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 the scrutiny for legacy admits and race-based admits are completely different and cannot be analogized. It is precisely like saying that it's ok to give money to only whites/blacks simply because the government also gives money to only poor/rich people.

States are free to illegalize legacy admits as that would be rational basis scrutiny.

12:50/12:55---Here is why conservatives targeting AA and not legacies is hypocritical.

Stated reasons for opposing AA: 1. People should be admitted based on merit. 2. People with lower scores are less qualified and will do poorly. 3. People are taking slots that belong to better-qualified whites, simply because their membership in a group, which does not necessarily show that they were discriminated against.

All three of these reasons apply MORE to the legacy/sports/connections admits than to minorities.

I therefore the question the motives of those who oppose AA, because if they were really concerned about a meritocracy, they would be DOING SOMETHING about legacy/sports/connections admits.

It is HYPOCRITICAL to say that you are doing something because you value a meritocracy, without doing your homework and realizing that there are bigger, more serious threats to the meritocratic ideal than the one you exclusively target.

11:52 and 11:56 - Please tell me how that comment is racist. It just plain isn't.

1:03, you might make some sense if I were MAKING A LEGAL ANALOGY.

I'm not. I'm talking about the rightness or wrongness of granting preferences to rich people.

That's it.

That said, what is your OPINION.

For those so concerned about legacy admits,

Legacy admits are more likely to give (or cause to be given) $$$ to the school. When choosing between one unqualified kid and another, I wouldn't blame the school at all for choosing the one with the checkbook. Expenditures are part of the ranking system, so at least that kid is contributing something of tangible value.

1:04, please show me one cite that there are more legacy admits, and they are less qualified, than affirmative action admits at law schools. Show me that it is a bigger and more serious threat.

I don't understand posters who equate exceptional athletic ability with legacy admits. One admit has mastered a skill and set himself or herself apart, the other was merely born into the right family. The college athletes I knew may have fallen a bit short of the academic mark, but so did several artists, musicians, etc. I suppose you can distinguish between the arts and athletics (nerds often do), but I still think the athlete=legacy argument is weak.

12:56 -

Nice post, but you are wrong in one assumption. There are actually more poor white people in America. It seems like there are more poor black people, but there is a higher percentage of poor black people as it relates to the overall group. Looking at raw data, there are more working and non-working poor white people.

12:56 -

I agree with you.

Not legacies at law schools, legacies in UG.

Which affects your ability to get into LS.

Also, the article isn't just discussing LS AA.

12:01 - its not racist to say that the minorities are "stupid" if its true.

NOTE: I am not saying that minorities are stupid!

Sure, its racist to say that if its based purely on the fact that they are minorities. But if the individuals admited under an AA program are not as bright as those not admitted under an AA program, then... well.. they are relatively stupid. I think its safe to say that they are *relatively* stupid if they had to rely on an AA program to get in. Same goes for the connected white people that are admitted but do not meet the academic qualifications of the admissions process. They, too, are relatively stupid.

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

The assumption that people who get lower SAT scores and grades are more "stupid" than people who get higher scores is, for lack of a better word, stupid. On of the bases of AA is the recognition that our ability to achieve in an academic environment (and thus obtain the keys to socioeconomic success) is in large part due to the environments in which we were raised. So, as a supporter of AA, I agree with these a-holes who say that stupid people don't enhance our educational experience. But what I disagree with is the implication that we measure a person's stupidity by their SAT score.

Fine - we'll just go to an exam-based admissions system like the rest of the world. Now there's a meritocracy.

"I therefore the question the motives of those who oppose AA, because if they were really concerned about a meritocracy, they would be DOING SOMETHING about legacy/sports/connections admits."

What do you mean you question their motives? Their motivation is racism!

Affirmative action is a wedge issue for the left. Half of Democrats support it, and half oppose it, and most feel strongly. Debates over AA are far more heat than light, and conservatives (who tend to be anti-AA) often toss the AA debate bomb into the public rhetoric as a left wedge issue -- like partial-birth abortions and gay marriage. These issues (while critically important to those they affect) all affect very few people, and are used mostly to distract liberals from a larger progressive agenda.

So, from now until Election Day, anytime a conservative raises these topics, liberals should refuse to take the bait. Don't even bother debating these issues.

Suggested alternate topics: Iraq, the economy, infrastructure investment, development of alternative energy sources, increasing threats to privacy rights by government (FISA, e.g.) and private actors (Viacom, e.g.), and last but not least, whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana prohibits the death penalty for people who post "first" on blogs.

Sorry, 1:11, you are correct, I should have said a higher percentage of black people are poor.

I am also very concerned about the rural poor, who are mostly white. So my concerns about poverty are not solely based on race.

Am I first?

1:23: Does that holding extend to those who preface posts with "Ummmm...."?

yeah, how is AA supposed to help some kid raised by a single mother who cursed him out every time he cried or asked her for something? How can AA help a kid who heard his peers, a bunch of 20 and 30 something unemployed social outcasts, talk about how white america wants to oppress all black people?

I think the first step for black people to finding economic justice is to stop poisoning their children's minds from infancy.

For all those liberals who call "conservatives" hypocrites when they oppose AA but tolerate legacy admits: guess what, when you support AA but oppose legacy admits, that also makes you a hypocrite by the same standard.

It's a bird, a plane, a BOOMERANG!

Anything the government does to "help" minorities or other so-called disadvantaged groups "get ahead" of others based on race, economic class, gender, nationality, etc. is likely to be counterproductive. With regard to colleges and law schools, each should develop admission criteria based on merit alone, however each school may define that concept. Presumably merit does not include points for the color of your skin or how much money you do or don't have in the bank or whether you father or aunt is an alum. Programs to "help" the poor by giving them unearned money is likely to just create a dependent class, as we already have, or encourage workers to get paid "off the books" so as not to endanger their qualification for government payments, which we also already have. Private efforts are a lot more likely to ferret out and really assist the "deserving poor," minority or not, without creating dependency or cheating.

1:35 It is not hypocritical to say those who are disadvantaged by the discrimination against their parents and against themselves should have their grades and test scores adjusted upward to reflect how they would have done without these disadvantaged, and on the other hand, to say that advantaged people who do poorly should not get such a bump.

i love that Carter noted that the East Coast is the hot bed for segregation and the South is the poster child for diversity. Not that this is surprising for someone who grew up in the South and went to school up North--it sure as hell would have surprised all of my classmates though (and likely most on this board).

1:48, and likewise it is not hypocritical to say that we should not judge people by the color of their skin, and on the other hand say that people who will most benefit the school in contributions and thus help all other students should get a bump, especially when the latter group has a higher yield rate.

But that is not what the liberals are saying. They are saying if you support X but not Y, you are hypocritical. Then by definition, the converse group are hypocritical too.

1:48: I was discriminated against because my Dad wanted me to be a sports star and told me book learnin' was for nerds. GIVE ME MY ADMISSION TO HARVARD, BITCHES!

1:48 assumes any with dark skin is "disadvantaged" and anyone with white skin is not. And assumes that any low test score is a product of that racism that he imagines only in his wittle wiberal mind.

Back to coding with you!

1:48=Stalin rules!

Isiah thinks everyone posting here is a racist. what is the deal with you people?

Isiah worked hard to get where he is (don't laugh; Isiah's still getting PAYED), and he didn't benefit from AA. But that's partly because of the trailblazers (not those thugs) who suffered through discrimination before Isiah, to make professional sports amenable (yeah, amenable) to minority participation.

Sure AA is unfair to that rich white kid who got a higher LSAT than the lesbian transvestite AfroTino American who takes his spot in Columbia. But our society chooses unfairly all the time for broader purposes (see generally "taxes"), and I think everyone would like to see equality in the workplace. If we don't force some people with lower grades in now, the cycle will never end, and people will keep an image of "rich white boy" in their minds as the perfect lawyer.
Once we permanently change that image, more minorities will try harder for whitecolla' stuff, employers will be more accepting of them, and soon we'll reach an equilibrium.

At least that's what Isiah hopes.

I love how isiah argues that being wrong, unfair, and racist is ok if once upon a time, someone was wrong, unfair, and racist to your grandfather.
EPIC FAIL!

Yes, 2:02, because a meritocracy will *always* keep whites on top. Yes, because a meritocracy is always racist, because black people are all stupider.

Nice logic, moron.

Liberals=unfair to whites=good
unfair to blacks=bad.

Ladies and gentlemen, the party of Obama!

"employers will be more accepting of them"
---yes, because employers turn down brilliant minority candidates all the time because of racism. Yes, because we all live in a Hollywood movie about Alabama in the 1960s.

Bill Cosby said it best. Somebody go read the Pound Cake Speech.

Bill Cosby=Billionaire without AA.
AA hires=failures.

lol @ 2:10

the only way to prove you REALLY care about the less fortunate minorities is to find a poor minority family, convey them title to the condo/co-op your parents bought you while you were in law school, and give them the debit card and/or passbook to the bank account containing all of the money you "earned" for your bar/bat mitzvahs, b-days and 1st communions. otherwise, you're all talk

"But that is not what the liberals are saying. They are saying if you support X but not Y, you are hypocritical. Then by definition, the converse group are hypocritical too."

That's not what the liberals (or at least, what this liberal) is saying. We're pointing out that there isn't any real public debate or discourse with respect to legacies. Sure, there might be "some" debate and there are certainly people who don't like legacy admits, but you can't honestly say that the debate over legacy admits is anywhere close to the debate about AA. Therefore, for those people who oppose AA primarily on grounds like "stupid people shouldn't be admitted to top schools" and "we should have a merit based system" to focus on one specific type of preferential admit signals that there is a reason beyond their purported ones for opposing AA.

As for me, I recognize that legacy admits or children of wealthy donors or children of celebreties/politicians, etc. can offer something to school by virtue of those connections. There is a REASON to admit them. Likewise, there is also a REASON to admit minorities who otherwise would not be admitted. That reason could be to create racial diversity (a virtue which should not be downplayed) or to give a boost to a group of people who were ENSLAVED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS and hope that by giving them a valuable education, they can then emphasize the values of such an education on their children and over generations, help to close the racial gap.

I'm against AA not because it takes spots away from more deserving people, i'm against it because it makes the school worse.

Smart people - Make a better learning environment
Rich people - Give money to the school to make it better
Athletes - Help the school earn revenue to make it better

AA admits - arguably provide "diversity," but I don't think people have really thought about what "diversity" is or whether it's even a good thing. Diversity isn't different skin colors, it's different perspectives and backgrounds. Admitting people who have unique backgrounds is already part of the college admissions process (e.g., essay, extracurriculars) and isn't dependent on race.

However, unless the school is a state actor, I believe organizations should be free to do whatever they want. An academic environment that's AA-crazy will open up niches for color-blind schools, and the market can decide. So I'm against AA in theory, but I'm for a private school's right to determine its own admissions criteria.

Schools are made for learning, not supporting dumb jocks. Athletes=out.
Schools are made for learning, not for giving rich kids a 4 year free ride. Rich kids=out.
Schools are made for learning, not for dumb kids who can't keep up. AA=out.

It's very simple people. Throw out the trash, the environment improves.

Oh, and I forgot to add that it's good to have rich, connected people at a school even if they don't give money. Their presence gives average, un-connected people an opportunity to make connections in college that can help their careers and provide otherwise inaccessable opportunities. "Diversity," whatever that means, doesn't provide a similarly objective benefit.

2:28

2:28= fair enough, but now, thanks to propaganda, any school that rejects AA and goes to color blind admissions is automatically racist--especially when blacks don't get in because they fall below the set standards. Then Al "The Criminal" Sharpton stages a protest and the NAACP sues and David Bowie donates money and everyone calls them racist.

How can conservatives be so right about AA but so wrong about same-sex relationships?

-Confused voter

How can conservatives be so right about AA but so wrong about same-sex relationships?

-Confused voter

ok wtf I definitely only clicked once.

um, 2:31, your reasoning is short-sighted. I agree, schools are made for learning. Money helps improve the schools and thereby improves the learning. Because athletes and rich kids help the school earn more money, they therefore improve the school's ability to impart learning.

"Diversity" does not improve learning, directly or indirectly.

2:37: perhaps if you offered them the chance to vote on the issue instead of demanding it be a "right" and ram it down people's throats through the courts--and actually make convincing arguments rather than "we get to do it, too"---then maybe conservatives would agree.

to 2:05 & 2:07 (probably tonguing in the mensroom right now)
My G-d; Isiah can't believe you people went to law school (or are possibly there now). My logic had nothing to do with meritocracy or fixing past injustice, if you "yokels" can read. Please review my comments one mo' time, and get back to doc review.

Isiah's just saying that there is a segment of American society that is significantly under-represented in certain areas, and that "under-representation" creates a continuous cycle, and extra-legal/unfair practices are necessary to make a change.

Isiah wants a meritocracy, but can you honestly say that there is absolutely no racism involved in the hiring of professionals today? although you may be open minded, most 50 yr. old partners are not as hip.
To create a true meritocracy, we may need to bend the rules for a short time. the question is whether we should.

In closing, "nice logic moron" after an empty line was really great, but there are no laugh tracks on ATL. Isiah can just see you pleasuring yourself furiously to that perfect post up there; damn, you sure showed Isiah.

Isiah hates ad hominem attacks, and unfortunately had to resort to one because hey, it's true and funny.
But don't be calling Isiah moron when anyone can see that you can't read. Now back to work.

Athletes=do not improve schools. If a school wants an athletic team, they can sponsor them or buy them, not offer the hypocrisy of giving them diplomas that devalue everyone else's.

As for Rich Kids, it's really not worth having them at all. The school is being disingenous for having them, same as AA kids.

"It is not hypocritical to say those who are disadvantaged by the discrimination against their parents and against themselves should have their grades and test scores adjusted upward to reflect how they would have done without these disadvantaged."

Very true. Buuuuuut.... the objection most reasonable folks have is not with the above principle, but with its application (a) to individuals who, while belonging to a historically disadvantage *group* did not personally suffer discrimination; and (b) in a manner grossly incommensurate with any actual hardship, e.g., a nont-unheard-of 12 point "bump" to an applicant's LSAT.

"Isiah's just saying that there is a segment of American society that is significantly under-represented in certain areas, and that "under-representation" creates a continuous cycle, and extra-legal/unfair practices are necessary to make a change."

---Ah, yes, an a priori belief with no basis in fact which ignores millions of years of human history and basic evolution to the contrary. But hey, it's a liberal truism, so why bother with facts....
lol Isiah.

"Isiah wants a meritocracy, but can you honestly say that there is absolutely no racism involved in the hiring of professionals today? although you may be open minded, most 50 yr. old partners are not as hip."
-----Yes, the 50 year partner who was born in 1958, grew up in a post-civil rights era, has had diversity movies thrown in his face for the last 50 years, and practiced diversity training and had blacks and other non-whites in his universe for the last 50 years.

You're right, he's just a Klansman fat cat. they all are. All white men past 50 are. its a fact. Or, just you're own paranoia. hmmm.....

The dude takes a racist, stupid, two-faced sexual harasser and bully whom nobody in the NBA besides the Dolans like and makes him into a avatar.

I think that's all that needs to be said about Isiah.

2;25, Romans enslaved my ancestors for hundreds of years, so where is my pro-French affirmative action?

When does the statute of limitations on historical mistreatment run out? 150 years after slavery ended? 500 years after slavery ended?

Liberals, please don't use slavery as an excuse unless you're also clamoring for Italy to give affirmative action to the rest of Europe.

2:41, maybe if conservatives would listen to the excellent arguments that have been made rather than saying, "over 51% of us believe that our holy book says this is wrong, therefore it is wrong, and because we are the majority we can do whatever we want", they would agree.

i've yet to hear a single good argument against civil unions that doesn't fall back on a certain interpretation of abrahamic tradition.

psst, Isiah, you know what happened when WASPs wouldn't let the poor immigrant Irish Catholics, East Asians and Jews into their law firms and kept them out of judgeships?

Two Choices:
A. They became a permanent under class, stopped entering law school, and are now mostly on welfare.
B. They started their own firms, beat the WASPs in court, became respected as equals, and overcame racism to become as welcomed at the firms as the WASP attorneys.

Now, after the quiz, tell me again how blacks will always be held down.

what's an avatar?

""under-representation" creates a continuous cycle, and extra-legal/unfair practices are necessary to make a change."
--I forgot how AA helped so many blacks enter Basketball and Football and Baseball. I mean, without that, they would have had to get their on merit!

I guess we now need AA for whites in those sports. Just makes sense!

2:57:
I have yet to see a single argument in favor of gay marriage that doesn't try to separate marriage from religion--from whence it came, of course.

Hear hear 2:58. Jews were discriminated against, and now we have Wachtell, Paul Weiss, Weil, etc.

Where are the major black firms? Northern law schools have been graduating blacks since the Civil War. HLS had its first black HLR editor (Charles Hamilton Houston) in 1923.

Over eighty years of black law graduates and still no top black firms. I wonder why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(virtual_reality)

3:01, marriage actually did not come from religion. but even if it did, it was around before abrahamic religions became mainstream and is not now unique to them. a number of religions do permit same-sex coupling. further, if we persist in assuming that marriage is a religious function, why is the state performing it? let each church decide who is eligible to participate in their little ceremony. on the civil side, have civil unions for all, with no gender discrimination by a state actor.

also, "from whence" is redundant. just fyi.

2:58, 3:02=dead right. Other groups were discriminated against, and merely turned inwards and built their own businesses/firms to rival those who discriminated against them. The market drove them because their merited inclusion in the market, and WASP's racism eventually bowed to their forces.

Johnnie Cochran didn't become a great defense attorney based on AA. He became great based on his own ability +hard work. He may have saved a murderer from the chair, but that's a different tale.

racism is more fun to talk about than gay marriage.

"also, "from whence" is redundant. just fyi."
Nothing like a lawyer to miss the rhetorical flourish for the trees.

P.S. how is it redundant? It's the only time I mention marriage came from religion. It's a bit wordy, but not redundant.

I GOT DA BOOTY JUICE!

3:05, the problem is gay marriage hasn't been made a religious issue. Gays haven't been able to find a major religion that sanctions gay marriage. There have been attempts by homosexuals to found religions to allow gay marriage, but the religions are created solely to argue for gay marriage--in other words, they are not based on sincere religious beliefs

Even the Anglican/Episcopals haven't condoned gay marriage or sanctified it, and there's a huge fight about it.

If gays were able to have a religion that performed it, and that religious belief was sincere, then the 1st Amendment would be in play.

Not technically incorrect, perhaps, but annoying:

"The construction 'from whence' has been criticized as redundant since the 18th century. It is true that whence incorporates the sense of from: a remote village, whence little news reached the wider world. But from whence has been used steadily by reputable writers since the 14th century, most notably in the King James Bible: "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help" (Psalms). Such a respectable precedent makes it difficult to label the construction as incorrect. Still, it may be observed that whence (like thence) is most often used nowadays to impart an archaic or highly formal tone to a passage, and that this effect is probably better realized if the archaic syntax of the word—without from—is preserved as well."

-American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition

this conversation reminds me of Avenue Q:
"Everyone's a little bit racist, it's true
But everyone's about as racist as you...."

What is a "sincere" religious belief? My two-year-old is sincere in her belief in Santa Claus -- sincerity has nothing to do with legitimacy.

The state should either let gays marry or get out of the marriage business. The current situation is clearly an endorsement of one (perceived legitmate) religion over another (perceived bogus) religion.

3:14: I like the flourish. Since he was talking about the ancient founding of marriage, it was apropos.

Non Sequitor Discussion: No Latin/Olde English allowed in gay marriage arguments, ye dogs.

I know most of you will not agree. I will say it anyway. Most of the people here are racist. Yes, I am Black. (Which I know makes alot of you sigh, bc you can now discredit anything I am saying by writing me off as some "Angry Black Guy")

Here are som simple truths. 1. People across spectrums of skin color, in general, have the similar intellectual possibilities at birth. 2. Black people in the United States are not acheiving financial or academic success at the same rate as White people.

Now this is either nature or nuture. Either Black people are inherently intellectually inferior to White people, or something happened in their environment that caused them to lag behind.

We all can argue about any discreet instance, but the point of any policy position is the macro trend. The question is just whether you care that something is trending in a certain direction and if you feel that something should be done to change it.

Guys, there are plenty of other places to talk about gay marriage. Go there.

This is a post about affirmative action.

This is Isiah's last post; it's hard to argue with people who think they look are not prejudiced, and then insinuate stupidity or lack of initiative to whole races.

First off, I am white. and I am a racist like pretty much everyone else.

you ask why there are no top black law firms, insinuating lack of initiative/brains, but jews/irish were able to get into top schools (and a quality education) in the early 1900's, unlike a majority of Black Americans. More importantly, the prejudice of the "stupid" or "unintellectual" Black man may have held back many clients from flocking to a black lawyer who persevered, unlike Jews asians and Irish, who weren't considered stupid, just low class. I am not an expert, but I believe that the discrimination against jews did not extend to the belief that they were stupid or lackadaisical (i had to get that in).

The fact that most lawyers / professionals aren't black males HAS TO affect every one of us, just like everything we see affects us. When we do see a black lawyer, deep down we do think twice for a second. At least I do, unfortunately.
I don't know how to change that, but i think AA is a start. And I know J. Thomas may dissent and say this will engrain it even more, but if it leads to more affluence in minority communities, i think over time there will be better education and better scores from minorities, which will slowly reverse that negative thinking.

Yeah, sure, my Irish ancestors were discriminated against until a few generations of intermarriage meant that most people can't tell Irish from other whities.

But my Irish ancestors didn't have to struggle with Jim Crow, with segregated schools, and the hiring effects were much lower and ended much faster. BECAUSE WE LOOK LIKE OTHER WHITE PEOPLE! Once we ditched the Irish accents, people couldn't tell at first glance that we were Irish.

Anyone arguing that anti-Irish prejudice in this country was ever as bad as anti-black prejudice is a moron.

Yeah, I'm going to stop derailing this thread with SSM talk. There will be plenty of opportunities for that later.

Back to bashing AA!

Isiah, nice dodge of my explicit fact showing that blacks like Charles Hamilton Houston were able to get into Harvard law school in the early 1900s. HLS first graduated a black lawyer in 1870. Furthermore, Howard and other HBCUs were graduating plenty of blacks in the early 1900s.

But let's just conveniently blame racism on all of the black man's shortcomings in order to justify AA.

Unitarians believe in gay marriage.

So, I believe, do many Reform rabbis. (Someone more knowledgeable may have more to say on this subject.)

3:22,

While not taking a position, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that anti-Irish prejudice was ever as bad as anti-African prejudice, just that comparisons can indeed be made despite the difference in scale.

/is "anti-African" itself prejudiced given that it refers to an entire continent rather than a specific race?

3:16:
Sincerity of religious belief has long been the litmus test in American courts of whether a religious belief can be used a justification for an argument.

It ignores an argument about religion's merits and instead focuses on whether the person's actions/suit are justified.

It's why the flying spaghetti monster annoyers don't have a prayer. badump bum

if you define racism as having negative feelings or holding negative beliefs about a group of people based on their race (which is the only way it can be defined) more black people are racist than white people. after living in NYC for 7 years that is the only conclusion one can reach.

3:22, even if anti-Irish prejudice was not as bad as anti-black prejudice, that's just a difference in degree.

So if blacks get a 12-point boost on the LSAT, obviously the Irish shouldn't get the same boost, but maybe they can get 3 points added to their LSAT instead. Since they suffered some prejudice, a zero-point boost is not appropriate. Proportionality is the key.

Just because some African Americans had the resources to get into Harvard a long-ass time ago doesn't mean that things were on an equal footing.

Do you honestly believe that black lawyers in the 1900s were given the same business opportunities that whites were? With equal credentials?

Do you remember little things like anti-miscegenation laws, segregation, all-white law schools (Sweatt v. Painter, a brown forerunner, integrated an all-white law school because there were no all-black lawschools in the state).

Does the fact that U of M graduated a woman in the 1870s mean that women weren't discriminated against? That women lawyers had all the same opportunities as male lawyers?

Did you know that some women fought openly as women (usually after having fought "as men" and being found out) in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? That some even received military pensions? Does that mean there was no discrimination against women in the military after that time?

"Anyone arguing that anti-Irish prejudice in this country was ever as bad as anti-black prejudice is a moron."
---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism#19th_century

Boston still had NINA signs well into the 1930s, even after the Irish formed majorities of the city.

Anyone who thinks Irish WERE NOT as discriminated against as blacks: 1) doesn't know history and 2) learned all their history of racism from Mississippi Burning.

Get your head out of your asses. Oh, and the Irish were stereotyped as stupid, lazy, and alcoholic criminals. All of them. And starved and burned to death. Oh, and the Klan wanted them out, too---in fact, even more than the blacks, because while blacks were tolerated if held down, Catholics were seen as anti-american (much like Muslims today by extremists in America).

but hey, don't let facts get in the way, Al Sharpton.

3:28, if you could show me that the Irish in this country were worse off than other whites, you might have a leg to stand on. But that is bloody unlikely. There are so many Irish on the federal bench, and in high-ranking military, police, and political positions that you don't have an argument.

Like I've said upthread, the achievement gap between blacks and whites is largely correlated with socio-economic status. Poor blacks don't behave any differently or worse than poor whites. Their educational outcomes aren't worse.

It is all about the benjamins.

3:30, Do you honestly believe that Jewish lawyers in the 1900s were given the same business opportunities that whites were? With equal credentials?

That's the whole point, that they overcame adversity and succeeded. Somehow we got Paul Weiss and Weil Gotshail and plenty of other Jewish firms.

Nobody is saying that blacks or Jews suffered zero discrimination, idiot.

Also, Sweatt v. Painter was in Texas. There were plenty of schools admitting blacks in the North. There were plenty of black law graduates.
Liberals like to think that the entire country was segregated before 1954. Umm, no.

3:30,

You miss the point. Yes, it was wrong for a state to provide a legal education exclusively to its white citizens merely on the basis of color. Surely, then, it is also wrong for the state to prop up certain students now merely on the basis of color.

Desegregation is not the same thing as integration.

blacks love to think of themselves as history's most oppressed people--as do libs. However, anyone who studies the history of Chinese, Irish, or Jewish immigration in this country would realize that that is bunk.

Blacks had slavery, which was a heavy cross, and no one denies their oppression. But to argue some how that they were worse off in the post-civil war era than those other groups above is to ignore blatant facts to the contrary.

3:32, I'm Irish, you dumbass, and I disagree. yes, things were bad in some places. But there was no legally enforced segregation, no anti-marriage laws, no exclusion from institutions of higher education, and the crimes against the Irish, although deplorable, do not stack up to the proportion of african americans who were criminally victimized.

3:34, no, they were not given the same opportunities, they were discriminated against (and most Jewish people are "whites", I think you meant to say "gentiles") but the discrimination was nowhere near as severe.

So if you were a Texan black, you were just screwed? I didn't say ALL state schools discriminated, I pointed to an example of one that did to show you that this dynamic existed until the 1950s. That is a big deal.

Most of the country was segregated, whether de facto or de jure.

3:34, see 3:32. The anti-catholic laws. the Brahmin/Irish divide in Boston. the burning of convents. The first immigration battles. The anti-popery party (the No Nothings)---a major political party founded in a large part to get rid of irish catholics. The NINA signs. The WASP firms that would schedule interviews on Ash Wednesday to see who came in with ashes on their head--to make sure they didn't hire those people. Heck, some support of prohibition came from a thought that banning drink would drive the Irish out of America.

"Isiah, nice dodge of my explicit fact showing that blacks like Charles Hamilton Houston were able to get into Harvard law school in the early 1900s. HLS first graduated a black lawyer in 1870. Furthermore, Howard and other HBCUs were graduating plenty of blacks in the early 1900s."

Well then, I guess that your "explicit fact" dispels this whole "racism" myth. I mean, if a black guy graduated from Harvard in 1870, surely black people today can't POSSIBLY be feeling the effects of slavery and pre-1964 America...

3:34, are you seriously trying to argue that because there are so many Irish successes NOW that they couldn't have ever suffered as much as blacks?

Wow. So success means you didn't suffer. I guess Jews and Chinese should feel the same way.

Nobody's a victim but blacks. i get it now.

3:30 again, I am arguing that when people's disadvantaged background means that there tests scores are artificially depressed, we should correct for that. Which is why I think all poor people should get a bump up.

The question is, since we did this bad and discriminatory thing, what is the solution? Do we just stop discriminating? Even though the initial discrimination means that a higher proportion of blacks are poor then would have been if we had never discriminated?

and 3:37, why is it you assume everyone who disagrees with you about race is black? I am a white Irishwoman who thinks that blacks were (and still are) more oppressed than any other "white" group in this country. (I won't even get to Native Americans.) I'm also part Hungarian, and all Catholic, so I know all about prejudice against Catholics and Eastern Europeans as well. And although it was deplorable, it was NOT the same and NOT as severe.

3:38, LOL are you kidding that the Irish were never segregated or excluded from elite schools? Get over your white liberal self-loathing guilt and learn more about your own people.

3:40, you are an idiot. I never argued blacks suffered no racism. I'm arguing there were black lawyers in the 1900s, and they could easily have created their own law firms just like the Jews did, and overcame discrimination through superior lawyer skills. But they never did. Try to learn how to read instead of making up the arguments of the other side.

3:38:"'m Irish, you dumbass, and I disagree. yes, things were bad in some places. But there was no legally enforced segregation,
----Yes, there were. Re-read a covenant from the 19th century in Boston. One condition--the house would never be occupied by blacks or Irish or Jews. It's more common than you think.

no anti-marriage laws,
---de facto. You didn't marry outside you're religion back then. Irish Catholics weren't going to marry Protestants due to religious bans, especially on the Catholic side. It would have been redundant.

"no exclusion from institutions of higher education"
--HAHAHAHAHA. Harvard??????The Ivy League?? There was a reason Boston College, Fordham, etc. were started. Catholics were kept out of WASP institution as a policy.

"and the crimes against the Irish, although deplorable, do not stack up to the proportion of african americans who were criminally victimized."
---those burned convents, extorted dumb immigrants, etc. don't count, huh? Thos enewspaper cartoons that depicted them as monkeys and cavemen?

Did you ever look up the anti-irish laws? Do you know ANYTHING besides what you WANT to believe?

Saying "I'm irish, I know" is idiotic. You're a 21st century man, dumbass, not a19th century oppressed Irishman. You have absolutely zero knowledge of oppression faced by the irish back then--the exact same amount of oppression modern blacks know of the Jim Crow era.

I don't know when the "statute of limitations" runs out for remedying historical mistreatment, but I will say two things:

1) the historical misstreatment "legally" ended in 1964, but let's be realistic - there is nothing "historical" about mistreating African Americans. It still goes on, TODAY.

2) whether or not you think that the "statute of limitations" has expired, the fact remains that there is a problem and something needs to be done about it. You can use cold hard "logic" based on ignorant assumptions to justify your own selfish position, but if we want to close the racial gap, we're going to have to give a little help to the people that need it!

3:47 is having a bad day..

3:34 shows the true reason for affirmative action. It's not about redressing past injustices. It's about creating a de facto quota system, so that if the general population is 10% black, then every institution must be at least 10% black (unless it is overrepresented black, like the NBA, in which case we ignore the lack of diversity).

And let's not get started on the Chinese on the west coast--the sub par wages, the raids, the banning of opium strictly as a punishment, the unfair housing codes, the winked at sex slavery still going on today in Chinatowns across the country, the immigrant bans (supreme court cases), the oppression during the railroad building....

People who think blacks carry the sole torch of worst oppression need to learn a bit beyond what the DailyKos teaches them

"It still goes on, TODAY."
---where? If you want to point to a specific instance, let's fight it. But merely saying "it's everywhere because their poor" is no more answer than "it just is."

If blacks are being mistreated today, allowing some blacks who would have gone to Fordham to go to Harvard instead is not going to redress that mistreatment one bit.

No, 3:41, I am arguing that whatever harm happened in the past, people were able to overcome it, because Irish blend in with other whites.

Blacks are still discriminated against.

And you keep failing to answer my point that the Irish didn't have their educational opportunities curtailed to the extent that Blacks did.

And wrt Brahmins, what? So old money didn't like upstart Irish? Sorry, did they like any kind of upstarts?

How many anti-Black political parties do you think were founded? Do you remember what happened with reconstruction? With Emmett Till? With the 8 black men wrongly convicted of raping two white women? With wrongful convictions today, which disproportionately happen to black men? (Let me be very clear on this--blacks are prosecuted in higher numbers, but of convicted blacks, A LARGER PERCENT are found innocent through DNA, etc., than whites). What about the crack/powder cocaine disparity? The fact that doctors with black drug-using pregnant patients are more likely to refer them to law-enforcement than their white drug-using patients? Did you know that during WWII, black soldiers were paid less than white soldiers? That the military wasn't integrated until about the time of the Korean war? That if you put "black-sounding" names on a resume and mail them out, they get significantly fewer interview offers than the same resumes with "white-sounding" names?

If you think discrimination against blacks is over with, you are deluded. And if you think that discrimination against Irish was more severe than discrimination against blacks during the same historical period, you are also severely deluded.

12:48,

I don't buy the underfunded school argument. I went to a really poor high school that was probably 85% african american. No one at my school was wealthy. But I know a lot of succesful and smart people from high school, and they weren't held back by having to use old books, sit at old desks, or study in a crappy building. The kids who worked hard (or were just plain smart) got good grades and went to good colleges. Sure we were a little unprepared for good colleges, but that was because of the high school's low standards, not it's crappy facilities.

On the flip side, I went to school with literally hundreds of thugs that have probably now spent significant amounts of time in jail. New books and nicer facilities would not have made a lick of difference for these kids. Their issues were a lot bigger than that. Most of these kids were in really toxic home environments were the importance of school and hard work was never stressed (not to mention the importance of not having kids before 20).

As for AA, I don't think it can do some good and the harm it causes just isn't that bad. A handful of white borderline admits end up on the waitlist at Princeton have to go to Columbia or U Penn instead. So what? If they're smart and hard working enough to truly deserve to be at a better school, they'll kick ass at Penn and end up in the same place. I don't know how much AA actually helps minorities, but I doubt going to a better school really hurts. Elite universities want to improve society and foster academic excellence. Competative admissions are part of that, but the university's main goal isn't to declare the winners in the admissions contest. That's just a means to the end. I can certainly understand how AA could also play a role in accomplishing those goals.

I can sum up 3:48 nicely:
Everything is racist against blacks because they aren't succeeding. We don't need proof, it's not their fault, it's all racism. So we just be extremely racist back and make illogical arguments and force inefficient systems on people and I can feel good about my condo.

Come on 3:52, do you really believe that racism is dead to the point where there are no color bariers to socioeconomic advancement?

The basic premise behind AA seems to be, "Kid A went to a great school and got a 96% on this standardized test. Kid B only got an 89%, but s/he is black, therefore s/he must have gone to a sub-standard school. Let's increase his/her score to 95% because we think that's what s/he would have scored if s/he had gone to the same school as Kid A."

Please let me know if I misunderstand the argument -- I don't want to be wasting my time on straw men.

I hope the fallacious racial assumption is clear. Colin Powell's children do not need AA.

Now let's look at class-based: Assume the same test scores, but suppose that Kid B really did go to a worse school (however that is measured) than Kid A. Race is irrelevant.

Should we still raise Kid B's score based on an assumption that s/he would have done better if s/he had gone to the same school as Kid A? How can we determine the appropriate amount by which to adjust Kid B's score based on this hypothetical?

The reality is that Kid B did not get the same quality of education as Kid A, and -- even if s/he would have done just as well (or better) than Kid A at Kid A's school -- Kid B did not attend Kid A's school. Kid B is, fact of the matter, not as well educated.

The solution is not affirmative action: it is improving education, starting at the bottom.

So, 3:54, the solution to all those black discrimination problems is to let blacks who would have gone to Fordham to go to Yale instead? And let blacks who wouldn't get into any law school to go to some Fourth Tier Toilet law school, where they will overwhelmingly drop out or fail the bar with $100k student debt?
How does that solve anything?

You know there is a reason why the Supreme Court said that general past discrimination in society is not a rationale for affirmative action.

Come on 3:52, do you really believe that racism is dead to the point where there are no color bariers to socioeconomic advancement?

3:54:
That's right. Because the Chinese blend so well with whites.

it's not that the Irish or Jews worked hard. it's because they can blend. (we'll forget, of course, orthodox jews, who are visually identifiable and who are not in the ghetto).

Good logic. Hang on, my doctor, who is chinese, is calling me from his country club, asking me to a tournament on saturday. I'm not a member, but he and his orthodox Jewish doctor partner are, and they can get me in for the foursome.

Yes, blending. Makes a lot of sense.

No one stopped my Irish great-grandmother from marrying my English great-grandfather. He was protestant, she was Catholic. (In fact, she was actually a quarter Scottish, which means that her Scottish and presbyterian gradfather married her Irish and Catholic grandmother.)

I know all about the anti-Irish history, and even more about the anti-Catholic history. Yes, people were killed, banned, and oppressed.

But it did not happen to the extent that it happened to blacks, and after a while, intermarriage made it much harder to tell who was Irish. Walking down the street in the 50's, lots of people couldn't spot the Irish person.

My point with saying I was Irish was that 1) I know my own family's history with discrimination and 2) people keep assuming I'm black because I think black people were oppressed.

BTW, I don't read Kos. I get my views of racial injustice through reading lots of history books. Sorry. (Most of them, btw, are written by whites.)

"And wrt Brahmins, what? So old money didn't like upstart Irish? Sorry, did they like any kind of upstarts?"

1. Anyone who characterizes the Brahmin reaction as this clearly has NEVER read a history of Boston. And probably can't read to boot.

2. I'm sorry, but using your logic, there is no racism, there is only dislike of upstarts--which would include anyone different---whether Irish or Black or Jewish or Chinese---in which case, everyone experiences the same oppression in a new place.

Ipso facto, you lose.

I can sum up 3:54's argument: Only one racial group can benefit from affirmative action. So we find the group that suffered the most, and give them effectively 12 extra points on the LSAT. All other groups are not deserving of any redress because their sufferings, however great, is not as high as the first group. I cannot tolerate affirmative action for any other racial group that has suffered historical injustices.
Oh wait, except for Hispanics.

arguing that blacks have a worse time in the criminal justice system is a completely different argument from arguing for AA. Any idiot can see that.

"But it did not happen to the extent that it happened to blacks, and after a while, intermarriage made it much harder to tell who was Irish."
---Intermarriage, maybe. But to the extent it happened to blacks??? I don't know what flippin' books you're reading, but blacks in New England (especially Boston) were treated better up to 1870 than the Irish---Boston being the hotbed of anti-slavery publications in America, while also having reactions against the potato faminers

And yes, your anecdotal evidence about your grandmother proves there were no bans on Catholic /Protestant marriages. Nope, your one story obliterates mountains of statistics.

why do Hispanics need affirmative action? Most are immigrants (newly arrived). Why, because the US and Texas beat Mexico in a way 160 years ago?

I can see the black AA arguments, and maybe the native American AA arguments, but anyone else is a in immigrant and is merely gaming the system.

Discussing anti-Chinese discrimination is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. For one, most Chinese I know are recent immigrants, who immigrated after all of those laws were off of the books. I did know one person whose family was in this country at the turn of the century, and was discriminated against. But I really don't think you can compare african-americans, most of whom have been here since slavery, with chinese-americans, most of whom are recent immigrants.

Of course racial discrimination still happens. Read some Title VII suits or something. Also, there are all kinds of studies which show that whites tend to: 1) be more likely to convict blacks; 2) less likely to interview blacks; 3) less likely to ask black job candidates as many questions or be as friendly with them as with white candidates. Furthermore, adjusting for pertinent financial data, blacks get higher APRs on loans for cars and homes. Crimes committed by blacks against whites are punished more severely than crimes committed by blacks against blacks or whites against whites. (Crimes committed by whites against blacks are punished almost as severely was black on white, but usually only if it is clear that race was a motivating factor.)

There are lots of well-intentioned people out there, who, without knowing it or meaning to, are not giving blacks the same opportunities and benefit of the doubt that they give to whites. (And when I say people, I mean people of all races--the SJ Mercury News did a study which showed that minority judges also sentenced minority offenders more harshly than white offenders, controlling for severity, criminal history, etc.)

yeah, the Catholic Church never looked down upon marrying Protestants. And Protestants never looked down upon marrying Catholics. Or Jews. nope. religious intermarriage has always been approved of, supported, and not denied.

Who writes this stuff?

Umm, 4:01, you do realize that despite anti-miscegenation laws, plenty of blacks intermarried with whites too, right?
Your one anecdote to disprove that the Irish did not suffer marriage discrimination ("no anti-marriage laws") is hilarious.

Why don't you do a google search for "Irish anti-miscegenation laws" and learn about how the Irish weren't considered "white" and thus affected by the laws. You seem to take much pride in your ability to read.

3:59, blending actually DID play a part (although it wasn't everything). But your "logic" is based on the assumption that all you have to do is "work hard" and you can overcome racial oppression. Well guess what - your assumption is assinine and it's just a reiteration of the same b.s. ("black and hispanic people are lazy") that we hear from ignorant racists like you in these debates.

"But I really don't think you can compare african-americans, most of whom have been here since slavery, with chinese-americans, most of whom are recent immigrants."

---HOLY SHIIIIIITTTEEEE! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_immigration_to_the_United_States
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CHINESE IN AMERICA, DUMBASS??????????????

"But your "logic" is based on the assumption that all you have to do is "work hard" and you can overcome racial oppression. Well guess what - your assumption is assinine and it's just a reiteration of the same b.s. ("black and hispanic people are lazy") that we hear from ignorant racists like you in these debates."
---Yes, my logic, based on market forces rewarding those individuals who offer good products/services and punishing those who offer bad products/services, is the same as calling a Mexican lazy.

Sigh, Liberals.

LOL 4:10, you do realize that a huge number of black beneficiaries of affirmative action are recent black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean, right? Colin Powell, etc.

Yes, 4:12, that's why Bill Cosby is a billionaire.

Reread that wiki article you just cited to prove me wrong. I do believe it establishes that most chinese in America are from the thrid wave. Considering that 106,000 were in the country in 1940, and 3 million in 2004, unless you think people are having 30 kids, most modern Chinese-Americans are immigrants.

"Yes, my logic, based on market forces rewarding those individuals who offer good products/services and punishing those who offer bad products/services"

3:59 - that is not what you wrote. The "logic" that you used (combined with your ignorant assumptions) implies that blacks and hispanics do not "work hard." You used that phrase: "work hard."

Typical of a conservative. When his true colors are exposed, he tries to create a diversion to prevent people from seeing that he is really just a selfish pig.

4:22, can you please point me to the part of affirmative action doctrine that says we do not confer the benefits on recent black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean.

let's see, men separated from their families, impoverished, not allowed to marry, underpaid, overworked, racially segregated, and driven from the country/murdered for stepping out of line....

yes, that's nothing like what happened to blacks.

but hey, there were fewer of them, it doesn't count. I guess by that logic, because the Irish outnumbered the blacks 10 to 1, the Irish suffered more discrimination.

NICE LOGIC, MORON!

4:16, Market forces don't always work that well. Otherwise RBG and Sandra Day O'Connor would have gotten awesome job offers.

yes, 4:16, I know that, which is probably why I keep on saying that I'm in favor of AA for poor people, with a slight bump for race, b/c all "black" people are currently discriminated against.

4:25, try to learn some simple economics. Market forces work in the aggregate in the long run. Even so, RBG and SDO did pretty well for themselves, in my humble opinion.

Jews were superior lawyers but underappreciated in the early 1900s, so market forces led the Jewish firms to prominence. Sure, some Jewish lawyers did not succeed.
Blacks have not done the same.

The Chinese were treated deplorably. And they were denied citizenship benefits for a long time. But if we are talking about modern AA, most Chinese immigrated here after those awful things happened.

Again, this is why AA should have a socioeconomic component.

"Market forces don't always work that well. Otherwise RBG and Sandra Day O'Connor would have gotten awesome job offers."
---You mean like, say Supreme Court Justices?? Yes, they suffered oppression. Did they quit and cry for mommy? No, they bucked it up and worked like devils and earned their way. Women started law firms and fought for their rights. Now, the sight of women running a law firm is accepted and common. Does stupid run in your family, or did you just catch it from someone?

"b/c all "black" people are currently discriminated against."
--No proof, it just happens everywhere at all times by everyone. I'm so glad I'm not this paranoid, otherwise, I'd be wearing tinfoil hats.

As an AA targetted minority, i believe AA should benefit those based on CLASS and not strictly on race. I too was one of a few POOR (family of 5 with income under 13K in an urban city) minorities admitted to more elite schools where the majority of minorities had parents with college and advanced degrees, who lived upper middle class lives in their well off white suburban schools getting the same education as other well of white kids who because of their skin color were able to get into better schools than their white counterparts despite having ALL of the same social/economic/educational advantages. It cheapens what I accomplished and still strive to accomplish despite the educational/social/economic deficit I had.

There is proof. The resume studies, the interview studies, the homebuying and carbuying studies, the conviction rates, the sentences . . .

Open your eyes and read the research about racial discrimination.

As an AA targetted minority, i believe AA should benefit those based on CLASS and not strictly on race. I too was one of a few POOR (family of 5 with income under 13K in an urban city) minorities admitted to more elite schools where the majority of minorities had parents with college and advanced degrees, who lived upper middle class lives in their well off white suburban schools getting the same education as other well of white kids who because of their skin color were able to get into better schools than their white counterparts despite having ALL of the same social/economic/educational advantages. It cheapens what I accomplished and still strive to accomplish despite the educational/social/economic deficit I had.

4:23: "that is not what you wrote. The "logic" that you used (combined with your ignorant assumptions) implies that blacks and hispanics do not "work hard." You used that phrase: "work hard.""

yes I did. When you work hard, you acheive results., You offer good products and services. You're complaint is that no hard work will ever overcome racism, so AA is necessary. The history of our country proves the opposite with a multitude of racial groups--many of whom couldn't blend and suffered just as much as blacks. So, in other words, there is no argument for AA because its root is a lie--that racism prevents growth in an industry today. But by your AA programs and logic you continually created a dependent class of blacks who assume they cannot make it and largely do not feel like they are supposed to attempt to overcome what many others have.

I tried out for the NBA but I couldn't get in. My race is underrepresented in the NBA, which is 80% black. Since we're using AA to compensate for the black achievement gap in education, where is my affirmative action for the white achievement gap in sports?

"b/c all "black" people are currently discriminated against."
--No proof, it just happens everywhere at all times by everyone. I'm so glad I'm not this paranoid, otherwise, I'd be wearing tinfoil hats.

Yeah, actually, it pretty much does, you a-hole. Maybe if you ever actually talked to a black person you would have heard some stories.

4:33:"There is proof. The resume studies, the interview studies, the homebuying and carbuying studies, the conviction rates, the sentences . . .Open your eyes and read the research about racial discrimination."

--Ah, that's right. You are not required to "prove" your point. I am required to believe you because you cried racism. Typical liberal.

And, moron, instead of whining about it, we have laws about discrimination. Target the business or group of businesses being racist. It's not the whole world. Yes some are racist--some individual companies. Target them and punish them. Prove it in a court of law. Blanket statistics proving blacks are poor do not prove racism.

"b/c all "black" people are currently discriminated against."
--No proof, it just happens everywhere at all times by everyone. I'm so glad I'm not this paranoid, otherwise, I'd be wearing tinfoil hats.

Yeah, actually, it pretty much does, you a-hole. Maybe if you ever actually talked to a black person you would have heard some stories.

"Yeah, actually, it pretty much does, you a-hole. Maybe if you ever actually talked to a black person you would have heard some stories."
---Like when Thomas Sowell discovered there was no statistical evidence for "Driving while Black" and that is was projected paranoia by black drivers who were largely and mostly pulled over for valid traffic violations?

If you teach people that every negative action by a white on black is racist, they will start to see it and fear it. An anecdote about one time being followed around a store because you were teenager dressed in ratty clothing doesn't mean the shop owner was racist against you--it means you were dressed like a wanna-be-tough-guy teenager, who, shockingly, do shoplift sometimes.

Or, put another way--guys in business suits don't get followed around stores; guys dressed like thugs do.

4:41 must be reading the Pound Cake Speech.

"Blanket statistics proving blacks are poor do not prove racism."

No, but those of us who have functioning brains understand that racism is still a big problem in America. What else do you deny? Global warming? The holocaust? Calling people "morons" for acknowledging that racism exists with force in America is about as moronic as it gets.

4:42: No, most liberals who feel eternally guilty or oppressed think that racism is a big problem. They think that because once upon a time a movie said blacks were oppressed that blacks are still oppressed, especially since Jesse Jackson said so.

Open your eyes and realize that not every encounter is racist--in fact the vast majority aren't. Some are, I do agree--racism will never completely die, but neither will Anti-anything--and laws are needed to protect those hurt. HOWEVER, the problems that plague blacks today have nothing to do with racism. They have to do with the black community and blacks vision of how the world works as opposed to how it does work.

"But by your AA programs and logic you continually created a dependent class of blacks who assume they cannot make it and largely do not feel like they are supposed to attempt to overcome what many others have."

Where's your "proof" of that nonsense? Something tells me that you have no idea what being a minority "feels" like. The more ignorant assumptions that you make to support your "logic," the more of a boob you sound like.

4:47: Excuse me, commentators like Sowell and Clarence Thomas have been saying that for years. Thomas often uses the story of his sister to illustrate that point. And, of course, they are black. And Sowell has, like, statistics to back it up.

But you don;'t need to be black to point out the psychological ramification of a welfare society, especially one racially driven.

4:47, would love to stay and chat, but I have to run. ttyl

What many people fail to realize is that AA also largely benefits women...white women as well as minority women. If you stop worrying about what you're losing and consider how we got to this point, you may realize the place AA has in our society. For centuries, whites were given benefits, deserved or not, simply because they were white and in power. Now, as a result of slavery and jim crow, we have a dissproportionate number of non-minorities who are in management roles in most major american companies. as a result, when hiring decisions are made, and assuming two candidates, one minority and one white, are up for the same position, the white person hiring will more often than not, consciously or not, hire the white student. Its a natural self preservation mechanism...the person undoubtedly feels more comfortable with the person who not only looks most like them, but whom they also identify more closely with. AA is most fundamentally designed to correct the centuries of past exclusion of minorities (including women) from access to jobs and other opportunities. its about establishing a critical mass of minorities to level the playing field. While I agree that it may not be the most effective method, its what we have and it is needed.

Some of the people on this board are the most elitist, racist, privileged punks on the planet. No wonder people would rather get their teeth drilled than talk to a lawyer.

You want links, you get links:

Black-sounding names on resumes:
After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml

White men with felony convictions more likely to get interview callbacks that black men without:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=175535

Unfair lending practices, with higher interest rates going to blacks and latinos:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/06/crl_predatory_study.html

Black men are more likely to be falsely convicted of rape: (second to last paragraph):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/25bar.html

A meta-analysis re: sentencing disparities:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y208765404403wj6/

The interviewing study I mentioned:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OBoLr1umpOMC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=blacks+interviewing+sit+further+away&source=web&ots=OB8NCR-8gf&sig=4WZzC2g-4r38aq3VwenWiaR9bVY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

Finally, if historical discrimination against whites made them poorer basketball players, you NBA morons might have a leg to stand on.

5:16, AA no longer benefits white women in UG education, see the links upthread about how white men have been held to lower standards for the past 10 years.

4:46, wow, so how did you learn so much about the black community?

The behaviors that are excoriated in the black community are poor behaviors, not "black" behaviors.

Seriously, the people on this board actually DENYING that racism is prevalent in American society need to have their heads examined. What's the next debate, whether the holocaust happened? Whether global warming is for real? It's amazing how some people will convince themselves that certain problems don't exist just so that they don't have to lift a finger (or pay a dollar) to fix them!

- Again, I think people overlook the history which made AA necessary. Putting aside slavery which placed blacks behind whites financially and emotionally for hundreds of years, government sponsored apartheid did not end until 1964. This has caused a huge gap in income and education, which has not remedied itself overnight.

-Moreover, it's hard to explain to northerners (although the north too has shown vicious discrimination) that the country has not progressed vastly for blacks across the rest of the US. Living in the south, I have experienced this terrorism upfront. My experiences are unique to people from the majority race. I see the world through a different prism. This prism has aided me in the field of law. Whether you are a rich black person or a poor one, the "pre- judging" is always there and works against you. Now, even as a top 1% wage earner, I still have my guard up.

- Lastly, while attempting to keep myself anonymous, I graduated from an Ivy League top law school. I finished in the top part of my class. I graduated with honors, won a moot court competition, journal, passed the bar exam, etc. My roommate, also a minority, was similarly situated.
Now I don't know about him, but I WAS an AA admit. So when I hear people say, "AA admits are stupid" or claim that I am an "anomaly" , I know this is false and presumptuous.

Being anti-AA is not racist. Quite the contrary. I grew up in Southgate, MI and went to the same schools as Gratz (of Gratz v. Bollinger fame). Our parents were blue collar folks, mostly children of immigrants, and they struggled to make ends meet. We went to school with blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, - it was usually half minorites/half whites. Although we all had stories to tell - whether it was a broken home, working 2-3 jobs in high school, etc. - only one thing seemed to matter when it came to apply for college (if you even did that). EVERY SINGLE YEAR a minority student from my high school would get a full ride to the University of Michigan (a VERY big deal). Not the validictorian, not the class president, not the kid who volunteered at the local shelter on weekends. No - apparently the only redeemable factor for UofM was the color of your skin. The year I graduated, the person who received the scholarship also received a brand new Mustang from her parents (the rest of us were lucky if we had a car that worked!).

I am not anti-AA because I do not like minorities. I enjoyed having a diverse classroom experience and made many friends from it. I am anti-AA because it is reverse discrimination. Although I had the same life experiences as my classmates - some were treated preferentially because of the color of their skin. If we want to truly eradicate racism in this country - a colorblind legal system would be a great first step.

7:20
You didn't have the same experiences. Just like a man doesn't have the same experience as a woman. You don't know what it feels like to be thought as inferior based on some ascribed characteristic. The fact is, even if you are poor, you could clean yourself up and no one would know. The stigma associated with being a minority and to a certain degree as being a woman is why making AA on class isn't the whole answer.
Next, you don't have the history. Your folks either immigrated here (i.e. a move based on choice) or your folks were here from the beginning and didn't pass anything down (based on choice).
If you were a minority (during the relevant periods), you weren't able to own property or able to freely exercise it. If you were a minority, you weren't allowed to go to schools (or regulated to inferior ones) and even with an education you were locked out of most professions. This was sponsored and approved by the United States government. So now, when the government creates a program to fix it, the decision has context.

I would first like to agree with several of the comments that have been repeatedly made throughout this thread:
-yes, there is still racism in America; I appreciate the postings with facts, but I also believe this can be apparent from daily interactions
-yes, there have been traditionally other groups that have been grossly affected by racism. Off-hand, if we are going to reach back to the 1800's for arguments, then I would submit that the worst "racism" has been directed towards Native Americans. In particular, at various times there have been efforts to completely ELIMINATE Native Americans in the U.S. (I'm thinking early settlement period of California, and yes I also realize that various Neo-Nazi groups probably have similar agendas for modern day African Americans and Jews, maybe even Catholics; however, this policy has never been implemented on a wide scale IN THE US); the Chinese also suffered incredible legally mandated racism (see California laws, late 1800's; early US national immigration policy
-Looking at racism from a more modern perspective, post-1964, I believe that African Americans probably have encountered the most racism; however, I believe that other groups, including more "successful" (defining success as group-wide educational and financial gains) minorities such as Asian-Americans and Jews still experience racism

Having thus stated that, I am in favor of class based rather than race based affirmative actions. I will briefly try to articulate why.
-If educational institutions (particularly law schools) pride themselves on being the most elite based on standards, then the entrance system should be meritorious. Period. That doesn't mean that the schools should not take into account individuals specific achievements/qualities (Peace Corp, Vet., Cured Cancer, etc.), but that it should at least be on an individual basis with an eye towards picking the best candidate.
-I am also against all legacy/connections admits, particularly in law schools, but also in undergrads. I agree with many of the same statements from other posts. In particular, I feel as though many "legacy" admits at elite institutions feel that all white Americans had the same opportunities, and therefore AA should be used to help the less fortunate. However, all these legacy vs. AA arguments miss the boat that in both instances those who are being overlooked are the hardworking, average, middle class Americans of EVERY RACE. Thus, no matter what race, you should be viewed equally.
-AA based on race, and not class, does not solve any of the many problems of racism in this country. They may solve some problems, by allowing extremely high achieving African-Americans to influence the country as a whole (see Obama, although he possibly could have been a merit based admit, but one cannot know and this is another problem with AA). Yet the major problems of the poor communities in this country are not solved by AA at elite law schools. There are many other things that may make strides to solve that, which I'm not going to detail at this time, because that is not what this thread is about.
-Finally, I would like to respond to the various comments out there that state AA admits are successful, therefore they are not dumb. I have no doubt that many AA admits could be successful law students at the "elite institutions." In fact, I think many law students at "lower tier" institutions could compete at any of the top law schools, and I think that transfer statistics confirm this point.
The problem is though, that there are inherent benefits from attending top law schools. Regardless of who make or may not succeed, when race is factored in, a more qualified candidate may lose out on this opportunity. By treating these "elite institutions " as meritoriously better than all others when applying for jobs, clerkships, etc., and treating those students better as well, you are perpetuating a falsehood.

7:56, get off your tiny violin. The Japanese, Chinese and Orthodox Jews were in the same situation and had the same stigma. They do not ask for affirmative action, because they rightfully believe that the only way to end perception of inferiority is to succeed on a level playing field.

Blacks and Hispanics argue that they need affirmative action because they cannot do as well on a race-neutral playing field, and they wonder why the AA admits are perceived as inferior. Well duh.

7:56,

That's a never-ending spiral of relativism. A man doesn't have the same experiences as a woman. A white woman doesn't have the same experiences as an asian woman. an only child doesn't have the same experiences as a child with siblings. someone living in the country doesn't have the same experiences as someone living in manhattan. blah blah blah.

If you are black, you can clean yourself up and nobody will care. That might be a stretch; there are probably SOME people SOMEWHERE who would still care. But there are also people who would care if you're a woman, or gay, or latin, or fat, or short, or whatever. I don't excuse their behavior; they're assholes, and it's their loss.

History pissing contests are fun, aren't they? A black person, who would benefit from race-based AA, could just as easily have parents who are recent immigrants (based on choice) or who are descended from free blacks and didn't pass anything down (based on choice). They could just as easily have loving, caring parents who have done everything in the world for them -- though to hear Bill Cosby tell it, black people are irresponsible idiots when it comes to parenting.

If you were a minority during the relevant periods, you are now at least 44. The solution is to eliminate the practice and to make it possible to prosecute in a court of law anyone who persists. It's perfectly reasonable to sue because you were denied based on race (unless you're white, of course) -- it's NOT ok to get a boost to your stats just because of the color of your skin.

Darker skin, different hair, whatever, does NOT 100% correlate with an inferiority complex, and I have silly little anecdotes to back me up.

Color-blind Constitution FTW.

-Liberal Democrat

8:12, not sure about Obama's acceptance to Columbia, but he was a pseudo-legacy admit to HLS since his father had a Ph.D. from Harvard. Michelle's brother went to Princeton before she did, so again it's all in the family.

Wow, these AA supporters are so brilliant, trying to disprove the inferiority of AA admits with examples. So if I point out one or two smart legacy admits, then that means that legacy admits are just as qualified as regular admits, right? After all, one or two anecdotes completely disprove a well-established trend, according to these liberals.

Barack Obama Senior went to Harvard. Barack Obama junior went to Harvard thus as a legacy admit. Obama junior excelled in school and graduated with honors. Therefore, legacy admits are not underqualified compared to regular admits. QED.

7:56 - Oh, but I do know what it feels like to be thought of as infererior based on an ascribed characteristic. I am a woman, which is another reason why I hate AA policies. I am constantly told that the only reason I (fill-in the-blank - get an interview, get a job, etc.) is because I am a woman. If there was no AA, I would finally be evaluated as an individual, rather than a member of a "protected class."

You must have grown up in the South, since you seem to think the only racial minority are blacks. The majority of scholarship receipients from my school were hispanics. I'm not aware of any government sponsored or approved laws that made it illegal for hispanics to own property or to go to school. But, I'm pretty sure my Great Grandfather could tell you some pretty horrifying stories about an Irish Immigrant's experience in America in the early 1900s (they were referred to as "white n******s.")

In my neighborhood we did have the same experiences growing up - it was our collective commisseration that allowed us to see past our different skin colors and reflect on our very similiar shitty situations. It wasn't until we started to apply to college that we were divided by skin color. The fact that you see nothing wrong with that is sad.

-7:20

Pss, 8;34, but you're not BLACK (a super special category that according to blacks and liberals, nobody else can ever relate to), especially since women never had to endure the horrors of SLAVERY.
Oh wait...

5:28, the constitutional rationale for affirmative action is "diversity". The idea is that race is a proxy for differences in experience and opinions.

So where is the diversity in the 80%-black NBA? More affirmative action for Jews in the NBA, in particular, will bring much needed diversity of perspectives in the locker room.

Oh, by the way, I am *gay* and an *atheist*. Don't even talk to me about discrimination, 7:56.

So if John McCain and Barack Obama are equally qualified to be President (highly debateable, but let's assume) -- then we have to vote for the black guy, right? Even though he's only half black, and a first-gen by-choice Kenyan immigrant at that?

Wait, I'm still confused...what happens if a white woman and a black man are both running? Which one gets more bonus points? Ugh, why can't they just run a blackiental woman married to a bisexual latino so I don't have to worry about it...

I wonder what happened to that guy who said that the Irish had never endured anti-miscegenation laws. Maybe he needs to read the book How the Irish Became White.

But then again he's Irish himself so obviously he knows what he's talking about and he could have practically written the book on his own.

"Your folks either immigrated here (i.e. a move based on choice)"

Right - all those Eastern Europeans who moved here from their comfy, Soviet-era lives, or Jews who fled during the Holocaust, or the Irish who came here during the famine. All those "choices."

8:34-
Sorry you are a bit naive. Lest you forget that there is still a HUGE wage gap between men and women. That is, a man still makes more money for the SAME job as a woman. Not to mention that without AA you wouldn't even have a chance to have the job that allows you to make less.
Next, race and sex are different. As a man, I have heard some overt sexism. Luckily, some of it works for a woman's benefit (?). That is, I have heard men, improperly, fawn at what they would like to do to a woman. Many times this conversation is lead by the woman's superior.
I have even seen a woman hired over another candidate based on her beauty (obviously this advantage? doesnt apply to all women). So before you think that you are judged only by the content of your character-- think again.

On Hispanics, I can't make the same arguments because a part of my argument rests in the historical implications of slavery and Jim Crow.

To your, "I grew up with minorities" so I had similar experiences, my answer is-- you didnt. But even if you did-- which you did not-- have the same experiences as some minorities in your early years, this dynamic will change as you get older.
No matter what I do, as a minority, I still am judged by the color of my skin [even as a top 1% wage earner]. That is, police stop me because I look like a criminal. If past is prologue, the same will happen to my kids. There are radicals who have pledged to "exterminate me".
--At the end of the day, the story is simple, the government supported race based discrimination causing generational gaps in education and wages (as well as permanently stigmatizing a whole race). While class distinctions happen in many societies, this one was willful and artificially supported by the government.

What this thread really needs is a 270th comment. You're welcome.

Can't one of those idealistic O'Bama supporters give us some inspirational words so that we can experience healing? (Unless you're too sad to talk/write because the Messiah just changed all his positions - telecom immunity, immigration, international trade/NAFTA, Iraq withdrawal, Gen Petraeus, Jerry Wright, Heller/gun rights, federal funding for faith-based programs, the Iraq surge.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121547299393533965.html

Whatever. Even if you think I was in on AA, I earned this bad boy right chyeah (boarding school, top ten undergrad, top law school), at the very least because of the crap I took all through school and at work from assholes like many of you posting in these comments. And that's to say nothing about working hard in classes and doing well, being a "face" for the university--you know, the photo shoots, the scholarship dinners where the donors want to see how many minorities they helped--and convincing other people to attend the university.

Being an AA baby is much like being an athlete. You work hard for that bitch (the degree). So pay me, snitches. A deal's a deal, and fair is fair.

For the haters on this site, "You jus' do you [i.e., hate, wish I was still picking cotton out back]; I'mma do me [i.e., graduate, get paid (BIGLAW, @ $160,000).]"

"Being an AA baby is much like being an athlete. You work hard for that bitch (the degree)."

Except an athlete has an exceptional skill he or she has mastered.

Shh, 9:52, don't you know that only blacks have ever suffered historical injustices that deserved redress, and only blacks were forced to come to America against their will. Indentured servitude was only for blacks, so being sold and forced to come to America never, NEVER happened to the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Mexicans, and so on.
How dare you present actual historical facts in order to contradict liberal white-guilt dogma? RACIST!

7/8 10:42--Pleasing whitey is an exceptional skill, and trust, any minority still playing at this level has mastered it. Instead of trolling the comments on ATL, I suggest you go sit down with the minority in your office and take a few notes, lest you find yourself wondering why you got pushed out the door before you could make partner.

And before any more of you try to come up in here and hair-split my comment to show why you were more deserving of a spot on the admissions roll than "a black" ('cuz that's who we're talking about, right?), my point is that admission for minorities often comes with the additional responsibilities of being the go-to people for putting on cultural events, for being the representatives of whatever minority group on whatever committee the university comes up with, and for general shucking and jiving to whatever tune the university--and colleagues--are singing about diversity. The ones who would have gotten in anyway therefore end up paying for the spot a second time dealing with all that crap, and those who were in on AA paid for it by dealing with all that crap. Point is, if they are there, they deserve to be there.

And given that at top universities only like 6% of the population is ever black, I hope all of you TTT grads don't really think you had a chance in hell at Harvard.

9:07: I love it. You get a major break getting into law school (I have a URM friend who went to NYU who absolutely would've been at NYLS had she been white, given her stats - BLS or Cardozo would've been a stretch) and then have the balls to call lower-tiered schools "TTT."

10:24, you didn't earn your way into school. You won the genetic lottery for the college prize.

Neither does an athlete. Athlete's degrees are worthless, because once you know someone attended a school via athletic scholarship, you know the school bent over backwards to make sure they didn't fail or get kicked out. Anyone who thinks Allen Iverson or Patrick Ewing "attended" Georgetown in the same way an actual student did is probably a writer for ESPN who still doesn't think anyone ever did steroids and Barry Bonds' case is all about racism.

Ok, I'm sure this has been said, but, here goes:

There is a general opinion expressed in this thread, that automatically assumes that being black/hispanic (black especially), is equal with being dumb/not as smart as the white guy sitting next to you. THat's a load of garbage. Read "Freakanomics"... a study was done that compared the performance of children in an area that had a mixed population, and also tested black kids in a predominantly white school. Contrary to the idiots on this blog-- the actual DATA shows no difference in the performance of the black children v. white children.

Here's the kicker-- It's not about race... I'd say it slowly but, I think you get the point. THe reason why Asians and Indians come here and kick your @ss in the academic arena comes down to CULTURE. I had Indian friends that said an apologetic PRAYER if their feet touched a text book, by accident. That's the level of regard that these people ascribe to learning. In Asian families, NOTHING trumps education. Expectation becomes truth. So, from little kids, these sometimes 1rst Gen. Americans cling to education and throw all of their attention at it.

So, you've got better schools, and have access to a wealth of educational resources, that POVERTY STICKEN people don't have. You equate being poor with being black and that's not true. Numerically there are way more poor whites than blacks. Blacks are only like 10- 13% of the pop. in this country. Your advantage started probably 3 generations ago. Your parents' parents came up in better schools than some poorer people have in this day and age.

So all things being equal-- you give blacks the same access to education, put them in the same relative socio-economic class, and they'll be as competitive as the white guy next to them. I'm case in point. I whooped white kids @sses in high school, college, and law school. It's not about color asshat. It's about access and cultural understanding/attitudes regarding education. Sorry, Fredrick Doughlas saw through the fallacy of the "White Intellect" and I for one can attest to it's falseness. Sell stupid somewhere else. Sixty years from now our children's children are going to be on a much more level playing field than they are today, and if I were an entitled White Male, I'd be very afraid.

Peace... and for the love of GOD can we get over this foolishness.

4:43,

You're right.

The problem is that "mainstream black culture" no longer seems to value education. That, and the fact that since a higher percentage of blacks than of whites are poor, they don't receive the same quality of primary and secondary education, and are not as well prepared for college. This of course holds true for anyone who attends school in a poor district, regardless of their race. This is why using race as a factor in affirmative action is misguided.

The answer is improving public education, period.

5:20-- EXACTLY!