scrutiny and strict scrutiny, and trying to use legacy admits to justify racial discrimination.

How many Supreme Court challenges have been brought against legacy admits? None, and not for a lack of people who want to try, because the requirements for justification are much lower.

"What do you do--take away their right to run their own schools?"

Actually, yes, that's exactly what you do. A voucher-based education system would go a long way toward alleviating racial inequality in this country.

12:27---Clarence Thomas has repudiated AA. He wrote a book about it, if you recall. He now fights against AA.

Has GWB gone on a similar crusade against legacy admits?

12:39, You still don't explain why you switched to programs helping poor people from programs helping rich people. You probably did it because it makes your argument more palatable.

The Sup. Ct. has also held that diversity is an acceptable goal, and can include racial diversity. So if you want to treat them as the be-all end-all, our convo. is done.

But if you want to talk critically about fairness and justice, you will note that the route I suggested was state laws barring such admissions. If they can bar race-based admissions, surely they can bar legacy admits. Which, as you pointed out, would only lead to rational basis scrutiny.

Let's pass some laws, people!

Isn't it ironic that in the comments section to an article titled "Affirmative Distraction" 90% of the comments are debating the merits of affirmative action, and missing the point of the article? Affirmative action doesn't fix the real problems of blacks not graduating from high school and living in poverty. That's because fixing black poverty is hard. Indeed, Stephen Carter doesn't offer a single solution in this article. The end goals to end poverty for black americans are straightforward enough:

Increase marriage
Increase devotion to family
Increase participation in your children's education (formal and informal)
Teach your children right from wrong

But accomplishing those goals is not something you can easily legislate. So let's just go back to arguing the merits of affirmative action, instead of actually trying to fix racial injustice.

As a white male, I love affirmative action.

These blacks and Hispanics fill up the bottom of the law school curve and allow the rest of us to get high grades without having to use more grade inflation. Check at your law school how many blacks get magna cum laude (zero at Harvard in 2008).

Next, they fail the bar exam at far higher rates. This reduces the need for the bar examiners to make the bar exams harder. Everybody wins (except those who fail, of course).

They then fill up law firms, who lower the bar for them to get in. Once in, the lower bar means they can't compete and eventually drop out, leaving partnership spots open for the rest of us, while allowing the partnership to make more profit off high leverage. Everybody wins (except those who drop out).

12:38(3). There are all kinds of assumptions in your post. Like minorities run failing schools. Or that intervening in failing schools would be an indicting those who ran the schools on the basis of their race.

Many failing schools lack some pretty basic resources. Safe physical plants, up-to-date textbooks, adequate classroom supplies. In one of the wealthiest nations in the world, this is a travesty. I am not saying, to be clear, that adequately funding schools will solve all problems. But whatever part of the problem that inadequate supplies and physical plants cause needs to be solved.

And even as a lib, I support vouchers.

All of you legacy admit people seem astoundingly unable to construct a logical argument.

If X and Y are not mutually exclusive, then arguing for X does not mean arguing against Y. AA can be wrong and legacy admits can be wrong. Being against AA does not mean being in favor of other non-meritocratic admission policies.

12:32- Again wrong tool. I know plenty of black students who did well in their class who didn't pass the bar on the first try. And, I know this will shock you, but I know plenty of white students who did well in law school and failed too.
If you have taken the bar exam, you would know that it means jack crap. Also, a huge part of bar passage rate is taking one of those thousand dollar prep classes, which many people cant afford.

12:30- Your analogy is flawed. You assume that you know what % of frogs are green, which you dont. The minority student you saw at the bottom of the class (who was just below a non-minority who you overlook) could have had the 175 LSAT score.

Again each time you see a high flier, you call him/her the anomaly. That's why the conversation goes nowhere and we keep speaking past each other.

12:45, it seems like you can't get your mind around simply changing words, so let me make it simpler for you to understand with even more explicit analogies.

Government gives money to:
Wealthy people (e.g., home mortgage interest deduction, for only itemizers, and poor people don't itemize) - constitutional
Poor people (TANF) - constitutional
White people only - unconstitutional
Black people only - unconstitutional

Now you see the difference between rational basis scrutiny (for wealth-based discrimination) and strict scrutiny (for race-based discrimination)?

And that is why you cannot use the presence of legacy admissions to justify affirmative action admissions. It's like using welfare to justify handing out money to only blacks, both rich and poor.

12:48, a lot of those things you suggest (marriage, devotion to family, increased participation, inculcating values) require that people have the ability to spend time with their children.

Many of the working poor work too many hours to be able to put as much time into those activities.

Also, 1 out of 3 black males is incarcerated (prison or jail) at least once in his lifetime.

Of course, crime is bad, but blacks and whites use drugs in the same proportions. Yet we catch poor (usually black) drug users and dealers in much higher numbers because (1) we focus our policing resources on the inner cities and (2) it requires fewer resources to run drug busts where people are dealing for a living, and have to transact business outside.

One study revealed that enlisted black men in the military did just as well as their white counterparts on every measure of familial well-being. Their children did just as well in school. Their divorce rates were identical (although the military usually has higher divorce rates.) And on and on.

A lot of the problems you are identifying as being "black" problems are actually poverty problems.

Poor blacks and poor white behave the same. There are just more poor blacks. I'm guessing you know what that is.

12:54,

But the thing is that I do. Read up on the GULC controversy of some years ago. Read Dick Sander's data. You can't just pretend that the numbers bear you out - they do not.

12:30

12:38- agreed- but it's going both ways.

12:31 -

Please. Please. Pulling the 'racist' card about a comment on how white the school would be...really?

I agree with most of the posters about the fallacy of AA. But, let's get something straight. I'm white. I love it. It's great. White people run the world. There is no racist comment that can be made against whites. It's not possible. Calling something 'lily white' is in no way an insult.

To throw in some urban dialect: don't call the libs a bitch, and then pull a bitch move. Stay on the high ground.

Again, 12:55, if the Sup. Ct. has the last word, it has said that diversity is an acceptable goal.

What is wrong with my idea of states illegalizing legacy admits? Constitutionally?

12:59, what the Supreme Court has said is not relevant since affirmative action is optional. Supreme Court also said mandatory sterilization was legal, but that does not preclude an argument about it.

My whole point is that