Yes, I do. But you don't have to.

What do you think of the following phrase: "I might be poor and uneducated, but at least I ain't a N****R"? It was popular among poor Southern whites way back in the day. They knew what they were talking about.

You're hilarious. You are extrapolating a derogatory phrase that only a handful of people used (and popularized by the media) to mean that poor white people have it easier than black people today. That is utter nonsense.

My dear BoaltTroll, the italicized statement above is patently false. Here's a question for you: since blacks and poor whites supposedly have it equally bad, would you trade your whiteness for blackness in order to reap the "rewards" that accompany URM status?

Had I been black with my GPA and LSAT score, I would be at Yale right now instead of Boalt Hall. Would Barak Obama trade his blackness for being white if it would mean he wouldn't have gone to Yale, but ended up at Boalt instead?

*EDIT* Harvard, not Yale

If you think that only a handful of white people used that phrase, then you're even more naive than I'd originally thought. I won't argue with you, though; you're a mere law school student.

Nice ad hominem. That's the easy way out.

BoaltTroll:

AA is not premised on the idea that all whites are substantially privileged. It was premised on the fact that minorities and women were underrepresented in various institutions and professions.

Yes, there are disadvantaged whites that would benefit from a more comprehensive AA policy. But just because AA can be made more sensitive to issues of disadvantage doesn't mean it isn't justified as it stands. Furthermore, white women have been the primary beneficiary of AA policies.

I think socioeconomic AA is justified, but not in place of race and gender AA.

First, your GPA and LSAT score didn't keep you out of YALE; your pettiness, arrogance, and undistinguished writing skills did the job. But you're at UC Berkeley Law--GET OVER IT!

Second, Barack Obama was happy with his Harvard acceptance.

Third, I sincerely hope you're a flame because right now you sound like a bitter fool.

I was just waiting for some ignorant person to take this thread to an AA debate. News flash--its not allowed in here. Maybe you missed it when they removed it from the board index's description of this subforum.

Dear Boalt Troll and Opera Attorney,

First of all, thank you for posting so many times on my thread. It is the first thread of mine that has hit the three page mark. I would just like to clarify something something before making a point.

1) Just to clarify: URMs (The ones who the a "boost" in the admissions process) are any one who has traditionally been denied access to higher education. The immediately preceding statement captures the essence of AA for admissions purposes. This denial of access can be within a certain field, such as law ... "How is this measured?", you may ask. It is measured based on a comparison of two things: 1) the % of a group within society; 2) the % of that same group in higher education (or any subgroup thereof, like law school). If the % of a certain group in whatever area of higher education is traditionally much lower than that in the general population, then that group is an URM.

2) Notice that the phrasing is just "if a group within society is..." If you look closely, you will see that no groups are specified; it could be any group.

This is consistent with helping poor, underprivileged whites as well; the % of whites from such a background in law is very low.

If you ask, "what is the motivation behind this kind of AA?" you would probably see that it is to make the diversity of attorneys mirror the diversity of society. That is (ideally) so that each sub-group of society can be represented by attorneys who identify with their clients. If this were done, would it be enough to make this goal a reality?; no. However, it would at least make it possible. As it turns out, no institutional plan would be enough to make this a reality because institutional plans cannot make attorneys want to represent their own people. ... For a moment, assume that LS admission's brand of AA reached its goal: Hypothetically, if every attorney who was a "minority" - as the term is defined above - decided to take up public interest work, then each group in society could be represented by an attorney with whom its members identify.

Of course this is only a hypothetical ...

I feel like AA is society's way of trying to provide itself with a mere necessary condition that it would not otherwise have; a condition of what I like to call "potentially equitable legal representation."

Yours

-Mattalones

I wanted to thank everyone for their posts on this thread. However, it is turning into a typical AA debate which is fine, but not really for this forum. This forum is designed for minority and non-traditional students to positively convey knowledge and discuss relevant issues. I prefer that AA debates be in the Law School Admissions as I do not want any acrimony from an AA debate to spill over to this forum. Hopefully no one minds if this debate continues that I move the thread to the law school admissions forum.

Boalt Troll, I do not believe you go to Boalt. Is your name reflective of your wanting to attend Boalt?

Best,

Ken

Simpler answer Ken.


<BIG RED TEXT> NO AA DEBATES HERE. ONLY WARNING FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. TAKE IT TO THE ADMISSIONS FORUM OR LOUNGE</BIG RED TEXT>